Free will vs Omniscience

This entire thread? Yes, of course it is. Who wants something like "facts" to get in their way? This isn't true. You're just not very good with relative time.From my perspective, yes, I made the choice in 2025, and God saw what I would do in 2015... therefore God knew what I would do before I made the choice.But, from God's perspective: I made the choice when I was created (creation of the universe). God didn't know what I would choose then.Therefore, from God's perspective, He didn't know what I would choose before the choice was made.
It's only from mine and yours limited perspective that God knows the outcome before the choice.However, since we're dealing with God... whether or not God has given us or removed our freewill... we need to look at God's perspective.Since God is the tipping point, and your criteria are fulfilled from His perspective... then freewill still exists.Even though from our (irrelevant) perspective... God knows the result before we make the choice.All you're doing is saying that from the bus-driver's perspective the seats are bolted to the floor - they are stationary. Therefore the bus never moves.
I'm sitting on the side of the road watching you go by at 60 mph and trying to explain to you that your individual, internal scenario is irrelevant when making a grand-scale claim.You just have to look at the big picture.

Only for the dishonest.
And if you're dealing with dishonest people, it's hardly worth noting that you might not accept what they call evidence.If you're trying to say that honest evidence and honest will of God are similar.. then I pity you for the environment of distrust that formed such an idea.There is always only 1 honest interpretation of evidence. That interpretation may or may not be specific, depending on the kind of information available. But when the information is available and can be specific.. the only way to disagree is to be dishonest about what the information shows.
This interpretation is independent of any and all people who review the available information.
There is almost always a way to get more information or to validate it - go look at reality and test.This is also true for the will of God (there is only 1 honest interpretation). The difficult thing with the will of God, though, is that God Himself is seldom (never?) around to clarify what His will actually is when 2 or more people disagree. This leaves the single interpretation so vague that it becomes useless and unknowable. Therefore, all specific interpretations rely on heresy and are entirely dependent on each individual who reviews the available information.
Because God is so... shy... there is almost never a way to get more information or validate it.Edited by Stile, : I once made a post with an edit.
But I forgot to give myself credit.
Clarified the view.
But forgot to imbue...
...the message with my citation from reddit.

Can you give an example?Here's my example proving you wrong:There are 2 apples sitting on a table.
Felix wants to know how many apples are on the table.
I count them. I tell him there are 2.
He doesn't believe me.
He counts them himself.
He counts them in base-10, base-2, French, Arabic and English.
He still gets 2.
He believes me.Now, you may be getting into somethings that are more complex.
Like tree-rings meaning how long a tree has been alive, say.But still, you can always validate the evidence. Go look at reality. Plant a tree, know how long it's been alive for. Cut it down. Count the rings. Do they add up? Yes, no? Are there any other ways to validate such things? Try them out... see for yourself.You can always go back to validate and test reality and add to the available information if you think something's not right.But no matter how complex the results are... you can always break it down to how many apples are on the table if you go and look at it yourself for long enough and get into all the information.So, go ahead... give me an example that has more than 1 honest interpretation. Sure. And when that happens, you can always show the evidence that what the person is doing is dishonest... which is exactly what I said.Many times people take the honest interpretation from the evidence... which is vague because there's not much information... and extrapolate that without evidence into a specific idea... this is dishonest if you claim that the evidence backs you up.I never said being dishonest was impossible.I only said that there's always only 1 honest interpretation of the evidence.
I even stated that sometimes the information isn't abundant and the interpretation may be forced to be vague.None of this changes the difference that honest investigations based on evidence can be advanced by looking at reality and validating the information until only 1 interpretation remains.Such a thing cannot be done with "the Will of God" unless you have God right there telling you His Will.
One question of "is the Bible really the Will of God?" leaves you with no where to go.One question of "is this evidence really indicative of reality" does not leave you with no where to go... it leads you back to validate the information against reality again... which can be done. And can always be done so that all (honest) people will agree. Like having 2 apples on the table.That's the difference.

