Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 451 of 1444 (784352)
05-17-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 9:44 AM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
kbertsche writes:
If our will is truly the "cause", I think this would imply that our will is NOT locked in and that it CAN be changed.
Then, does the foreknowledge of those causes change with the will?
The foreknowledge would depend on the will. The will would be the cause, the foreknowledge the effect.
Cat Sci writes:
And if so, doesn't that make the knowledge wrong at some points?
Why would it do so?
Cat Sci writes:
Can we really call that "knowing" what is going to happen if it is subject to change?
But why is it "subject to change"? Why can't a transcendent being see our future choices and know them ahead of time?
Cat Sci writes:
kbertsche writes:
The future would not be "fixed" until we "fix" it with our actions and choices. But a being who transcends time and can see the future from the past can have perfect forknowledge of what will occur.
Does the foreknowledge evolve along with the whims of our will as we go through time fixing choices with our decisions?
What does an ever changing foreknowledge really even know?
Why would foreknowledge need to "evolve" or "change"?
I think most of these conundrums come about because we try to make God a temporal being, subject to time as we are. But if He created time and transcends it, He would not be subject to it as are His creatures. For a God who transcends time and can see the timeline of human history all at once, concepts such as "before" and "after" are not very meaningful; everything to God is essentially "now".

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 9:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 1:41 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 452 of 1444 (784355)
05-17-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Stile
05-17-2016 10:48 AM


Re: Definition of free will
But... there's not.
It's my idea so I get to define how it works.
Even defining the two me's out of existence, it is still like there are two me's.
You've got two instances of the universe running, the creation of it where all decisions are made, and then the "playback" where I go through and have the experiences of the decision.
That's like two me's.
you simply don't have a current, conscience memory of it...
That also sounds like two me's...
Even though there's just one me, since I have no memory or experience of all of the decision I've already made, then in the experiencing part of the scenario I am that dumb and blind rock that is rolling down the hill with no control over what I'm going to do.
I may have used to have free will at the creation of the universe, but I don't anymore. I have no choice in the decisions that I have already made. The future is set in stone and there's nothing I can do about it this time around.
So let's say at the beginning of the universe, I decide to touch the flame of a candle on two separate occasions.
God sees the future and notices that I touch a candle flame twice.
Then I go through the experiencing of the first decision, and realize that it hurts to touch the flame of a candle and I don't want to do that anymore.
This isn't how it works.
You're not describing the idea I'm defining.
I was trying to set up a situation where the reading of the future takes place and then I have the experience that would cause me to change my decision.
If I don't have the experiences until the "playback", then how do I change my mind beforehand, and what does that mean for the foreknowledge that occurred already?
Think of the Universe being created and time going insanely-fast such that the entire universe is played out in just a few "seconds."
You would have seen a flame, felt the heat, and then decided to not touch the second flame (or whatever decision you freely made).
Then... once the universe is created, you get to experience these decisions in the "now" as we live our lives.
For billions of years you experience nothing.
Then you finally get to experience seeing a flame, feeling the heat and deciding not to touch the second flame.
It doesn't really make sense to say that I felt the flame at creation, but then I don't experience it until billions of years later.
And if there's no connection between my "experience" at creation and the experiences I'm having here in the present, then how does any of that stuff that I did at creation pertain to me? I'm the one sitting here in the present experiencing stuff, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with the me that was at the creation of the universe making decisions. As far as I know, it literally never happened.
So even if you define it as the same me, there are two instances here and the one that I, myself sitting right here, experience is the one where I don't actually get to decide what happens. I've already decided it and I cannot change it. That's not free will, that's an illusion of free will.
You've only defined it into being free will by declaring that it was me who has already made the decision.
But... just 'cause we don't find it comforting, or likely, or intuitive... doesn't make it impossible.
I'll grant you that it isn't impossible, but you're really brutalizing what it means to be a person with free will.
Obviously, you have no problems with God "knowing yesterday (the past)".
In my idea... God is simply "knowing yesterday" before you get to experience it. You already went through it, and did it (at the beginning of the universe), you simply don't have a current, conscience memory of it... that's the "experiencing" part.
