Compatibilism: What's that About?

[none]

...
Einstein says that, while he does not believe in free will and responsibility, he must pretend that he does. That is not a coherent position.

Why is it not coherent?

His actions are not consistent with his beliefs. The beliefs and the actions do not cohere.

He says "if", I'm gathering he rather enjoys civilization. If that is incoherent we are miles apart.
I'll have to read from the OP but I doubt I have the calm to do so.
I'm not sure of your theistic leanings
Have you considered presuppositional apologetics?
In brevity for my sake can you characterize free will as you are using it?

 

[skepticalbip]

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

Einstein says that, while he does not believe in free will and responsibility, he must pretend that he does. That is not a coherent position.

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

ETA:
You may want to google "block universe" for a better understanding of what Albert was talking about.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

His actions are not consistent with his beliefs. The beliefs and the actions do not cohere.

He says "if", I'm gathering he rather enjoys civilization. If that is incoherent we are miles apart.
I'll have to read from the OP but I doubt I have the calm to do so.
I'm not sure of your theistic leanings
Have you considered presuppositional apologetics?
In brevity for my sake can you characterize free will as you are using it?

My theistic leanings are Humanist. We believe that man created God in his own image. We believe in death after life.

I have no clue what "presuppositional apologetics" is about. Pretty sure I don't need to know that in order to deal with free will, since it is a secular issue.

Free will is an empirical distinction between the case where a person decides for themselves what they will do versus a choice imposed upon them by coercion or undue influence. Undue influence includes significant mental illness (insanity defense).

Hope that helps.

 

[Jarhyn]

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

Einstein says that, while he does not believe in free will and responsibility, he must pretend that he does. That is not a coherent position.

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

So, I don't assume anything different from what you attribute to Al, and come to the same conclusion as Marvin: that of the universe is in fact crystalline, that the best outcomes still come from acting in belief of a clearly false premise.

Our shape creates special agency, not as a function of some soul or freedom from causality but because the graph of our matter itself is a decision engine with many abstractions away from basic physics via chemistry.

A rock decides to fall to the lowest center of gravity because that is the result of the graph of it's shape. You decide to fall instead towards food because of a much more complicated graph of matter that you instantiate.

It just happens that "metadecision" is a valuable trait to have so as to allow the graph to correct towards useful behavior without having to directly experience acting against graph preservation.

 

[none]

I consider myself a humanist not completely buying into your "we" comment.
I'm ignostic, you opened some can of worms there.
I'll take a moment to process your mention of empirical distiction.

 

[none]

His actions are not consistent with his beliefs. The beliefs and the actions do not cohere.

He says "if", I'm gathering he rather enjoys civilization. If that is incoherent we are miles apart.
I'll have to read from the OP but I doubt I have the calm to do so.
I'm not sure of your theistic leanings
Have you considered presuppositional apologetics?
In brevity for my sake can you characterize free will as you are using it?

My theistic leanings are Humanist. We believe that man created God in his own image. We believe in death after life.

I have no clue what "presuppositional apologetics" is about. Pretty sure I don't need to know that in order to deal with free will, since it is a secular issue.

Free will is an empirical distinction between the case where a person decides for themselves what they will do versus a choice imposed upon them by coercion or undue influence. Undue influence includes significant mental illness (insanity defense).

Hope that helps.

Closed system mechanics?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

"In a sense, we can hold no one responsible. I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. ... Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being."
Page 114 of "The Saturday Evening Post" article "What Life Means to Einstein" "An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" (Oct 26, 1929)

Einstein says that, while he does not believe in free will and responsibility, he must pretend that he does. That is not a coherent position.

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

ETA:
You may want to google "block universe" for a better understanding of what Albert was talking about.

We are certainly talking about two different things. Einstein is defining free will as "freedom from causal necessity", an irrational notion because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. I am using the normal, operational definition of free will, which is choosing for ourselves what we will do while "free from coercion and undue influence". This is the definition that humans actually use when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. It is a like a constant that always appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The only meaningful information is our knowledge of the specific causes of specific effects. The toddler learns that by moving his body and legs in a certain way allows him to walk. From this he acquires the freedom to run all over the house. The medical researcher knows that covid-19 is caused by a virus, and that vaccination can prime the immune system to destroy that virus, giving us control over the disease. Reliable cause and effect is essential to both our freedom and our control.