Okay, what about it? What is the evidence? What are the multiple, honest interpretations that are based on the evidence?I think you're confusing my question.I'm not asking you to show me something that has more that one interpretation.
I'm asking you to show me something that has more than one interpretation based on the evidence. As soon as you're dismissing information... you're being dishonest.
And "we" don't always do that. Then you're not basing your interpretation on the evidence.
If it's too overwhelming to go through... then be honest and say that. This will then reduce your honest interpretation to something that is vague and possibly unusable. This will either force you to start going through some more information... or you can be content with the vague interpretation.Still... only 1, though. That's right.
And if you're going beyond the hard data... then you're not basing your interpretation on the evidence which is what we're talking about.So, try again...Do you have any example where there is more than 1 honest interpretation that is based on the evidence?Not based-on-but-then-extrapolated...
Entirely "based-on" the evidence.There's always only 1. As long as you're honest, and you base it on the available evidence.Your examples always seem to include extrapolating off the available evidence... I've specifically said from the very beginning that I'm talking about interpretations that are strictly based on the evidence.Of course if you're not based entirely on the evidence then you can have multiple interpretations (more like "possibilities" at this point...).
That's why I specifically said this is not included in an honest interpretation of the available evidence.For the third time, now... can you give an example where you can have multiple interpretations based on the same evidence?
What is the example?
What is the available evidence?
What are the multiple interpretations?You seem to think this is an easy task.. but you've failed twice and haven't been specific at all.Please, if it's so easy, just pick one... let us know... and be specific about what your example is, what the available evidence is, and how the multiple interpretations are both (all?) entirely based on the available evidence without making extrapolations.

I didn't say we never do such things.
I said we "don't always" do such things.You said we "always" do such things. This is easily shown to be false, like my 2 apples example. Where am I dismissing information about counting the 2 apples on the table when I count them and my result is 2?You're saying peoples "always" dismiss information.
I'm saying it's possible not to do this, to limit yourself to the evidence, see what the evidence says, and accept the conclusion (or non-conclusion if there's not enough information available for the question you have) and that if you do this, there's always only 1 result.It can happen.
It does happen with counting 2 apples on the table.Therefore, you saying "we always dismiss information..." is incorrect. Correct, that's factual evidence. Yes, these are 2 different interpretations. But are they based on the evidence? They both seem to be based on "importance." You don't mention anything about "importance" in your 2 listed facts. Therefore, "importance" is not based on the evidence... it is extrapolated. It is dishonest to say that this "importance" is based on the evidence for either side.From here, you can go to reality and find evidence that shows "importance" (may require a specified and agreed definition)... or you can accept that going into "importance" is not based on the evidence. No. There is only 1 honest interpretation of the evidence from these 2 facts: there is no conclusion to say that one side or the other is "more important."Anything else is extrapolation, or being dishonest.What you've provided is two "interpretations" that extrapolate the evidence into a third subject: "importance"... but there is no "importance" listed in the evidence.Therefore, both these "interpretations" (again, more "possibilities" at this point) are not based on the evidence. They are based on an extrapolation into "importance."I hope that shows you what I'm trying to explain.
If you still do not understand my point, however, feel free to try again for the fourth time. I am open to being wrong (I won't ever stop you from trying to show that I'm wrong... I'd like to know if I'm wrong, I could update my ideas). But I'm not open to letting you base the "interpretation" on something that is not based on the evidence, and then say that it actually is all, entirely, "based on the evidence."That's either wrong, or being dishonest. Both of which can and should be corrected.

Doesn't matter.Still only 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence.The honest interpretation doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality (How can we ever know when we have "the real" reality?). It could certainly be wrong and shown to be so by additional information at any time.
Then, when that additional information gets validated and added to "the evidence"... the resulting 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence is also updated.This is kind of how science works. Are you sure you didn't know this already? No.Unless you think you can prove me wrong?Again, feel free.Explain the evidence.
Explain 2 or more honest interpretations based on the evidence.If some unintentional extrapolations that are not based on the evidence sneak in... don't worry, I'll inform you. I've spent my career identifying "the evidence" and working out solutions that are based on "the evidence." I'm very good at it. Been doing it for almost 2 decades now. Extrapolations are rarely correct when troubleshooting (note: not "always," it's just rare-er)If I say something's extrapolated and you don't think it is... let me know. Like I said, there's only ever 1 honest interpretation. Therefore, if you're right... I'll have to see it or be dishonest myself (or, possibly, too stupid to understand your explanation).But whenever anyone else has ever tried... they always do what you did with your abortion example... think of interpretations that are somewhat-based-on-the-evidence-but-also-include-a-few-details-that-are-extrapolated-but-don't-think-about-those-because-other-parts-are-based-on-the-evidence.But, those are not entirely "based on the evidence."
I agree that if you add other details not based on the evidence... then you can have multiple possibilities.
But if you can restrict yourself to the evidence... I have never, ever seen 2 different honest interpretations that are both entirely based on the evidence.I certainly have not experienced everything though, and a part of me is rooting for you... being proved wrong is the pathway to learning more. And I like to learn more.Feel free to move forward with your 5th attempt to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to it.

