Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,646 Year: 4,903/9,624 Month: 251/427 Week: 61/103 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 391 of 1444 (782350)
04-22-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Phat
04-19-2016 4:04 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Hi, Phat.
Phat writes:
So God foreknows my decisions...so what? Its not as if I didn't make them. Just because I know what you are going to say before you say it does not mean that you could not have said anything different...its just that you didn't.
Imagine a simple case: you can choose between A and B. If you have free will, then A and B will each have a non-zero chance of being chosen. The chances may be a 50-50, or they may be a 98-2 chance, but they could only actually be a 100-0 if you were completely incapable of choosing one option.
Those chances represent the maximum possible accuracy of any prediction. So, if the chances of A and B are 50-50, then it would not be possible to predict your choice with more than 50% accuracy. If the chances are 98-2, it would not be possible to predict your choice with more than 98% accuracy.
If there is any chance at all that you might choose B, then no prediction, not even one made by God, can have 100% accuracy. God's omniscience doesn't change the underlying probabilities: it only changes how well He knows the probabilities.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Phat, posted 04-19-2016 4:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Phat, posted 04-22-2016 4:06 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 396 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2016 8:14 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18389
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 392 of 1444 (782388)
04-22-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Blue Jay
04-22-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
except that God and chance are not synonymous. If chance exists, God doesnt.
There is a vast difference, moreover, between chance and probability. Not every event can be calculated according to probability.
If God foreknows, it would make the actual events in life at 100%...and the alternatives at 0%. lest people get hurt that they cant control their destinies. If, however, God takes into account all of our decisions as a part of his overall foreknowledge, we could hypothetically have 100% freewill and God could still foreknow 100% what will occur. The only thing you cant do is decide for yourself the 0% path. If you do, your freewill just got you in a heap of trouble.

