Only compatibilist free will is coherent, and compatibilist free will exists on B-Theory.

If your future choices are already embedded in the B-block, then they were predetermined. Period. The fact that you proceed under the illusion that your choices are free avail you nothing — illusions are cheap. To consider such “choices” to be free is mickey-mouse.

Well, if all you see is ranting where there are cogent demonstrations, I can’t help you. Delusion is a bitch.

“I’ve already linked you to experts pointing out the lack of any logical or valid arguments in this guy’s weird ranting.”

I already commented your article and there is nothing there except ranting about the guy himself instead of proving the theory wrong,.Frankly this article has not convinced me one second.

I don”t judge the validity of theory only by peer reviews or credentials but more importantly by the arguments and the proofs supporting it…Take for example the theory of relativity (special and general) that is underlying the big bang theory. That theory backed by Max Planck and Arthur Eddington passed peer review of course more than 100 years ago but since then thousands of papers have been written with very good arguments against the theory. But guess what ….The propaganda and the bias of actual physics keep it alive and thriving adding to it irrational concepts like gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, dark energy, dark matter and so on …without mentioning its consequences like twin paradoxes, lenght contraction,time dilation, mass increase and other fairy tales from Einstein and his acolytes…(more about that from my response to you about the big bang and plasma cosmology.)

And yes I like the story of me as long as I follow my sense of logic and intuition. I’m open to new ideas as long as I found them sound and logical.

There is no such thing as “metaphysical logic.” There is just logic.

I’ve already linked you to experts pointing out the lack of any logical or valid arguments in this guy’s weird ranting.

That no one has found any logically valid reasons for his positions that could pass peer review in fifty years despite hundreds of well-qualified experts searching for them is even more concrete validation.

Ignore all that if you wish. That just then becomes the story of you.

”Videos of a crank who ignores all the actual points the field has made clear for a century now.”

Yes, what points ? tell me? what is missing in the so called ‘cranks videos’? CONCRETELY what your infinite imaginative transfinite experts have to tell us about this metaphysical logic that unimaginative people refuse to see or imagine???

If you have checked all peer reviewed mathematics journals for the last fifty years and all peer reviewed mathematics books on infinity for the last fifty years like you seem to imply, it wouldn’t be too hard for an expert like you in transfinite mathematics to tell me CONCRETELY where my reasoning is wrong.

But of course you won’t .Because you cannot demonstrate why those arguments and videos are wrong from the first place other than parroting the experts said so… the consensus said so…anybody else is a crank…this is completely illogical …I don’t have problems with paradoxes , yadda yadda yadda… almost at infinity 😉

Videos of a crank who ignores all the actual points the field has made clear for a century now.

There is no demonstration of any logical inconsistency in transfinite mathematics.

Check all peer reviewed mathematics journals for the last fifty years. Check all peer reviewed mathematics books on infinity for the last fifty years.

You won’t find one.

Paradoxes likewise do not present a problem. Only the incredulity of people with imaginations too poor to comprehend why they aren’t paradoxes present a problem. But not for me. I waste little time on them.

”We all have resolved the paradoxes, and no one has ever found any violation of logic in infinite set theory. Despite a century of top minds trying”

This is obviously not true , and I have brought videos and arguments to your attention that you never addressed proving exactly the opposite .That kind of pedantic discourse amount to nothing and is counter productive.

Come back to me when you have some sound and solid logical argument in favor of Cantor’s theory.

We all have resolved the paradoxes, and no one has ever found any violation of logic in infinite set theory. Despite a century of top minds trying.

That you don’t know this is what makes you a crackpot.

Comparing finitist set theory with geocentrism and flat earth theory is downright a gross exaggeration.

You keep saying that the finitist set theory is crackpot, illogical and not founded .Can you tell me one concrete reason why it is so???(other than consensus said so…)

But obviously I can see (and I’m sure I’m not alone with that ) that this is Cantor’s theory which is crackpot, illogical and full of paradoxes if you take some time to look at the content of his theory. By the way , I’m still waiting for one valid argument that would convince me in favor of Cantor’s theory from you or anybody else?

Instead what I see from your part is that you are taking refuge behind the consensus of those so called demi-gods transfinite experts…

I’m surprised that you seem totally oblivious to the fact that modern science use propaganda and can be biased in order to protect their current paradigm ,prestige and in some case , their jobs.