I would like to know what the most successful arguments have been against necessitarianism, as I struggle to imagine how necessitarianism could be false.
I think about how any particular event transpired - say - my decision to walk left out of my building instead of right, and all I see is that the totality of the circumstances compelled me to go left. So how could those same circumstances have caused me to go right? If I were to apply this same rationale to everything that has ever happened, I am left with necessitarianism. In essence, I believe that the totality of the circumstances induce the one thing that happened, as they were apparently not the right circumstances to induce something else.
I saw the post Arguments for and against necessetarianism but I am not satisfied with the response. The author seems to base his arguments on the first sentence: "There are theoretically infinite ways the world could be", but this simply assumes the falsity of necessitarianism. The author also alludes to the "problem of origin", which seemingly suggests that an origin is necessary in the first place, but I don't understand why that need be. Perhaps I have misunderstood, in which case, I invite someone to correct me.
I've seen several comments and answers that mention how my description of choosing to go left neglects the actual thought process of choosing. It does not. I just view my thoughts, feelings, etc as pieces which comprise the totality of the circumstances. I don't view my mental processes as being metaphysically different than the wind, nor is it clear to me why I should.