And that is exactly what makes being a good person from the core so special.If the whole Christian faith is meaningless, and people continue to feed the poor, and help the sick and be good people......it becomes more powerful.
It becomes more honorable.
It becomes more important.Not less.Relying on anything other than your own personal decision in order to be a good person only serves to cheapen what it is to be a good person. You are no longer trying to be a good person... you're trying to make a trade. Whether it's for everlasting life, or prestige with some God, or even just a sense of duty to an icon... if it's not from you it's simply a trade. If you're concerned about anything external (like Christianity being true or religion being meaningful...) then it's not from you.The power from making a decision for no reason is that "nothingness" is infinite and all encompassing.There really are no rules.
There is no reason to be good.The choice is yours. Help make it better, help make it worse, or don't care.Only one of those makes a life worth living.

You seem to claim a whole lot of personal details of many people who are not you.
What makes you so sure that you're able to correctly deduce what *exactly* is going on in other people's minds?You seem to want to deny other people that they can have experiences that you cannot explain.
However, at the same time, you seem to want to convince everyone that your experience-that-no-one-understands is absolute truth.I don't think you know any of what you say you know at all.
I think you simply claim to know such things because they give you excuses to ignore the facts you find uncomfortable to consider.

It's a timing thing, Blue Jay.Let's look at this scenario:

quote:

---

Today is Monday.
Wednesday I'm going to make a choice, I have free will to choose red or blue.
I don't know what I'm going to choose.
Thomas doesn't know either.

​

Wednesday comes.
I choose red.
Thomas sees that I choose red.

​

Thursday comes.
Thomas reports that I chose red.

---

Do you say that free will exists?Now look at this (same setup as before):

quote:

---

Today is Monday.
I don't know what I'm going to choose on Wednesday.
Thomas doesn't know either.

​

Tuesday comes.
Thomas can see the future.
Thomas looks at Thursday and sees that I chose red.

​

Wednesday comes.
I choose red.
Thomas sees that I choose red.

​

Thursday comes
Thomas reports that I chose red.

---

Are you saying that free will has been removed in this example?
My argument is that Thomas only described the future, not that he prescribed it.If you say this is not free will anymore... then who chose red if it wasn't me? Who forced me to pick red?If you accept that free will is preserved in this scenario... then God can see all our choice 100% of the time, since before we were born... and we can still have free will AS LONG AS there was some instance where God created us, and did not know what we would choose, before he "looked" or "gained knowledge" of our future. Even if that "instance" was a split-second at the very beginning of the universe.Oh, and Thomas is my friend, so he only tells me lotto numbers, no one else. Just sayin'.

I agree with your first sentence.
I do not agree with your second.I think that free will implies that we get to make choices, and that the choice originates from us.Free will:
There's red and blue, and I choose blue.Not free will:
There's red and blue, but they're going to fire me if I choose red... so I "choose" blue.Why do you think that free will implies that the future is not set in stone?Here's the nut-shell of my scenarios:

quote:

---

1. I choose red on Thursday and on one can read that decision before it was made. "Reading the future" is impossible.

​

2. I choose red on Thursday, but because the future is set in stone, and because Thomas can read the future, Thomas can read that choice on Tuesday and know that I will choose red.