The view that reliable causation strips us of freedom and control is a bit perverse. It makes a boogeyman out of causal necessity. It sends the scared theist running to the supernatural and the atheist running to quantum indeterminism. But the boogeyman is just an illusion.

 

[skepticalbip]

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

ETA:
You may want to google "block universe" for a better understanding of what Albert was talking about.

We are certainly talking about two different things. Einstein is defining free will as "freedom from causal necessity", an irrational notion because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. I am using the normal, operational definition of free will, which is choosing for ourselves what we will do while "free from coercion and undue influence". This is the definition that humans actually use when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. It is a like a constant that always appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The only meaningful information is our knowledge of the specific causes of specific effects. The toddler learns that by moving his body and legs in a certain way allows him to walk. From this he acquires the freedom to run all over the house. The medical researcher knows that covid-19 is caused by a virus, and that vaccination can prime the immune system to destroy that virus, giving us control over the disease. Reliable cause and effect is essential to both our freedom and our control.

The view that reliable causation strips us of freedom and control is a bit perverse. It makes a boogeyman out of causal necessity. It sends the scared theist running to the supernatural and the atheist running to quantum indeterminism. But the boogeyman is just an illusion.

I don't think you understand Einstein's 'block universe' and his reasoning so are not actually addressing his statement (even though you quoted him). In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis. This would mean that he wouldn't see that there is free will, not because of past or current "causal necessity"(that would be a Newtonian idea) but, because the decision or action has "already happened" further along the time axis.

It seems that the disconnect is the difference in what you think time is and how uncle Al defines time.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

ETA:
You may want to google "block universe" for a better understanding of what Albert was talking about.

We are certainly talking about two different things. Einstein is defining free will as "freedom from causal necessity", an irrational notion because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. I am using the normal, operational definition of free will, which is choosing for ourselves what we will do while "free from coercion and undue influence". This is the definition that humans actually use when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. It is a like a constant that always appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The only meaningful information is our knowledge of the specific causes of specific effects. The toddler learns that by moving his body and legs in a certain way allows him to walk. From this he acquires the freedom to run all over the house. The medical researcher knows that covid-19 is caused by a virus, and that vaccination can prime the immune system to destroy that virus, giving us control over the disease. Reliable cause and effect is essential to both our freedom and our control.

The view that reliable causation strips us of freedom and control is a bit perverse. It makes a boogeyman out of causal necessity. It sends the scared theist running to the supernatural and the atheist running to quantum indeterminism. But the boogeyman is just an illusion.

I don't think you understand Einstein's 'block universe' and his reasoning so are not actually addressing his statement (even though you quoted him). In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis. This would mean that he wouldn't see that there is free will, not because of past or current "causal necessity" but, because the decision or action has "already happened" further along the time axis.

It seems that the disconnect is the difference in what you think time is and how uncle Al defines time.

The block universe is a metaphor for causal determinism. I understand causal determinism.

"In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis."

No, you cannot say "currently" in the context of that metaphor. Currently, in the metaphor, would be a single slice of the block.

It is just a metaphor. The block does not exist in empirical reality, because it is both physically and logically impossible. What actually exists in empirical reality is all the stuff, precisely where it is at this moment. Everything is in motion. Galaxies are moving within the universe and star systems are moving within galaxies, and the Earth is moving around the Sun. A moment from now, all that same stuff, will be someplace else. It is physically impossible for the same stuff to be in two (or an infinite number of) different places at the same time.

Among the many events taking place within that metaphorical block are all the real objects and the people currently making choices that will causally determine the next metaphorical plane in the metaphorical block.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You and uncle Al are talking about two very different things. You seem to be assuming that not having 'free will' means that past events and conditions absolutely determine one's actions. Uncle Al is assuming that (time being a dimension) all past, present, and future 'currently' exist along the time axis (a block universe)... that what action you decide to take at this point on the time axis, you have already done further along the time axis.

ETA:
You may want to google "block universe" for a better understanding of what Albert was talking about.