There's still the issue of god seeing a whole bunch of bad stuff get created, and then going ahead and letting us go through experienceing it anyways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Stile, posted 05-17-2016 10:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Stile, posted 05-17-2016 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 453 of 1444 (784356)
05-17-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by kbertsche
05-17-2016 11:43 AM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
kbertsche writes:
If our will is truly the "cause", I think this would imply that our will is NOT locked in and that it CAN be changed.
Then, does the foreknowledge of those causes change with the will?
The foreknowledge would depend on the will. The will would be the cause, the foreknowledge the effect.
I know, so when the will changes doesn't the foreknowledge change with it?
Cat Sci writes:
kbertsche writes:
The future would not be "fixed" until we "fix" it with our actions and choices. But a being who transcends time and can see the future from the past can have perfect forknowledge of what will occur.
Does the foreknowledge evolve along with the whims of our will as we go through time fixing choices with our decisions?
What does an ever changing foreknowledge really even know?
Why would foreknowledge need to "evolve" or "change"?
Because the future isn't fixed until we fix it with our choice. So as we're going through our choices, the future is a bubbling mess that is getting fixed into place.
Cat Sci writes:
And if so, doesn't that make the knowledge wrong at some points?
Why would it do so?
Cat Sci writes:
Can we really call that "knowing" what is going to happen if it is subject to change?
But why is it "subject to change"? Why can't a transcendent being see our future choices and know them ahead of time?
Because they aren't fixed until we choose. So the future isn't immutable, its constantly depending on what choices we are making, i.e. what our will causes the foreknowledge to be.
I think most of these conundrums come about because we try to make God a temporal being, subject to time as we are. But if He created time and transcends it, He would not be subject to it as are His creatures. For a God who transcends time and can see the timeline of human history all at once, concepts such as "before" and "after" are not very meaningful; everything to God is essentially "now".
That requires the future to be immutable, if it is all one big now then nothing changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by kbertsche, posted 05-17-2016 11:43 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 454 of 1444 (784358)
05-17-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 1:30 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
I may have used to have free will at the creation of the universe, but I don't anymore. I have no choice in the decisions that I have already made. The future is set in stone and there's nothing I can do about it this time around.
But it's not another "time around."
It's just one go, one creation of the universe.
You can do whatever you can there as you can with the idea that we're making the decisions in "the present."
I was trying to set up a situation where the reading of the future takes place and then I have the experience that would cause me to change my decision.
Yes, I understand.
That's goes back to my previous post where I explained a few options that boiled down to:
-might be impossible
-might be possible but shatter the universe
-might be just fine and-be-entirely-contained-at-the-beginning-of-the-universe as well
Sort of like asking the question of reading the future right now.
Can anyone actually read our future, is it possible?
Would it destroy our reality?
Would it be just fine and become incorporated as a part of our reality?
We're talking about "reading the future..." on some level it's all just fantasy-made-up-stuff until anyone comes up with any real evidence.
It doesn't really make sense to say that I felt the flame at creation, but then I don't experience it until billions of years later.
Why not?
Because it's not intuitive as to how you think this universe actually works?
Why must things actually be happening "right now?"
Why can't things have happened a long time ago and you're simply along for the ride at this point, even though it feels like they're happening right now?
And if there's no connection between my "experience" at creation and the experiences I'm having here in the present, then how does any of that stuff that I did at creation pertain to me? I'm the one sitting here in the present experiencing stuff, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with the me that was at the creation of the universe making decisions. As far as I know, it literally never happened.
This makes no sense.
I started using the word "experiencing" in the present to differentiate between actually making the decision in the past (at the beginning of the universe) and just watching the playthrough of it now.
Now you seem to be forcing a definition of the word "experiencing" that means you're making the decision in the present, again.
Hijacking my word and re-defining it does not change the idea I'm expressing.
It is understandable, however, because this is not an "intuitive" idea.
I'll try to explain again.
You go through the full "decision making/experiencing/information gathering/free will life" you consider to be "the present" all at once... at the creation of the universe when all of time is created.
The sensation you're getting now, is simply a play-back of the movie-of-your-life you've already made.
You're not getting "new information right now" that wasn't available to you when you made the decision at the beginning of the universe.