---

They both sound like free will to me.
If one is not free will, please describe why. Who is making the choice if not me? How is my choice not free?I think it depends on how you define 'free will.'
If you define free will as something along the lines of "a decision that is made by the individual, without external forces from other intelligences" than both are free will.If you define free will as "the future is not set in stone."
Then, well, #2 is not free will... but me choosing blue so that I'm not fired... then becomes free will? That doesn't sound right to me.I don't understand why having the future be set or not is a condition concerning free will.Added: That is, if the future is set in stone, then the issue should become focused on who's doing the "setting" into that stone.Edited by Stile, : Clearing up last sentence

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly.
Because I'm not talking about a deterministic universe. Yes, this is what I'm saying is going on in both of my examples.It's just that in one, no one can see the future.
In the second one, Thomas can see the future, and, on Tuesday, he can see that I do the mental act of choosing red that takes place on Wednesday.Thomas can see the future... but I'm still doing the mental act of choosing red.. because I want to, not because I have to. If I wanted to choose blue, and did that... then that's what Thomas would report back. It's just that I chose red. How is that not "free will?" The only way it isn't free will is if you add "no one can see the future" into the definition of free will. I just see no reason for doing that, though. To this, I would have to as "what makes a choice a 'choice' vs an 'illusion?'"
Is it the ability to do the mental act and make your decision based on your own thoughts/feelings/experiences while not being coerced by external forces?
Or is it simply a definition that "the future is not set in stone."I would also point out that saying we have a choice just because "the future is not set in stone" means that a rock rolling down a hill has free will because its "future isn't set." That's silly, to me.
If we want to say the future isn't set in stone... don't say we have free will... just say the future isn't set in stone. I agree that this is all just chatting about stuffs.

The thing is... I agree with this. I just don't agree in the way it seems to be taken normally.You see, normally, when we say "determinism" we think of something like "everything is set from the big bang and we're just playing out the motions." In this sense, things are determined by the unconscious way the universe simply is.I am talking about determinism in that I agree the action/reading is 100% determined.
But what I'm saying is that it is not determined by the unconscious universe from the big bang... me choosing red is determined by me choosing red, on Wednesday.Thomas can read into the future of Tuesday night, but since I haven't made the decision then... he won't know if I choose red or blue.
But if Thomas reads into the future after I've made my decision... if he reads on Wednesday, then he'll see that I did choose red.But I didn't have an illusion-of-choosing-red... it wasn't determined by the unconscious universe from the big bang.
I made a real decision. On Wednesday. And at any point after Wednesday, that choice is determined.Is that "determinism?" In a sense, yes.. the choice is "determined"... .but it's "determined" by me, making the mental decision on Wednesday. Not "determined" by the universe put in motion at the big bang. Why is that, though? You say "impossible" but your only backup is you want to take it by definition... you're saying 'it's not a real choice'... what does that mean? What if I say 'it is a real choice?' Is that all it takes to destroy that argument?I'm not saying that I know this is the way things are... I'm saying that no one does.
I'm saying my way is a "possibility" as much as any other description of definitions... because that's all these arguments are based on... definitions. And, again, you're just saying so.
I can't prove one way, and you can't prove another.
You're simply defining it as a lucky guess, and I'm simply defining it as being a valid reading of the future.Until someone can define all these words... "choice," "illusion," "free will," "determinism..." just saying them in different contextual frames of reference doesn't mean anything. I'm saying that it's *my* decision based on my own thought/feelings/experiences that is doing the "setting in stone."On Monday and Tuesday, my decision is not set in stone.
However, come Wednesday, the future is set in stone, once I make my decision.
And, if Tom can read the future, after I make my decision... then he will see the choice I freely made, and freely decided to set in stone from that point on, even if he does so on Tuesday. He's simply reading the "setting in stone" that I'm freely deciding to do. ...is what I'm saying ...which I just realized is the circle "And round and round we go." you describe as well. My question stands right at the beginning of this first part.What makes the incompatibilists come to this conclusion in the first place?Or are you simply saying that the in compatibilists have their ideas, and the compatibilists have theirs... and neither can prove the other right/wrong because we simply don't have a way to identify (in reality) something along what we mean by "choice," "illusion," "determinism,"...?Yeah, you probably are... which means, really, you and I are doing the exact same thing in this thread... just coming at it from different angles. In my idea, the response would be that Thomas isn't predicting anything, ever. He's reading. Descriptive, not prescriptive.
And he's able to read what I decide to do on Wednesday, on Tuesday... because I gave him the powers of reading the future in my example.I started posting because Blue Jay stated a position that being able to read the future while allowing free will is impossible.
I'm not saying that it's the way it is... but I am saying that if we're talking about reading the future... it's not logically impossible to have free will exist alongside a perfect 100% reading of the future as long as there is a point in time where the "reader" is unable to read the future. That would mean God created the world let-it-play-out-all-free-willy-nilly... and then read it back to Himself a few times like a book. We're just playing out the book right now... but the book was created from our actual, real, free will.Now, if God created everything *while also having perfect foreknowledge of everything, as He created it*... then this isn't logically possible.That's the only point I was making. That such a scenario is logically possible. I don't understand the final question. Can you give an example?
"Access" can seem to have a large variety of meanings in this question. Read-only? Or Read-Write-Full?

