It feels like this is mostly a disagreement over language. We all agree that determinism and &quot;predictability&quot; are independent questions. You&#x27;ve equated &quot;free will&quot; with non-determinism and therefore see predictability to be orthogonal, whereas Aaronson equates &quot;free will&quot; with non-predictability, making determinism orthogonal though I imagine he&#x27;d argue for it on other grounds. It&#x27;s not clear that there&#x27;s an actual disagreement over anything except which words to use for which concepts.<p>FWIW, I think Scott has read more of the philosophical literature on free will than probably anyone else in the world with a comparable level of quantum-physical expertise. If he&#x27;s too confused to be allowed to discuss these issues, then what is the path by which philosophers expect to stay relevant and up-to-date with new knowledge? A field whose currency of legitimacy is &quot;you must have devoted your life to understanding every detail of dispute in the existing literature&quot; is not a living field that hopes to learn from outsiders and grow with new scientific inquiry. I think the best philosophers recognize this, and are willing to engage more broadly.