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 391 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 11:36 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 5:41 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 393 of 1444 (782392)
04-22-2016 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Phat
04-22-2016 4:06 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Hi Phat.
Phat writes:
except that God and chance are not synonymous. If chance exists, God doesnt
You're using the wrong definition of the word "chance." If you would rather I use the word "probability," I would be happy to do so.
Phat writes:
If, however, God takes into account all of our decisions as a part of his overall foreknowledge, we could hypothetically have 100% freewill and God could still foreknow 100% what will occur. The only thing you cant do is decide for yourself the 0% path. If you do, your freewill just got you in a heap of trouble.
This doesn't even sound internally consistent. If you can't choose a given path, the probability of choosing it is zero, and you have no option but to take the other path. Having no option means you have no free will.
But, if you have free will, then there is no 0% path: every path must have a non-zero probability, or you do not actually have free will. God's uber-intelligence does not change these probabilities: the probabilities are part of reality.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Phat, posted 04-22-2016 4:06 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2016 7:34 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 397 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 12:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 1444 (782397)
04-22-2016 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Blue Jay
04-22-2016 5:41 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
every path must have a non-zero probability
Really? Isn't it enough that there are some paths to choose from? Must every possibility be allowed in order for your will to be free?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 5:41 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 8:49 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 395 of 1444 (782399)
04-22-2016 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by NoNukes
04-22-2016 7:34 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
Really? Isn't it enough that there are some paths to choose from? Must every possibility be allowed in order for your will to be free?
Ah! Indeed, sir! I failed to think outside of my binary-choice example. I'm grateful for the correction.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2016 7:34 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 396 of 1444 (782473)
04-24-2016 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by Blue Jay
04-22-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
If there is any chance at all that you might choose B, then no prediction, not even one made by God, can have 100% accuracy. God's omniscience doesn't change the underlying probabilities: it only changes how well He knows the probabilities.
The principle that prior knowledge of our future actions means no free will is often asserted, but I am not sure it is correct. Perhaps it depends on how God's all knowing power actually works and on how the universe really works. For example, we know that Hitler attempted a poorly thought out coup in 1923 and was thrown in jail. But I think we agree that Hitler cannot be said to not have free will because of our current day knowledge.
But what if we were able to communicate that knowledge backwards in time to a person living in 1919 via some kind of time machine? Would that persons knowledge mean that Hitler lacked free will in 1923 and has suddenly become an automaton? I think not. At least not necessarily. So what if all of God's foreknowledge were a result of having a perfect knowledge of the decisions after they were made or perhaps even while they are being made, and being able to communicate such information to his past.
Or alternatively, what if the multi-universe view of existence were correct, and God knows what happens on each of the infinite timelines that are created every time a decision was made. Couldn't free will still exist on each of those time lines despite God's knowledge of all time lines?
Infinite power and knowledge are hard to model and I am not sure that simple means of reasoning about them (which includes my proposals as well) yield correct answers. Whatever condition it is that we live in seems to 'feel' just like free will. It feels close enough to that condition that we feel able to hold at least sane persons responsible based on the contents of their actions except in special circumstances in which they are compelled to act to hurt others.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 11:36 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 12:33 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 397 of 1444 (782508)
04-25-2016 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Blue Jay
04-22-2016 5:41 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Blue Jay writes:
Phat writes:
If, however, God takes into account all of our decisions as a part of his overall foreknowledge, we could hypothetically have 100% freewill and God could still foreknow 100% what will occur. The only thing you cant do is decide for yourself the 0% path. If you do, your freewill just got you in a heap of trouble.
This doesn't even sound internally consistent. If you can't choose a given path, the probability of choosing it is zero, and you have no option but to take the other path. Having no option means you have no free will.
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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Blue Jay, posted 04-22-2016 5:41 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 12:42 PM Stile has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 398 of 1444 (782509)
04-25-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by NoNukes
04-24-2016 8:14 AM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
But what if we were able to communicate that knowledge backwards in time to a person living in 1919 via some kind of time machine? Would that persons knowledge mean that Hitler lacked free will in 1923 and has suddenly become an automaton? I think not.
I think you're making the same mistake that Phat is. That is, you're trying to establish a direct, mechanistic link between foreknowledge and free will, such that the act of prognosticating causes free will to be destroyed.
That's not the argument. The argument is that free will and prognostication are two phenomena that require the universe to have certain characteristics in order to function; and that the necessary characteristics for each are incompatible. Prognosticating doesn't destroy free will: it only operates as advertised in a universe that couldn't have allowed free will in the first place.
In a nutshell, if there is free will, then there is no "the future," so you can't communicate with the past and claim 100% knowledge of "the future": you can claim 100% knowledge of one possible future, but your future has a less-than-100% chance of being realized from their perspective, so your knowledge of their future still isn't perfect.
NoNukes writes:
Or alternatively, what if the multi-universe view of existence were correct, and God knows what happens on each of the infinite timelines that are created every time a decision was made. Couldn't free will still exist on each of those time lines despite God's knowledge of all time lines?
Yes. This doesn't imply perfect knowledge of the future: it only implies perfect knowledge of the principles governing the future. So, this is more like a "perfect data-modeling ability," rather than a "perfect knowledge."
But, if God's prognostications came from such a scenario, they would take the form of, "If you walk the path of wickedness, there is a 46.3% chance that you will be struck down with syphilis, a 13.8% chance that you will be pistol-whipped by an unsatisfied creditor, and a 23.2% chance of both occurring within one month of each other."
In the Bible, God never gives probabilistic prophesies: He gives definitive ones. So, this scenario is not consistent with the characteristics of the biblical God, either.
NoNukes writes:
Infinite power and knowledge are hard to model and I am not sure that simple means of reasoning about them (which includes my proposals as well) yield correct answers.
That's kind of the point, isn't it? If there is such a thing as infinite power and knowledge, all bets are off: the universe does not operate the way we think it does, and the things we've taken to be physical constants and laws are really just coincidences or divine tricks or something.
So, we give ourselves an ultimatum: Do we trust reason to help us solve questions? Or do we just believe whatever, because reason is clearly bogus?
I advocate holding to the path of reason, but I freely admit that that's just a pragmatic decision.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2016 8:14 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2016 7:58 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 399 of 1444 (782510)
04-25-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Stile
04-25-2016 12:22 PM


Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
Hi Stile.
Stile writes:
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.
Again, it's the same error: the action of telling the future plays no active role in the process. Free will is not "removed" or "lost" when somebody foretells the future: rather, if free will exists, this type of prognostication should not be possible.
Perfect prognostication works only if the future is set in stone.
Free will implies that the future is not set in stone.
The two phenomena are not compatible.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 12:22 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 1:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 420 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2016 11:52 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 400 of 1444 (782512)
04-25-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Blue Jay
04-25-2016 12:42 PM


Definition of free will
Blue Jay writes:
Perfect prognostication works only if the future is set in stone.
Free will implies that the future is not set in stone.
The two phenomena are not compatible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 12:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 2:28 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 401 of 1444 (782516)
04-25-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Stile
04-25-2016 1:14 PM