We are certainly talking about two different things. Einstein is defining free will as "freedom from causal necessity", an irrational notion because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. I am using the normal, operational definition of free will, which is choosing for ourselves what we will do while "free from coercion and undue influence". This is the definition that humans actually use when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Universal causal necessity/inevitability is a logical fact, but it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. It is a like a constant that always appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The only meaningful information is our knowledge of the specific causes of specific effects. The toddler learns that by moving his body and legs in a certain way allows him to walk. From this he acquires the freedom to run all over the house. The medical researcher knows that covid-19 is caused by a virus, and that vaccination can prime the immune system to destroy that virus, giving us control over the disease. Reliable cause and effect is essential to both our freedom and our control.

The view that reliable causation strips us of freedom and control is a bit perverse. It makes a boogeyman out of causal necessity. It sends the scared theist running to the supernatural and the atheist running to quantum indeterminism. But the boogeyman is just an illusion.

I don't think you understand Einstein's 'block universe' and his reasoning so are not actually addressing his statement (even though you quoted him). In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis. This would mean that he wouldn't see that there is free will, not because of past or current "causal necessity" but, because the decision or action has "already happened" further along the time axis.

It seems that the disconnect is the difference in what you think time is and how uncle Al defines time.

The block universe is a metaphor for causal determinism. I understand causal determinism.

"In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis."

No, you cannot say "currently" in the context of that metaphor. Currently, in the metaphor, would be a single slice of the block.

It is just a metaphor. The block does not exist in empirical reality, because it is both physically and logically impossible. What actually exists in empirical reality is all the stuff, precisely where it is at this moment. Everything is in motion. Galaxies are moving within the universe and star systems are moving within galaxies, and the Earth is moving around the Sun. A moment from now, all that same stuff, will be someplace else. It is physically impossible for the same stuff to be in two (or an infinite number of) different places at the same time.

Among the many events taking place within that metaphorical block are all the real objects and the people currently making choices that will causally determine the next metaphorical plane in the metaphorical block.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure that you see the point I was trying to make. The problem is that the term "free will" can have more than one meaning, as Dennett has been at great lengths to point out in his detailed reviews of the literature. You seem to be going for a single restricted interpretation that not everyone agrees with.

I don't deny that terms, including free will can have more than one meaning. Terms and words being symbols used to communicate information, ideas, beliefs, etc, can mean whatever significance we assign to them, whatever premises we care to support ideas with may logically support the proposition, yet not prove the reality of the thing itself. Which is why I pointed out the limitation of semantic arguments.

I think that you are mistaken, if you think you are avoiding what you term a "semantic argument" here. If you allow yourself to attribute different senses to the term "free will" at different points in your argument, then you are in danger of equivocation. Marvin has been very clear on his definition of the term, and he uses a definition that is based on ordinary usage. It is a decision made and executed that is free from "coercion and undue influence". He has excluded the more technical usage of "free from causal influence". If you insist on the latter interpretation, then people don't have free will, but that meaning only makes sense from an imaginary perspective of omniscience. That kind of interpretation is of no practical value except in theological discussions.

If will is free, it is not free because the compatibilist formulates a set of premises that support his conclusion, it is free as an objective agent of freedom at work within the system.

Mere definition, word play, is insufficient to establish facts in real world.

I agree, but it is your definition and word play that I find disagreeable, not Marvin's. Compatibilism is precisely the position that you claim to support--that word play alone is insufficient. You have to recognize the separate senses of "free will" in order to avoid fooling yourself and others with a play on words.

No, it does not. Compatibilism just recognizes that there are different perspectives that affect the reification of free will. It is not real from a godlike perspective. It is real from a human perspective. The only special exemption being claimed here is by those who refuse to recognize the different perspectives that observers can have, i.e. system-internal or system-external. In principle, chaotic deterministic systems are predictable in principle, but they are unpredictable unless one has a considerable amount of knowledge about the initial state and rules governing systemic behavior (see  Chaos Theory).

The special exemption lies in applying the term free to a select set of criteria, free will is x, y or z, things that in reality have no special status within a determined system. If the given definition is applied to will, it applies to all things.

Nonsense. Words have no significance outside of a discourse contexts. The same string of words can mean entirely different things in different contexts. All you seem to be doing here is insisting on your linguistic usage for the term "free will", and that is why you can't understand compatibilism. It is grounded in recognition of the ambiguity of a term that collapses into one unambiguous sense only in different contexts.