Think of someone's last birthday.
They were happy and got drunk while hanging out with friends.
If we have a video of that, we could play it over and over.
The video would show that person being happy and getting drunk with friends over and over.
It doesn't "gain information."
"Movie-guy" can't say... "hey, I don't want to get anymore drunk tonight, I'm going to stop drinking at 10pm instead..." because the decision to get drunk and hang out with friends was already made (freely).
It's nonsense to think of "movie-guy" as a separate entity.
This is (basically) the idea I'm describing.
The decisions and reality were all created in an instant the universe was created.
All of space was created, I'm just saying that (for this idea) all of time was created as well.
We're just going through the movie, now.
God could re-wind it, fast forward it, play this part, skip to that part... God could know all of it, but it was still created by you and I and everyone else involved during the creation of the universe.
Whether or not you like that, or are comfortable with that... is irrelevant to it being a possible idea for how God could read our future while we still have just as much free-will and control-over-our-choices as if we made all our decisions in the present.
Try this:
Let's say we're making all our decisions in the present, and someone is "recording the universe."
Once the universe is done... completed... dead, maybe or whatever... this "recording" would include all the free-will decisions all of us ever made.
That's what I'm talking about, but I'm saying that the universe "being done" is one-fell swoop part of it's creation. As soon as it was created, it was complete, done. And just like someone playing an old-universe-recording... this "reality we're currently experiencing" may be nothing more than a recording of our universe where all the decisions have already been made, freely, under our full control.
You've only defined it into being free will by declaring that it was me who has already made the decision.
You're thinking that "present-you" is somehow a separate instance of "beginning of the universe you."
I'm saying that's not a part of this idea.
"Present-you" IS "beginning of the universe you" in the sense that "recorded you" IS "present you" on any video of yourself you've ever seen.
When you watch a video of yourself, you don't suddenly get to go back in time and re-make decisions because now you know more... that's not how recordings work.
I'll grant you that it isn't impossible, but you're really brutalizing what it means to be a person with free will.
The only thing I'm brutalizing is the amount of comfort you have with feeling like "now" is actually when you're really making your decisions.
The amount of free will and full-control-over-your-actions you have in the idea I'm describing is exactly the same.
There's still the issue of god seeing a whole bunch of bad stuff get created, and then going ahead and letting us go through experiencing it anyways.
Or 'keeping the recording around' or however you'd like to think of it, yeah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 1:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM Stile has replied
 Message 587 by Phat, posted 11-11-2018 5:08 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 588 by Phat, posted 11-11-2018 5:09 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 455 of 1444 (784383)
05-17-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Stile
05-17-2016 2:03 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Hijacking my word and re-defining it does not change the idea I'm expressing.
I'm not using shenanigans or anything...
The only thing I'm brutalizing is the amount of comfort you have with feeling like "now" is actually when you're really making your decisions.
and this isn't a problem with my comfort level...
It's still possible that you are just not making any sense
But it's not another "time around."
Well it seems to me like you're changing it.
Creation of the universe and then our experiencing it...
Recordings and playbacks...
but now it's all at once
The amount of free will and full-control-over-your-actions you have in the idea I'm describing is exactly the same.
I'm not so sure that it is. I'm out of time for a bit, I'll revisit this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Stile, posted 05-17-2016 2:03 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 8:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 456 of 1444 (784433)
05-18-2016 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 5:17 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Well it seems to me like you're changing it.
Creation of the universe and then our experiencing it...
Recordings and playbacks...
but now it's all at once
The creation-and-then-experiencing it and recording-and-playbacks are simply two different ways of attempting to explain the same thing.
I don't understand what you mean by "but now it's all at once."
The decisions you make have always been "all at once" in this idea - when the universe was created, and all of time was created... this would be the "recording."
Your experience/feeling/sensation of it in the present would be the "playback."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:07 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 457 of 1444 (784440)
05-18-2016 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Stile
05-18-2016 8:56 AM


Re: Definition of free will
The creation-and-then-experiencing it and recording-and-playbacks are simply two different ways of attempting to explain the same thing.
I know, but those things are not just one thing and yet you say there isn't another time around.
