Free will and omniscience

Navigator said:
Ah 'common meaning' yes.
Another possible oxymoron.
Click to expand...
If you break them down into their components, the phrases "free will" and "common meaning" don't seem to be combining contradictory terms, like "jumbo shrimp".

Navigator said:
If you take away the concept of 'an omniscient being' and replace it with the reality on Earth as it is in the moment...then what is the concept free will in relation to Life on Earth?
Click to expand...
It may represent how Life has evolved to direct its own progress.

Navigator said:
I guess I am just asking because the thread topic seems like a pointless distraction which is of questionable value.
Click to expand...
The very process of analyzing complex ideas has unquestionable value.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
A completely satisfactory explanation of how free will may work has never been put forth, so most assume that none exists. It's not a very scientific approach.
Click to expand...

You don't know what free will is yet you are arguing in a thread called free will and omniscience?

:eye-poppi
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
A completely satisfactory explanation of how free will may work has never been put forth, so most assume that none exists. It's not a very scientific approach.
Click to expand...
tsig said:
You don't know what free will is yet you are arguing in a thread called free will and omniscience?
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia: Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

Note that my comment referred to the lack of a mechanism for free will, and that a common definition of free will does not refer to a mechanism.
Free will and the mechanism of free will are two ideas that can be addressed separately.
I do not need to know the mechanism of free will in order to productively discuss free will.

So your comment that implied that I have to know the mechanism of free will in order to engage in debate about free will is a non sequitur.
The non sequitur is that you drew a conclusion not based on the information at hand.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson 75 said:
If you break them down into their components, the phrases "free will" and "common meaning" don't seem to be combining contradictory terms, like "jumbo shrimp".
Click to expand...

Okay.

Free.

Costing nothing - requiring no money to be paid
and: not kept prisoner: not, or no longer, physically bound or restrained
and: not restricted in rights: not subject to censorship or control by a ruler, government, or other authority
and: self-ruling: not ruled by a foreign country or power
and: not regulated: not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing
and: not being used: not being used, reserved, or taken by somebody else
and: not affected+
by particular thing: not subject to or affected by a particular thing, especially something undesirable
and: not containing something: not containing a particular thing (often used in combination) as in 'a salt-free diet'
and: disregarding traditional limitations: performed or written without being subjected to traditional conventions or restraints
and: not blocked: not blocked or obstructed by anything
and: not physically restricted: not restricted by something such as tight clothing, stiffness, or lack of space
and: giving something readily: giving or expending something generously or readily as in free with one's advice'
and: not exact: not following the original version of something word for word or very precisely as in 'a free translation'
and: open and honest: spontaneous, open, and without awkwardness or reserve in speaking to or dealing with other people

adv
without cost: without paying any money as in 'they let you in free if you show your student card.'
out of restricted position: out of a position in which somebody or something is tied, fixed, restricted, or restrained as in 'managed to wriggle free from his grasp'

Will.

Part of mind that makes decisions: the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things
power to decide: the power to make decisions
 
Last edited:
Me: If you take away the concept of 'an omniscient being' and replace it with the reality on Earth as it is in the moment...then what is the concept free will in relation to Life on Earth?

Bill Thompson 75
It may represent how Life has evolved to direct its own progress.
Click to expand...

Me: Toward a specific gaol? (as part of the ‘will’ element.) “Life” has a will. However, that with the will is intelligent and called ‘Human’ in terms of ‘top of the food chain.’

Within this system, there are identifiable systems – some in congregate and others in opposition all part of humanity, the thing which has the will to direct its own progress

These systems are made up of individuals, most of who have ‘will’.

If an individual has a vision of how the world could be, but lives in a system which prevents that vision from becoming actual, the individual has some choices.

He or she can work within the system in the hope that things can change, rebel against that system in the despair that it won’t change…but even with the concept of an all knowing being, personal will is in reality limited by many overriding protocols which are not linked to an imaginary god – they are linked to a particular reality (life on Earth) and as such will cannot be free irrespective of any invisible conscious outside determination.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
The very process of analyzing complex ideas has unquestionable value.
Click to expand...

That depends on the protocol of the agency doing the analyzing...and in relation to Life On Earth, may not be 'unquestionably valuable' to the majority of Earths inhabitants.

Therefore, no thing should be unquestionable. All value systems must be questionable.
 
Navigator said:
Me: If you take away the concept of 'an omniscient being' and replace it with the reality on Earth as it is in the moment...then what is the concept free will in relation to Life on Earth?

Me: Toward a specific gaol? (as part of the ‘will’ element.) “Life” has a will. However, that with the will is intelligent and called ‘Human’ in terms of ‘top of the food chain.’

Within this system, there are identifiable systems – some in congregate and others in opposition all part of humanity, the thing which has the will to direct its own progress

These systems are made up of individuals, most of who have ‘will’.

If an individual has a vision of how the world could be, but lives in a system which prevents that vision from becoming actual, the individual has some choices.

He or she can work within the system in the hope that things can change, rebel against that system in the despair that it won’t change…but even with the concept of an all knowing being, personal will is in reality limited by many overriding protocols which are not linked to an imaginary god – they are linked to a particular reality (life on Earth) and as such will cannot be free irrespective of any invisible conscious outside determination.
Click to expand...
Being linked to reality does not in and of itself eliminate choice or free will.
 
Navigator said:
That depends on the protocol of the agency doing the analyzing...and in relation to Life On Earth, may not be 'unquestionably valuable' to the majority of Earths inhabitants.

