Hypothetically, science proves free will isn't real

[Edwardo Piet]

This illustrates how unhelpful the artificial boundaries of the determinist/compatibilist argument have become.

It's very simple. Compatabilism is the view that free will is compatible with determinism by defining free will in such a way that it is.

1) This is the case if a person is actually in the presence of determining conditions. I am asking you to consider the potential of a human agent in the hypothetical abstract, free-from-condition sense. If you care to engage in that thought exercise, then we can move on to:

The only potential within a deterministic universe is one physically possible future.

If that is true, either action(a) or action(b) IS ABLE to obtain through the agency of person(I), depending on the surrounding conditions. If that is true, the agency of person(I) IS ABLE to bring about action(a) or (b) depending on the circumstances. In other words, person(I) is the sort of thing able to do action(a) or (b).

That means that person (I) can do either (a) or (b) (they have the intrinsic power to do so) but the ACTUAL doing of one or the other depends on circumstances. Given circumstances(x), action(a) obtains WHILE THE POTENTIAL FOR ACTION(b) REMAINS WITHIN THE PERSON.

The agent is capable of engaging in any of those options but only one of the options will be taken. The option that will be taken, whichever one it is, is the option that lays ahead in the one possible future of determinism.

So why is it not so evidently and trivially true in the moment only one button is pressed? When a person presses a red button, did they lost the ability to press a blue or green one?

They didn't of course. After the button is pressed they have two other buttons left to press, again one is an illusory option and one is a real option, within determinism. In determinism there is only one physically possible future at any given moment.

You may imagine alternative possible futures, but within determinism there are no alternative possible futures there is only one possible future at any given moment.

1) Suppose X => Y in a way which is not conditioned by any external influence. If that is the case, then there is no set of circumstances in which X does not => Y. If that is the case, then X => Y happens necessarily.

In determinism everything happens necessarily, and alternative possibilities are just within the imagination. It's all cause and effect.

2) Now suppose that X => Y in a way which is conditional upon the simultaneous Z => X. If that is the case, then in the absence of Z, X does not => Y. If that is the case, then X => Y happens contingently. 

Yes but then we're not dealing with whatever the one possible future is that is within determinism. Then we're dealing with hypotheticals.

If human action is more like 2, then any determined human action (it doesn't matter by what/who the action is determined) happens in BOTH in a determined AND in a contingent manner.

We have to be talking about some actual defined circumstances. In determinism there is one future Y. And that future is caused by the one past X. Everything is contingent upon that. What do you mean both a determined and contingent manner? There is no in-between here, either determinism is true or it is false, either we are determined like the rest of the universe or we are not.

Does this say anything about the nature of 'willing' or its place in determining action? No. You can't even begin to approach that question until there more fundamental distinctions are made.

If determinism is true then our will is determined like everything else is. Our will wills and determines our actions in the small picture but in the big picture it is ultimately fully determined by prior causes outside of it. This is why ultimately we cannot be self-willing or self-determining.

Necessity as distinguished from determinism

I defined determinism as the view that there is only one possible future. So there are no alternative futures, the one future that exists is necessary and determined. Have you not agreed to that definition?

Determinism means that everything but you determine human actions.

No, that would be fatalism. Humans still determine and choose as normal it's just that their choices and will is ultimately not free because any actions humans determine is ultimately determined by prior causes outside of themselves and outside of their will.

Indeterminism means that nothing determines human actions.

Indeterminism means that nothing determines anything. It means that there is no real cause and effect... it's all correlation/probability/randomness that seems like cause and effect.

Better still:

If I am able to do A or B, I may do A even while retaining the 'ability' to do B.

in general. I'm not talking about people's general abilities to opt for option A or B. I'm talking about whether alternative possible futures actually exist that we can steer ourselves to opt for -- the answer is no, either we are determined and there are no alternative possibilities, or we are not determined and hence can't steer or determine anything... because it's all down to probability or randomness.

If I am able to will A or B, I may will A while retaining the 'ability' to will B. <= Still contingency, irrelevant to determinism/indeterminism

Irrelevant to any of this actually because you're talking about the human ability in general to opt for option A or B as opposed to questioning whether one of those options are predetermined or not. Of course we can in general do A or B, the question is when we opt for one of them, was it predetermined?

[I am saying that the compatibilism vs. determinism discussion inherits and ignores conflations and equivocations which ultimately perpetuate the discussion indefinitely. The concept of necessity is rolled into determinism and the concept of contingency is rolled into choice and freedom. An action cannot occur as necessary and contingent at the same time. An action CAN occur as determined and contingent at the same time. See the problem?

Determinism is about a future that necessarily is the only future. Why are you talking about 3 things here, necessary contingent and determined?

Determinism means one possible future which means no other possible futures. That means the future is necessary or in other words determined, same thing. It's all contingent upon prior causes.

It's not compatabilism vs determinism. Compatabilism is a determinist view. It's the view that we can have free will even if we are determined.

I need to know if you are a compatibilist because I need to know if you think free will is compatible with determinism or if you think that if determinism is true it means free will is impossible.