The decisions you make have always been "all at once" in this idea - when the universe was created, and all of time was created... this would be the "recording."
Your experience/feeling/sensation of it in the present would be the "playback."
A recording and a playback are two events.
First time around you record it, second time around you play it back.
That's where the "two me's" came from, the me that was there during the recording, and then the me that goes back through and experiences it all.
But you say that's all one thing, so the record-and-playback analogy isn't really working for me.
Nor does X then Y... that's two things not just one thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 8:56 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 458 of 1444 (784444)
05-18-2016 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 10:07 AM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
That's where the "two me's" came from, the me that was there during the recording, and then the me that goes back through and experiences it all.
But you say that's all one thing, so the record-and-playback analogy isn't really working for me.
Right.
You seemed to suggest that during the playback (when you're experiencing it) you should be able to "make another decision" that what you did at the beginning of the universe.
This is where it's all "one thing."
If you record yourself and play it back, you don't get to remake decisions you made during the recording... the playback isn't a "2nd you" running through the scenario again who can decide this or that differently.
There's only one time where the decisions happen... during the recording... during the creation of the universe.
The present moment playback "experience of the present" can be looked at as the ultimate playback of the recording.
You get sight, smell, taste, feelings... you go through the entire experience of the moment.
But... it's still a playback, not some sort of feedback loop.
All of time was created at the beginning of the universe, the 'present time' is simply how we (for whatever reason) experience the universe.
Think of a kajillion years in the future from now... the universe ends. And some God has the ability to play it back.
As they play it back, you go through and experience your life again (however, as you're simply a recording, you have no knowledge that it's a "playback").
The decisions you made were as free as you consider them to be right now.
You have as much control over your actions as you consider to have right now.
During this playback, the God could fast-forward and see your "future" - relative to your "current experience" in the playback.
God would be able to see your future while you still have as much free will in your decisions and control over your actions as you have right now.
This describes a universe as you think of it... taking "a kajillion" years to "create the universe and all of time" and then a God plays it back.
I'm just changing the time-line. I'm saying maybe the universe and all of time was created "all at once, whenever it was created" and we're simply going through a playback of it right now... experiencing all the decisions we freely made and experiencing all the control we had over our actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:12 AM Stile has replied
 Message 461 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 2:13 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 459 of 1444 (784445)
05-18-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Stile
05-18-2016 10:27 AM


Re: Definition of free will
You seemed to suggest that during the playback (when you're experiencing it) you should be able to "make another decision" that what you did at the beginning of the universe.
Not necessarily. I would say that if the decision isn't driven by the experience, then its not really free will. And if you putting the experience after the decision, then that doesn't really work for the concept. You can get around that by including the experience at the time of the decision, and then have another experience that doesn't "remember" the first one, or something... although, that's getting into a second time around again and I'm not sure if you're still going with that or not.
Anyways, if I made the decision at some time before I get around to having the experience (or I just don't remember it), then that's not really me (the guys sitting here having the experience) that is making the decision. It is only "me", because you have decided to define it that way.
That's what I mean by brutalizing what it means to be a person who has free will.
That usually means that the guy having the experience gets to make the decision.
Of course you'll say that it is me who made the decision, by definition, but that's not really me in any meaningful sense of the word. Especially in the context of whether or not I have free will.
It's like free will by proxy, or something. That's something different.
If you record yourself and play it back, you don't get to remake decisions you made during the recording... the playback isn't a "2nd you" running through the scenario again who can decide this or that differently.
But its not the exact same me, either. I don't have any experience with making all my decisions at creation. For me, I'm making the decisions here in the present as I experience them.
If that is not what really happened, then that really doesn't have any effect on me right here that we usually mean by "me".
There's only one time where the decisions happen... during the recording... during the creation of the universe.
The present moment playback "experience of the present" can be looked at as the ultimate playback of the recording.
You get sight, smell, taste, feelings... you go through the entire experience of the moment.
But... it's still a playback, not some sort of feedback loop.
I get it.
The decisions you made were as free as you consider them to be right now.
You have as much control over your actions as you consider to have right now.
Only because you decided to define it that way. Really though, it's not the same thing.
My experience is not one where I actually have free will, I can only go down the path that I have already chosen ahead of time.