Therefore, no thing should be unquestionable. All value systems must be questionable.
Click to expand...
Describe intelligence so that the description precludes any ability to analyze?
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
Being linked to reality does not in and of itself eliminate choice or free will.
Click to expand...

Not eliminate. I am sure I never used that word in this context.
Seriously limit – sure - limited to physical possibility for one thing.


Being linked to any particular historical or present working system within the life on Earth reality can and does seriously undermine an individuals or group or mass of individual’s choices.

Free will is another thing – it is linked to choice but as I showed, “Free’ and “Will” in relation to Life on Earth is not yet clearly defined and proved as real.

You haven’t yet replied to that post.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
Describe intelligence so that the description precludes any ability to analyze?
Click to expand...

All intelligence is able to be analyzed – self aware intelligence is even ably to analyze itself, depending on the protocol of agency. It needs to be completely transparent in order for it to be accurately analyzed from the perspective of another self aware intelligent system in order to get accurate honest data and most often can be ‘seen for what it is' by what it does and does not do.
 
Navigator said:
Not eliminate. I am sure I never used that word in this context.
Seriously limit – sure - limited to physical possibility for one thing.

Being linked to any particular historical or present working system within the life on Earth reality can and does seriously undermine an individuals or group or mass of individual’s choices.

Free will is another thing – it is linked to choice but as I showed, “Free’ and “Will” in relation to Life on Earth is not yet clearly defined and proved as real.

You haven’t yet replied to that post.
Click to expand...
If you think they are not clearly defined then I cannot find your conclusions persuasive.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
If you think they are not clearly defined then I cannot find your conclusions persuasive.
Click to expand...

I said: not yet clearly defined and proved as real.

Free.

Costing nothing - requiring no money to be paid
and: not kept prisoner: not, or no longer, physically bound or restrained
and: not restricted in rights: not subject to censorship or control by a ruler, government, or other authority
and: self-ruling: not ruled by a foreign country or power
and: not regulated: not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing
and: not being used: not being used, reserved, or taken by somebody else
and: not affected by particular thing: not subject to or affected by a particular thing, especially something undesirable
and: not containing something: not containing a particular thing (often used in combination) as in 'a salt-free diet'
and: disregarding traditional limitations: performed or written without being subjected to traditional conventions or restraints
and: not blocked: not blocked or obstructed by anything
and: not physically restricted: not restricted by something such as tight clothing, stiffness, or lack of space
and: giving something readily: giving or expending something generously or readily as in free with one's advice'
and: not exact: not following the original version of something word for word or very precisely as in 'a free translation'
and: open and honest: spontaneous, open, and without awkwardness or reserve in speaking to or dealing with other people

adv
without cost: without paying any money as in 'they let you in free if you show your student card.'
out of restricted position: out of a position in which somebody or something is tied, fixed, restricted, or restrained as in 'managed to wriggle free from his grasp'

Will.

Part of mind that makes decisions: the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things
power to decide: the power to make decisions
Click to expand...

If you want I can go through these lists and find the definitions...

...

Q: "What Is Free Will"

Costing nothing - requiring no money to be paid + Part of mind that makes decisions: the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not kept prisoner: not, or no longer, physically bound or restrained + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not restricted in rights: not subject to censorship or control by a ruler, government, or other authority + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not regulated: not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

self-ruling: not ruled by a foreign country or power + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not being used: not being used, reserved, or taken by somebody else + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not affected by particular thing: not subject to or affected by a particular thing, especially something undesirable + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will. = not free will.

(Still looking quite oxymoron)

disregarding traditional limitations: performed or written without being subjected to traditional conventions or restraints + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

maybe you can do the rest or come up with something overlooked?
 
Myriad said:
My argument claims that, because actions that create a logical contradiction are not possible, more than a single choice is not possible at any time prior to the choice. Your counter argument doesn't address that claim, other than to contradict it without any applicable rationale.
Click to expand...

Bill Thompson 75 said:
This is where you are wrong.
Having more than a single choice is possible because that is not an action that creates a logical contradiction,
The existence of possibilities does not constitute an action.
That is very applicable rationale.
Click to expand...


Okay, thanks for clarifying your argument. I've focused on the point of divergence that you've identified.

But by the same reasoning, you must hold that it is possible today that I could draw a square triangle tomorrow, because the possibility itself is not an action that creates a logical contradiction.

In other words, the possibility of the impossible is possible.

I can accept that the existence of the OB would allow the possibility of free will, where that possibility is equivalent in nature to the possibility of drawing a square triangle. To me that's the same as no free will at all, but that's where you might differ.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Belz... said:
You mean, Myriad is the only one YOU are still debating with. The only reason we have stopped debating each other is because you are debating dishonestly.
Click to expand...

Apparently debate means 'agree with me'.
 
Navigator said:
I said: not yet clearly defined and proved as real.

If you want I can go through these lists and find the definitions...

Q: "What Is Free Will"

Costing nothing - requiring no money to be paid + Part of mind that makes decisions: the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not kept prisoner: not, or no longer, physically bound or restrained + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not restricted in rights: not subject to censorship or control by a ruler, government, or other authority + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not regulated: not controlled, restricted, or regulated by any external thing + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

self-ruling: not ruled by a foreign country or power + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not being used: not being used, reserved, or taken by somebody else + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

not affected by particular thing: not subject to or affected by a particular thing, especially something undesirable + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will. = not free will.

(Still looking quite oxymoron)

disregarding traditional limitations: performed or written without being subjected to traditional conventions or restraints + the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things = not free will.

maybe you can do the rest or come up with something overlooked?
Click to expand...
Which meaning of "free" and then which meaning of "will" do you find that are in opposition?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom