Free will and omniscience

[tsig]

Omniscience means knowing everything, without other limitations, so that the universal understanding of that definition is that the all-knowing occurs whenever the omniscient being exists, not just at one moment in time, and not in any chronological order.

If the OB doesn't know the chronological order then that's something it doesn't know so it's not omniscient.

Nowhere was it even implied that the OB does not know the chronology of knowledge.

Then what does your quote mean?

 

[tsig]

The knowledge of the choice occurs before the choice is made, at least until you pull the dishonest ploy of changing the chooser into an atemporal being, too.




All your whining about about people not agreeing with you or not understanding what you're trying to say isn't helping you advance your point. But changing the chooser into an atemporal being might. I've suggested it several times now. So far you've failed to present a cogent argument to anyone but yourself. Consider how modifying the criteria might change that.

He's already agreed that you need magic to make both free will and omniscience work so there's not much room left for rational discussion.

 

[edge]

Actually that's not what you asked, but your dishonest misinterpretation of my response is noted.

Actually it is and I like my first response better.

 

[Belz...]

When you make a post, then 100% deny that you made it, knowing that I and everyone else can read it, well, then you have no point.

If it's so easy to find it and read it, link to it. Oh wait. You've already made that claim and I showed you wrong here.

I also notice you're continuing to dodge everything by trying to shift the focus to other things. Interesting.

Either support your statements or stop making them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe you can offer a reasonable analysis to refute this:

On Wednesday the 6th I choose to drink a root beer.
On Monday the 4th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.
On Friday the 8th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.

This example shows a choice and knowledge of that choice in a non-chronological order.

What rubbish. It's clearly possible to rearrange it into chronological order, and when that's done it becomes clear that, on Monday the 4th, it is known that your choice on Wednesday the 6th will be a root beer. Therefore, when Wednesday the 6th comes round, your choice is predetermined, whatever illusion of free will you may choose to have. Changing the verb tenses, which is all you're doing here, doesn't change the ordering of events, and neither does your appeal to the oxymoron "atemporal causality".

Dave

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Then what does your quote mean?

Let me simplify an incredibly simple idea for you.
At 2:00 pm I stand up.
At 3:00 pm I sit down.
At 1:00 pm the OB knows what I do at 2:00 pm and at 3:00 pm and knows what order I sit and stand.
At 4:00 pm also the OB knows what I do at 2:00 pm and at 3:00 pm and knows what order I sit and stand.
As a matter of fact, the OB knows at all times what I do and in what order I do it.
As you can clearly see, even though the OB knows when these things occurred, the OB knows the facts of these things in non-chronological order because the OB knows them simultaneously.
This is by the definition of all-knowing, which places no constraints on when things are known or in what order the things are known or how the knowledge of things came to exist.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The knowledge of the choice occurs before the choice is made, at least until you pull the dishonest ploy of changing the chooser into an atemporal being, too.

Completely unnecessary to the argument I have completely described.

All your whining about about people not agreeing with you or not understanding what you're trying to say isn't helping you advance your point. But changing the chooser into an atemporal being might. I've suggested it several times now.

I understand why you would want me to change my argument into one that you can refute.

So far you've failed to present a cogent argument to anyone but yourself. Consider how modifying the criteria might change that.

Instead, refute the argument that I have presented many times and that you have skirted around so desperately.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If it's so easy to find it and read it, link to it. Oh wait. You've already made that claim and I showed you wrong here

I refuted that multiple times already. What's the point in rehashing your failures.

I also notice you're continuing to dodge everything by trying to shift the focus to other things. Interesting.
Either support your statements or stop making them.

Here are two of your posts:

1) You claim knowledge is different from omniscience:
"Your choice is not negated by that knowledge, free will is negated by omniscience"

2) You start a new argument when you distinguish knowing from the capability of knowing:
"the mere fact that someone can know what you will do means you cannot do anything else"

I called you on those and then you denied it here:
"I did no such thing, so the admission is only in your mind."

Statement supported.
QED

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What rubbish. It's clearly possible to rearrange it into chronological order, and when that's done it becomes clear that, on Monday the 4th, it is known that your choice on Wednesday the 6th will be a root beer. Therefore, when Wednesday the 6th comes round, your choice is predetermined, whatever illusion of free will you may choose to have. Changing the verb tenses, which is all you're doing here, doesn't change the ordering of events, and neither does your appeal to the oxymoron "atemporal causality".
Dave

Okay, so you skipped reading the thread until you found this post and figured you'ld give an analysis that has been refuted multiple times.

The tense issue has been addressed multiple times.
There is no appeal to atemporal causality. This is about omniscience, not physical causality.

The entries are out of order to demonstrate that an OB doe not know things in chronological order. That's a given.
The choice is not predetermined if it is the choice that informs the OB's knowledge.That's the exception to the analysis. No one has addressed this exception except to restate the original claim of knowledge constraining choice, which is to say that the exception has been ignored because no one has been able to develop analysis that rebuts it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Stating things out of order and pretending they are in no order doesn't change their order.

Dave

 

[GeeMack]

I understand why you would want me to change my argument into one that you can refute.

I am suggesting you change the criteria so that the chooser is also atemporal, not because I can refute that, but because I can't. I am offering you a way to turn your abysmal failure into a success. And as always, your willful ignorance and your dishonest attempt to modify my position are noted.

Instead, refute the argument that I have presented many times and that you have skirted around so desperately.

The argument you have presented neglects the temporal aspect of the chooser.

The entries are out of order to demonstrate that an OB doe not know things in chronological order. That's a given.

[Bolding mine.]