I would agree that this wording makes it seem like Bill does not have a free choice.
However... take the same scenario, and ask: where is Fred getting his information from?If the answer is "Fred is getting his information from a determined universe that was set in motion long ago that forces Bill into choosing Red" then I would agree that Bill did not make a free choice.If the answer is "Fred is getting his information from the free will choice that Bill makes in the future" then I would say Bill does have free will, and your implication of any "illusion" going on is silly word game.If the answer is "I don't know, could be either, could be neither..." then I'd say you're in our current understanding of our universe I would say this:1. If Fred is 100% correct, and Bill cannot change his answer -> proof that there is no free will, and it is a determined universe.2. If Fred is only 100% if he never tells Bill, and when he does tell Bill... Bill can choose to match any random-pre-determined values of staying with or changing his answer (say... stays the same 13 221 times, but changes his answer 4 469 times - causing Fred to be wrong 4 469 times)... then we have proof that Fred can read the future only if he has all the information, but Bill does still have free will. That is, once Fred tells Bill, he no longer has "all the information" in order to make his future-reading as Bill's "state of mind" could possibly change. But, of course, Fred can make a second-reading (and not tell Bill) and still be 100% correct on that second-reading 3. If Fred is never right (beyond coincidence)... then Fred can't read the future Remaining within the bounds of your exercise, yes, this is the only conclusion.
What this does to free will is alter the definition of it. It becomes an "illusion" but if the illusion is real-to-us... what's the difference? Sort-of-thing. Killers still have to be removed from society, cheaters still have to be stopped... and life goes on. Just hope you got a lucky roll That most certainly is the question.
I don't think we've devised a way to test, yet. Step 1 - find someone who can read the future 100% of the time! Then we can test... What about parts of our future that we *want* to be determined?
That is, all other things being equal, I would like it to be extremely determined that if I go to the bank and I have the choice between a 2.9% interest mortgage and a 5.2% one... I'm going to choose the 2.9% interest mortgage every. damn. time. Not 99.9%. Every. Damn. Time.How does something like that fit into a universe where things can be random and "every choice can be (or is, in multi-worlds or something) played out?"
Can logical consistency exist within a non-determinated universe containing random elements? I completely agree.My point, however, is that if we simply take them as logical possibilities... then *logically* (as "logical" as future-reading is...) both are valid positions.
And we simply lack the required tools/knowledge to test our current universe. Perhaps such tools are not possible, even. Or maybe we just haven't found them yet.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

Yeah, I think so.To other people observing me? I don't think there's a difference.
To me? I'd feel better if I'm the one actually making the decision instead of playing out something-else's script.But... the universe isn't always to my liking If you are right about this, then I am wrong.
If you are wrong about this, then I am right.Which, as we know, is the entire compatibilist, incompatibilist argument.
The question can be rephrased to: If I'm not making the choice, who is?And, again, the answer defines the situation into the compatibilist or incompatibilist side.As well, without a test of reality that we currently don't have, we can't tell.I can define my example to be one or the other... but that's just definitional cheating. It's not, it's being read after I've had my own thought/feelings/experiences. That's just how time travel and future reading works. You get the "after" sooner than ordinarily understood.Think of time as just another dimension. All of time has already "been decided" and we're just experiencing the present as we move along the path. The only issue is who did the initial deciding? Universe -> determinism -> compatibilist. Me -> non-determinism -> incompatibilist.Perhaps you have an issue with understanding how I could make the choice before I experience it? Well, the mysteries of the universe are great. My point isn't to show that this is true... I have no process for how this might be accomplished. My point is only to show that it is logically possible. Which it is. So are unicorns.You have no issue with someone reading the past and seeing decisions I've already made?
Same thing, just into the future. I understand that seeing the future in a similar-to-the-past kind of way isn't "socially normal" but, well, there's nothing about being "logically possible" that requires it to be as-generally-understood. Ah, Time Cop Yes, I think the moral responsibility is shared. And, I have no issues with a "Time Cop," actually... *IF* you can prove that the future-readings are never, ever wrong. Which is, really... a pretty big if.I mean, I kind of do that now, even.
If I'm standing beside someone with a gun, and they point it at my friend. I'm going to tackle them and force their arm down.
And I don't even have a 100% reading of the future, there... But I'm sure as hell not going to wait until after the gun is actually fired to do something about it.Your example, to me, is the same thing, just more time and less obviousness about it.