Within a determined system, human will has no more freedom than the moon orbiting the earth or the earths motion around the sun....all being of equal status in a determined world.

''If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord on the strength of a resolution taken once and for all. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.'' - Albert Einstein

When you say "within a determined system", you have already jumped outside of it and taken on the godlike perspective of omniscience. As a compatibilist, I am completely comfortable with that perspective, and I agree with both you and Einstein that free will does not exist from that perspective. What we think of as "free will" is a fully determined process as observed from outside the system. Within the system, a free agent observes a completely different reality--one whose future evolution is not fully determined. It can only be guessed at based on experiential models of evolution that the mind has created in the past. It is no accident that your Einstein quote sticks with a godlike perspective on the nature of free will as a mere illusion. Were he to take on the perspective of an actor inside of the system, he would have to acknowledge the reality that we are free to choose different ways of reacting to a situation. We don't even always know why we choose to do what we do.

 

[none]

Maybe this is a philosophical argument that I'm just not understanding.
Free noun will noun
Noun noun, doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe it's semantics. Free being an adjective and epistemologic failure.

 

[none]

And then you, Marvin, use the term undue to qualify any interference.
I think you are going a bit too far to chastise others for thier coherence.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think you understand Einstein's 'block universe' and his reasoning so are not actually addressing his statement (even though you quoted him). In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis. This would mean that he wouldn't see that there is free will, not because of past or current "causal necessity" but, because the decision or action has "already happened" further along the time axis.

It seems that the disconnect is the difference in what you think time is and how uncle Al defines time.

The block universe is a metaphor for causal determinism. I understand causal determinism.

As I said, the disconnect seems to be between what you think time is and how uncle Al sees time. The block universe is not a metaphor, but reality, if Albert's definition of time is correct. Your concept of time appears to be Newtonian time but reality has shown that such a concept fails when actually tested. So far, Albert's Theory of Relativity that is largely based on his understanding of time has aced all tests of the theory for the last hundred years. Does this mean that the block universe is reality? No. But it does make the concept worthy of serious consideration.

I think one problem is that you have never actually questioned what you think time is. It is a very sticky problem. Uncle Al spent quite a few years trying to understand time which eventually culminated with his Theory of Relativity.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I don't think you understand Einstein's 'block universe' and his reasoning so are not actually addressing his statement (even though you quoted him). In his idea of a block universe, everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen in the future "currently" exists along the time axis... that the future physically exists and we will experience it as we move along the time axis. This would mean that he wouldn't see that there is free will, not because of past or current "causal necessity" but, because the decision or action has "already happened" further along the time axis.

It seems that the disconnect is the difference in what you think time is and how uncle Al defines time.

The block universe is a metaphor for causal determinism. I understand causal determinism.

As I said, the disconnect seems to be between what you think time is and how uncle Al sees time. The block universe is not a metaphor, but reality, if Albert's definition of time is correct. Your concept of time appears to be Newtonian time but reality has shown that such a concept fails when actually tested. So far, Albert's Theory of Relativity that is largely based on his understanding of time has aced all tests of the theory for the last hundred years. Does this mean that the block universe is reality? No. But it does make the concept worthy of serious consideration.

I think one problem is that you have never actually questioned what you think time is. It is a very sticky problem. Uncle Al spent quite a few years trying to understand time which eventually culminated with his Theory of Relativity.

Clocks that are either moving faster (the twin travelling by rocket in outer space) or located closer to a source of gravity (clocks on Earth versus those in an airplane travelling above the Earth) will run more slowly. That's called "time dilation". It is what Einstein predicted and it has been confirmed by experiments.

However, the block universe is still only a metaphor. You will not empirically observe such a block anywhere in objective reality. I'm confident that Einstein knew this. And I'm confident he also knew that a bowling ball placed on a sheet is different than what is actually happening in three-dimensional space. The metaphorical "distortion" of space is an effect that will branch out in a spherical pattern, affecting both objects of mass and the path of light.

Einstein was very smart about physics. But Einstein was not very smart about free will.

Understanding determinism and free will does not require any understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

And then you, Marvin, use the term undue to qualify any interference.
I think you are going a bit too far to chastise others for thier coherence.