Even though it is technically me that made the decision, during the playback I have no way of changing anything. I'm just a rock rolling down a hill. That's not really free will. I should be able to choose my path while I'm experiencing rolling down the hill.
I'm just changing the time-line. I'm saying maybe the universe and all of time was created "all at once, whenever it was created" and we're simply going through a playback of it right now... experiencing all the decisions we freely made and experiencing all the control we had over our actions.
I'm still not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't sound like regular free will to me. That's not really a problem, if we need to modify free will to make it compatible with foreknowledge. But then, we'd both be right

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 460 of 1444 (784456)
05-18-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 11:12 AM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
Anyways, if I made the decision at some time before I get around to having the experience (or I just don't remember it), then that's not really me (the guys sitting here having the experience) that is making the decision. It is only "me", because you have decided to define it that way.
Exactly.
And it is only "not really you" because you have decided to define it that way.
Granted, the way "you have chosen to define it" is the generally accepted perception of it.
But that's what I've been openly brutalizing this whole time... the "generally accepted perception"... which doesn't really mean much.
That's what I mean by brutalizing what it means to be a person who has free will.
That usually means that the guy having the experience gets to make the decision.
But... the guy who has the experience is the one who makes the decision.
You simply seem to be uncomfortable with the "time-delay" between the making of the decision and the playback of it.
But, if the playback has no input, no output, no feedback, no consciousness-of-it's-own... I don't understand how you think any of the "meat-and-potatoes" of the decision-making/free-will/control-over-your-actions part is affected.
Of course you'll say that it is me who made the decision, by definition, but that's not really me in any meaningful sense of the word. Especially in the context of whether or not I have free will.
Can you give the "meaningful sense of the word" so we could discuss it?
From what I can tell, the "meaningful sense of the word" is the free-will-decision/control-over-your-actions/no-external-influence kind of thing. That is all perfectly preserved.
It's like free will by proxy, or something. That's something different.
No, it's simply a change in perception for how time works within our universe.
Would you say that your free will today is removed because a God "a kajillion years" from now, after the universe is ended watches a replay of the decisions you're making today?
If your answer is "no." Then you're beginning to understand what I'm talking about.
In order to keep your issues with my concept consistent... you'll have to answer "yes" and explain how your free will is removed in that sort of scenario.
Even though it is technically me that made the decision, during the playback I have no way of changing anything. I'm just a rock rolling down a hill. That's not really free will. I should be able to choose my path while I'm experiencing rolling down the hill.
And you did. At the creation of the universe.
You're simply playing it through again now.
Maybe you'll play it though again and again and again.
If you watch a recording of yourself over and over, the recorded-you doesn't suddenly get deja-vu and start talking to the camera about how many times he has to go through this. Recorded-you simply has no knowledge of being played over and over again. To recorded-you, it's the exact same experience as the first time. Same sights, same sounds, same thoughts, same decisions. Decisions that were freely made and recorded-you had total control over when they were recorded.
I'm still not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't sound like regular free will to me.
To make your objection clearer, can you identify where along the line your free will is changed or altered if we consider a God reviewing this universe of yours after it's ended?
Is your free-will (soul?) captured every time someone takes your picture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18427
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 461 of 1444 (784998)
05-27-2016 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Stile
05-18-2016 10:27 AM


Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Stile writes:
You (Cat Sci) seemed to suggest that during the playback (when you're experiencing it) you should be able to "make another decision" that what you did at the beginning of the universe.
This is where it's all "one thing."
If you record yourself and play it back, you don't get to remake decisions you made during the recording... the playback isn't a "2nd you" running through the scenario again who can decide this or that differently.
There's only one time where the decisions happen... during the recording... during the creation of the universe.
The present moment playback "experience of the present" can be looked at as the ultimate playback of the recording.
You get sight, smell, taste, feelings... you go through the entire experience of the moment.
But... it's still a playback, not some sort of feedback loop.
All of time was created at the beginning of the universe, the 'present time' is simply how we (for whatever reason) experience the universe.
