And so unfixed inititial conditions are required in order to have free will.
That’s what GdB is denying.
Take this up with GdB, it’s him who’s trying to argue that free will is compatible with necessitarianism.
You say I am a necessitarian. Until you used the word, I did not even know what it was, such naive world views do not belong to my intellectual luggage. Instead of using labels I would like to concentrate on the contents.
Just remember that I do not say that the initial conditions are fixed, I say it does not matter.
To make it very simple:
1. Compatibilism says determinism and free will are compatible. Right?
2. Determinism says that given some state of (part of) the universe, on every point of time afterwards only one other state will occur. Right?
3. Free will in compatibilism says that our wishes, beliefs and deliberations are causally effective, and that these wishes, beliefs and deliberations are caused in themselves. Right?
4. An ‘unfree will’ occurs then, when some circumstances intervene in such a way that our mental dispositions are overruled. Right?
Four questions above for you to answer!
It seems you are confusing Strawson’s idea of ‘luck swallows everything’ with the idea of free will in itself. Remember my standpoint: I say ‘luck swallows something, but surely not everything’. I illustrated that with you cooking or not for your wife. Nobody can make you responsible for who you are, but you can be made responsible for what you do, because you are such a person that we can do that.
You must explain what the relevance of fixed or not fixed initial conditions for free will is, because from the initial conditions on everything is causally fixed anyway. Just saying it opens possibilities does not suffice. It’s like sitting in a cold room, and then say ‘we need warmth’ and then you have the idea to turn on the heating in the neighbour’s house, with the argument ‘but now we have heat’. Just postulating some indeterminism somewhere in the history of the universe has nothing to do with free will. (And not even with luck, I would add.)
And stop using such labels as ‘necessitarianism’ anyway. I say you are wrong, you see my concept of determinism above, and that is the only thing I am talking about.
And concerning the way of your thinking: you must be able to connect abstract labels with concrete real life examples. You should do that more, just to be sure we are talking the same thing, and see if there really lies some important theme behind the discussions or not. For example, I repeatedly said (or implied) that in you practical life, you cannot distinguish between necessitarianism and determinism. Just answering that your world view is different then (‘there would be no free will’ or so) makes no sense. How would the world really look differently? Would the world run differently if one or the other would be true? And dependent on that, should we change our ethical and legal practices if we would be able to see which one is true? If you cannot connect theoretical deliberations with practical every day examples, then you are just playing with concepts, and your thinking is just void, it has nothing to do with reality.