Nonsense. The omniscient being knows everything. And it knows everything about everything. Persistently arguing that there must be something it doesn't know in order to support your position is just plain silly.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Stating things out of order and pretending they are in no order doesn't change their order.

Dave

No, it doesn't and ignoring a logical explanation doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The choice is not predetermined if it is the choice that informs the OB's knowledge.That's the exception to the analysis. No one has addressed this exception except to restate the original claim of knowledge constraining choice, which is to say that the exception has been ignored because no one has been able to develop analysis that rebuts it.

If the choice "informs" the OB's knowledge, this implies a causal chain of events, which implies a temporal order: the choice is made, the OB is informed, then the OB knows of the choice. If the choice is known at a time before it happens, then this description is incorrect. Either the OB knows, or does not know, on the 4th, whether you will drink a root beer on the 6th, and if the OB knows that you will, then you cannot not drink a root beer on the 6th. Placing the OB outside causality doesn't change this, because you remain within causality.

Basically, you're invoking a form of time travel as soon as you use a verb.

Dave

 

[Tricky]

No, it doesn't and ignoring a logical explanation doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

Logic is meaningless in an atemporal universe, as you have quite clearly shown.

Premises lead to conclusions. Without that order, there is no such thing as "logic".
If A and B then C.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I am suggesting you change the criteria so that the chooser is also atemporal, not because I can refute that, but because I can't. I am offering you a way to turn your abysmal failure into a success. And as always, your willful ignorance and your dishonest attempt to modify my position are noted.

The argument you have presented neglects the temporal aspect of the chooser.

You are confusing three different distinct things: the chooser, the choice, and the knowledge of the choice.
There is no temporal aspect to the chooser or the action of the choice, other than that they exist only in their own time.
There is a temporal aspect to the knowledge of the choice, which is that an OB can know things irrespective of their time of existence.

Nonsense. The omniscient being knows everything. And it knows everything about everything. Persistently arguing that there must be something it doesn't know in order to support your position is just plain silly.

What a glaring lack of comprehension of language and logic
Knowing things out of their chronological order in no way implies that there is something not known.

 

[Belz...]

I refuted that multiple times already. What's the point in rehashing your failures.

Zero is not a plural number.

Here are two of your posts:

Actually, both of those are FROM THE SAME POST. How confused can you get ?

1) You claim knowledge is different from omniscience:

Of course knowledge is different from omniscience, since they are not synonyms. What are you getting at ?

"Your choice is not negated by that knowledge, free will is negated by omniscience"

So ? Knowledge does not negate choice. Omniscience negates free will because it KNOWS EVERYTHING. Free will implies that you could make another choice, which you can't, and that's the topic of the thread. You still choose even if you only have only one option, which is why you were wrong about that.

2) You start a new argument when you distinguish knowing from the capability of knowing:
"the mere fact that someone can know what you will do means you cannot do anything else"

I didn't start another argument. I explained the source of your confusion: Even in principle, if I can know for sure what you will do, you cannot choose to do anything else. By definition, otherwise you wouldn't KNOW FOR SURE.

I called you on those and then you denied it here:
"I did no such thing, so the admission is only in your mind."

No. You said I changed my argument. I did no such thing: I corrected you about one thing and then qualified my answer. Boy, you have trouble following posts.

By the way, when you quote someone, it's a good idea to actually include the link to the post, so others don't have to search through the thread to find out if you're misquoting or not.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the choice "informs" the OB's knowledge, this implies a causal chain of events, which implies a temporal order: the choice is made, the OB is informed, then the OB knows of the choice. If the choice is known at a time before it happens, then this description is incorrect. Either the OB knows, or does not know, on the 4th, whether you will drink a root beer on the 6th, and if the OB knows that you will, then you cannot not drink a root beer on the 6th. Placing the OB outside causality doesn't change this, because you remain within causality.

You are using a physical causation of the OB's knowledge to make your point. That invalidates your argument.
The definition we have been using is "all-knowing". There is no constraint or implication that the knowledge comes through physical causation. There is no constraint that the source of the OB's knowledge is not the action of the choice.

Basically, you're invoking a form of time travel as soon as you use a verb.
Dave

And again this has been addressed multiple times that tense is a matter of convenience.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Logic is meaningless in an atemporal universe, as you have quite clearly shown.

No one has argued for an atemporal universe except you, so that is your meaningless logic.

Premises lead to conclusions. Without that order, there is no such thing as "logic".
If A and B then C.

As I have repeatedly argued:
If A) A choice is made. (This is common sense.)
and
B) A choice is the source of knowledge for an OB. (This is not precluded by the definition of omniscience.)
then
C) Omniscience does not constrain choice. (Free will and omniscience are not incompatible.)

This is your logic.
As always, if you want to deny the conclusion, you need to explain why B) is not true.
This has not yet been done.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No one has argued for an atemporal universe except you, so that is your meaningless logic.

If an omniscient being exists with atemporality, the universe has at least one atemporal element. If a universe has atemporal elements, the universe is atemporal.

That's logic.

 

[tsig]

Okay, so you skipped reading the thread until you found this post and figured you'ld give an analysis that has been refuted multiple times.

The tense issue has been addressed multiple times.
There is no appeal to atemporal causality. This is about omniscience, not physical causality.

The entries are out of order to demonstrate that an OB doe not know things in chronological order. That's a given.
The choice is not predetermined if it is the choice that informs the OB's knowledge.That's the exception to the analysis. No one has addressed this exception except to restate the original claim of knowledge constraining choice, which is to say that the exception has been ignored because no one has been able to develop analysis that rebuts it.

OBs that do not know something are not OBs.