Re: Definition of free will
I don't understand why having the future be set or not is a condition concerning free will.
Its a question of whether of not the universe is deterministic, and if it is, then you never really did have a choice between red or blue... it was already set in stone.
But that question comes from an incompatibilist view (where determinism and free will cannot coexist), and you are arguing from a compatibilist view (where free will can still exists even if the universe is deterministic).
In the compatibilist view, it doesn't matter if the future is set in stone or not, because the mental act of choosing red or blue still takes place and thus the will is still free. The incompatibilist then argues that there never really was a choice in the first place, rather it was only an illusion, and therefore the will is not free.
Turns out, we really don't know if the universe is deterministic or not, and we really don't know if free will exists or not.
But who am I kidding, its never stopped these philosophical discussions from continuing ad infinitum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 1:14 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 402 of 1444 (782521)
04-25-2016 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2016 2:28 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Cat Sci writes:
and you are arguing from a compatibilist view (where free will can still exists even if the universe is deterministic).
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly.
Because I'm not talking about a deterministic universe.
it doesn't matter if the future is set in stone or not, because the mental act of choosing red or blue still takes place and thus the will is still free.
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.
The incompatibilist then argues that there never really was a choice in the first place, rather it was only an illusion, and therefore the will is not free.
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.
Turns out, we really don't know if the universe is deterministic or not, and we really don't know if free will exists or not.
I agree that this is all just chatting about stuffs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 4:10 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 1444 (782529)
04-25-2016 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Stile
04-25-2016 2:59 PM


Re: Definition of free will
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly.
Because I'm not talking about a deterministic universe.
Maybe you just don't realize the deterministic ramifications of your position
In order for Thomas to truly predict the color, i.e. not just getting lucky with his guess but actually knowing what it will be, then there is no way for you to be able to choose a different color.
Basically, perfect foreknowledge requires determinism.
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.
Yes, that's the compatibilist definition of free will: you aren't restricted from acting according to your motivations.
But the incompatibilist would say that you do have to, otherwise Thomas couldn't see that future - for you may still choose the other color... you haven't decided yet.
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.
Its because if you truly have a choice, and it has not been made yet, then it is impossible for anyone to know what that choice will be before you actually make it.
Thomas didn't know what you'd choose, he just got lucky with his guess... so that's not really seeing the future.
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."
The question is: if the future is set in stone, then are you really making your decision based on your own thoughts/feelings/experiences?
According to the incompatibilists, if the future is actually set in stone, then your thoughts/feelings/experiences are not what making your decision is based on. You're just another rock rolling down a hill following the laws of physics with no actual input of your own.
The compatibilist counter that even though they are set in stone, they are still your thoughts/feelings/experiences that your decision are made on, so your will is still free to make the choice.
Then the incompatibilists say that you are really talking about "soft determinism" and that in real determinism the fact that it is set in stone means that you don't really get to choose.
And round and round we go.
Think about it this way: If Thomas can predict what you would choose, and you haven't yet had the thoughts/feelings/experiences upon which to motivate your action, then how could that action be based on them? They haven't happened yet, and still the choice has been made...
That's what having a choice, as opposed to an illusion of one, means: nobody but you knows what you are going to choose. That's how you know that it is based on your own thoughts/feelings/experiences.
ABE:
I had another thought:
If I have access to your motivations for your actions, then in what sense are they really yours? Wouldn't they at best be ours?
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Stile, posted 04-25-2016 2:59 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Phat, posted 04-25-2016 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 407 by Stile, posted 04-26-2016 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18389
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 404 of 1444 (782532)
04-25-2016 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2016 4:10 PM


Hypothetical Phat Musings
I just wanted to throw a few hypotheticals into this mix.
  • Could it be that God is the ultimate observer and that without His observation, nothing would or could even happen? Is it possible that humans cant or wont understand His determinism? Is it also possible that we either exist---or not---based on a communion between His determinism and our free will?
    Note the following scriptures:
    Rev 1:4-5(NIV) writes:
    --Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
    Note that was, is, and is to come imply past, present and future.
    Rev 17:8 writes:
    The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
    Note that certain people are absent from the Book of life. Also note that once was, now is not, and will come imply a past, a future, and yet no present. Perhaps that is why the names are not found in the book.
    I realize that I am entirely speculating on this stuff, but to me I see God as foreknowing only what people decide. Thus, His determinism is based on our communion or lack thereof. One could argue that people have no choice to do anything other than what is known, but I will argue that we literally become the decisions that we make.

    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 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

      
    NoNukes
    Inactive Member


    Message 405 of 1444 (782544)
    04-25-2016 7:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 398 by Blue Jay
    04-25-2016 12:33 PM


    Re: Puppets or Prodegies?
    I think you're making the same mistake that Phat is. That is, you're trying to establish a direct, mechanistic link between foreknowledge and free will,
    I think I am disputing that one implies the other or not the other. I am not sure whether foreknowledge does or does not mean that free will exists. I am disputing the assumption that we know that answer to that question.
    The argument is that free will and prognostication are two phenomena that require the universe to have certain characteristics in order to function
    I think I understood the argument.
    I am disputing that your position is correct. I think it is possible to construct a universe where both things exist. That was the point of my examples.
    Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
    History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
    If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 12:33 PM Blue Jay has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024