I can conceive of this argument and analogy to a degree, and coming from you Stile it is respectable. Allow me to introduce my analogy based on my understanding of the Christian God (at least my version )
1) Picture a Creator of all seen and unseen. This Creator is alive and aware in the past, present, and future. For the purpose of my analogy, lets allow this Creator to become human. (Jesus, of course.)
This Creator is walking beside you right now...in the present moment. He now shows you your past....all of it. He first shows you that you were known by Him even before you were born. Next, He shows that the free willed decisions of your parents led to your birth and how many decisions were made for you when you were very young. He then shows you after the age of accountability and personal responsibility...when you made most of the decisions in your life. Some were made for you by others, of course....but you freely reacted to these events and thus assured that you were actively reacting to the process. Most of the time you initiated your decisions...and the rest of the time you reacted to circumstances beyond your ultimate control.(such as a car wreck, for example)
2) God then asks you whether you could or would have chose any of your past decisions differently. At that present moment...as you conversed with Him, you admitted that you made quite a few wrong decisions and if you had the opportunity you would have chosen differently. Reality dictates, however, that we cannot change our past except through course corrections in the present which may lead to a different future than the trajectory that we were on.
3) You cannot argue that you were unable to do otherwise...except in matters of necessary reaction to circumstances. Next you pause....as the One whom understands past, present and future also lovingly pauses next to you. The Past is History and the Future is in fact a mystery...at least as far as you are concerned at that very moment in time. Nevertheless, just as it has been shown that you chose your past,it can be extrapolated that you will also choose your future.
I have shown this Revelations analogy a few times before regarding time and reality.
In this analogy, I show the possible reality of Jesus Christ as past (was) present (Is) and will be (future). In my belief, this analogy is unchangeable and written in stone. It is determined. No ones free will could ever erase this person....except perhaps through mental denial.
The Beast, on the other hand, represents a reality unknown by Jesus.(Depart from me I never knew you)
The Beast Once Was, Now Is Not,(unknown) and yet Is for those whose names are not written in the book of life. Thus there is no hope for these people(or concepts or ideas or whatever) At least currently.They once existed...now no longer exist, and yet may exist...as a judgement, perhaps...of the concept of a reality unknown by the Creator of all seen and unseen. In this context, freewill is impossible except for these eternally dead ideas,decisions, and/or walking zombies. They freely decide their future in the present moment....even when they are unknown by the One Who walks with us....(in my analogy at least.) Does this make sense?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Stile, posted 05-18-2016 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2016 2:46 AM Phat has replied
 Message 469 by Stile, posted 05-30-2016 1:47 PM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9536
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 462 of 1444 (784999)
05-27-2016 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Phat
05-27-2016 2:13 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Phat writes:
Does this make sense?
No. It's a mixture of religious fantasy and gibberish.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 2:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 2:57 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18427
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 463 of 1444 (785000)
05-27-2016 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Tangle
05-27-2016 2:46 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Tangle writes:
It's a mixture of religious fantasy and gibberish.
yet arguably you would consider anything religious to in fact be fantasy...thus you can be said to be biased. As for the gibberish...you may have a point.
Tangle writes:
It seems to me that there's a big difference between knowledge of the future and whether the future has been determined.
Depends on who is doing the determining.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2016 2:46 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2016 3:10 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 465 by ringo, posted 05-27-2016 12:52 PM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9536
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 464 of 1444 (785002)
05-27-2016 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Phat
05-27-2016 2:57 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Phat writes:
yet arguably you would consider anything religious to in fact be fantasy...thus you can be said to be biased.
I am definitely biased - I have a position based on rationality and evidence. But that means I'm capable of changing my mind with a change in evidence. If you could bring something to the debate that isn't pure fantasy, poor philosophy and religious dreaming it might make a bit more sense to me.
Depends on who is doing the determining.
It can't matter at all to the concept.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 2:57 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 465 of 1444 (785045)
05-27-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Phat
05-27-2016 2:57 AM


Re: Free Will and determinism from my Christian perspective
Phat writes:
Depends on who is doing the determining.
The question isn't whether or not there "could be" some voodoo entity doing the determining. The question is whether or not YOU can determine anything worthwhile about that voodoo entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 2:57 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Phat, posted 05-27-2016 4:05 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024