I'm saying that our standard understanding of past/present/future may not apply for such a logical construct.Standard understanding of past/present/future:Think of a shoelace, fraying at one end.
Shoelace not frayed = past
Point of fraying = present
Fraying ends = future (all possible outcomes)When I'm 10 years old, the not-frayed part will be shorter, and the frayed parts will be longer.
When I'm 90 years old, the not-frayed part will be longer, and the frayed parts will be shorter.
When I'm dead, there's only 1 line... all the decision I made in my life.
...if we use our current level of understanding of how the "present" works, anyway.But what if the "present" isn't the point when all decisions are made?
What if the "present" is simply a rolling along the line of our lives?
What if our lives were already lived, choices made by us (not the universe) and we only experience them by what we see as the "present" moving along?That would be us making the decisions, however, the way we generally think of past/present/future would be different.If we make that shift in how we understand the preset, we end up with this model:
New understanding of past/present/future:Our life isn't frayed at all, the fraying has already been decided (by us). Our one line was created (by us) when the universe was created. There is only 1 line that we're "experiencing" now.
In this sense, someone could read the future and they would be reading our decisions that we make in the future.The "future" is more akin to the "past." Like mirror images in functionality.
No one seems to care that the past has already been decided.. they're very concerned about the future.
But what if our conceptually held ideas on how that all works is just wrong?
What if the future is very much like the past... time is just another dimension. There is no "past" and "future" as there is no "left" and "right" to the length of a board. It just depends on which side you're standing on when you look at it.There is a 0-to-100 length of a board.
As there is a 0-to-100 length of a timeline.But perhaps our generally-accepted ideas of the future being so different from the past is simply a product of the way we experience time.
Perhaps those ideas are wrong, and "time" is just another dimension that we experience strangely.
Perhaps we've already "lived" our entire lives (making our own decisions) at the creation of the universe and we're simply experiencing them as we run down our time-line that we all individually created ourselves. Perhaps not, but I don't see how (yet, anyway).
As far as I can tell, it is a logical way to think of time. It's just not socially acceptable.
I'm also not saying I subscribe to it, I just don't see how it's logically *impossible* is all. How do you know this?
Perhaps you're mistaken and the correct way to say this is that they future simply hasn't been *experienced* by us in the way we observe time in this universe. Why is it impossible for "time" to simply be another dimension, and all our decisions have "already" been decided... by us (not the universe)... and we're simply experiencing time in a way that makes it only *feel* like things are the way you're talking about. I thought determinism was when the universe (not us) made the decisions?
I'm talking about us making the decisions, not the universe. I thought that was the opposite of determinism?
I do get confused by standard terminology (determinism, compatibilist, incompatibilist...) they are new terms to me as this is not something I've studied in depth or professionally or anything. Yes. I agree.
But confusing or "not obvious" doesn't mean it's wrong. And such a thing can be cured with education.
The universe has no obligation to be easy or simple for us to understand.
As well, if there was an actual test that we could do to know for sure... we wouldn't be having this disagreement anyway. There would be only one way that matched the evidence. Simple. When you consider it determinism... you are defining that the universe is making the decisions.
When I'm considering it non-determinism... I'm defining that we are making the decisions and not the universe.Which of our definitions reflect actual reality?That's the test without a (current) answer. I can tell you that if I even have imperfect knowledge of what something I create is going to do (but I have a good idea)... and I create it... and it does it... then I'm very morally culpable for "it's" actions (fully or how-much-partial... that can be quibbled about).
I don't see why it would be different for a God, especially if that God is supposed to have perfect knowledge...