 In Scotus’ theory, the synchronic alternatives of a future free act remain possibilities though not compossibilities at the instant of that act. He thought that these “logical potencies” expressed by propositions with non-repugnant terms are not sufficient for freedom that requires “real potencies” for alternatives at an instant of time with respect to the same instant (see Dumont 1995). Ockham did not accept this part of Scotus’s denial of the necessity of the present, thinking that real capacities for oppositions are diachronic (Ordinatio d. 38, 581). Opposite real capacities without temporal succession at an instant were found problematic by Thomas Wylton, an early critic of Scotus’s ideas who, while largely following Boethius, put forward some propositional distinctions similar to those in Scotus’s questions on De interpretatione. See the edition and comments in Schabel 2011b; Bornholdt 2017: 116–120.