If you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, I have a write-up on WordPress called, "Free Will: What's Wrong and How to Fix It", located here: https://marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/

 

[Copernicus]

Maybe this is a philosophical argument that I'm just not understanding.
Free noun will noun
Noun noun, doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe it's semantics. Free being an adjective and epistemologic failure.

Actually, "free" is an adjective, not a noun. It modifies the head noun "will". The question at issue here is the nature of the freedom, whether it is fully or partially determined. From the perspective of an external observer, everything that happens in a deterministic system has an identifiable cause. However, an agency within the system can only be aware of what it interacts with in some detectable way. In a chaotic deterministic system, interactions are only knowable in principle. They are internally unpredictable, from the perspective of the elements and components of the system. The concept of "free will" only makes sense when an agent is operating in uncertain circumstances--without conscious knowledge of all the factors that determine its decisions or the outcomes of its future actions. Calculating what move to make next is a free choice. It is free to make whatever choices it believes will most likely effect a desirable outcome.

 

[none]

And then you, Marvin, use the term undue to qualify any interference.
I think you are going a bit too far to chastise others for thier coherence.

If you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, I have a write-up on WordPress called, "Free Will: What's Wrong and How to Fix It", located here: https://marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/

More simply and to save positioning just admit the qualifier you use "undue" doesn't make anything you are suggesting coherent.
Sure in some closed system where you define the rules so to speak sure, you might be right but I'm failing to see how that collates with reality that is at best counter intuitive at times and snafus and semantics ain't gonna change it.
M theory bidirectional to linguistics maybe beyond my ability but hey who has got it all figured out? Maybe somewhere there is infinite knowledge but that would be a big record and since you are not pantheist, wtf?
I know I'm being rude.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said, the disconnect seems to be between what you think time is and how uncle Al sees time. The block universe is not a metaphor, but reality, if Albert's definition of time is correct. Your concept of time appears to be Newtonian time but reality has shown that such a concept fails when actually tested. So far, Albert's Theory of Relativity that is largely based on his understanding of time has aced all tests of the theory for the last hundred years. Does this mean that the block universe is reality? No. But it does make the concept worthy of serious consideration.

I think one problem is that you have never actually questioned what you think time is. It is a very sticky problem. Uncle Al spent quite a few years trying to understand time which eventually culminated with his Theory of Relativity.

Clocks that are either moving faster (the twin travelling by rocket in outer space) or located closer to a source of gravity (clocks on Earth versus those in an airplane travelling above the Earth) will run more slowly. That's called "time dilation". It is what Einstein predicted and it has been confirmed by experiments.

That is only one minor prediction of the theory. There is a hell of a lot more.

However, the block universe is still only a metaphor. You will not empirically observe such a block anywhere in objective reality. I'm confident that Einstein knew this.

The block universe was not meant as a metaphor for something else but as a possible reality in itself. You may only be able to see it as a metaphor but Albert saw it as a philosophical conclusion of his understanding of the nature of time.

And I'm confident he also knew that a bowling ball placed on a sheet is different than what is actually happening in three-dimensional space. The metaphorical "distortion" of space is an effect that will branch out in a spherical pattern, affecting both objects of mass and the path of light.

Yes the bowling ball distorting the sheet was a metaphor but was a metaphor for the actual distortion of spacetime caused by mass. This is one of the things that those wedded to Newtonian mechanics can't comprehend.

Einstein was very smart about physics. But Einstein was not very smart about free will.

As far as I am aware, Albert never gave much thought to that particular philosophical black hole.

Understanding determinism and free will does not require any understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity.

It is only when Einstein is quoted (out of context) to support some assertion in one's argument. Philosophical arguments over determinism and free will have nothing to do with Albert's theory but maybe the reality or lack thereof of them do.

 

[DBT]

...
Einstein says that, while he does not believe in free will and responsibility, he must pretend that he does. That is not a coherent position.

Why is it not coherent?

His actions are not consistent with his beliefs. The beliefs and the actions do not cohere.

What he believes is not a choice within a determined system. Choice implies the possibility of making an different decision when presented with a set of options. There is no such possibility within a determined system, And as some have pointed out, if block time/eternalism is true, time itself is an illusion.