Free will and omniscience

[tsig]

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



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.

An OB doesn't need a source of knowledge.

 

[Tricky]

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

That is a lie. You agreed that your definition of omniscience requires an atemporal being.

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.

So you've already redefined omniscience, you've thrown it into a magical realm, and now you want to redefine logic too?

You know, it's a good thing that the summer solstice is coming, because that hole you're digging yourself into is so deep that it's probably the only day when you get to see the sun.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Zero is not a plural number.
Actually, both of those are FROM THE SAME POST. How confused can you get ?
Of course knowledge is different from omniscience, since they are not synonyms. What are you getting at ?
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.
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.
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.

I can tell you want to derail the thread to get away from relevant debate.

I'll clarify again.

A chooser and a choice are not atemporal things, they only exist in their time.
We do not know nor need to know if the OB itself is atemporal.

It is possible to use English to discuss these issues without having to say "at any time" to qualify every verb that is used.
It is possible to discuss omniscience by pretending that it is only speculation or a thought experiment where some of the laws of physics do not necessarily apply.

A choice can be known out of its time by an OB. The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise.
The OB's knowledge is atemporal, not chronological, The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise.
The time of the source of knowledge is not related to the OB's time. The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise.
The source of knowledge of the OB can be from an action. The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise.
The knowledge of a choice can be the source of the OB's knowledge of the choice.
Whatever choice is made (at any time) then that is the knowledge that the OB has of it (at any time).

From these statements it is reasonably concluded that omniscience places no constraint on free will, and to restate it, "Free will and omniscience are not incompatible."
Which statement do you have a logical rebuttal to?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

If an object exists that is blue, the universe has at least one blue object. If a universe has blue objects, the universe is blue.

Now that's logic.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

OBs that do not know something are not OBs.

Unless you can explain what it is that I am showing the OB doesn't know, well then you are disqualified from intelligent conversation.

 

[GeeMack]

There is no temporal aspect to the chooser or the action of the choice, other than that they exist only in their own time.

So there is no temporal aspect to the chooser or the action of the choice, other than that they exist only in their own time are temporal.

There is a temporal aspect to the knowledge of the choice, [...]

So there is a temporal aspect to the knowledge of the choice, the atemporal knowledge... possessed by the atemporal being.

[...] which is that an OB can know things irrespective of their time of existence.

Yes. Before the chooser even exists to make the choice.

You are trying to redefine terms to mean exactly the opposite of what pretty much all other English speaking people mean when they use them. Your argument has devolved from dishonest, disjointed, self-contradictory, and illogical to just plain stupid.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

An OB doesn't need a source of knowledge.

When you ignore the sentence immediately following the one you are referring to in order to make a point then you are not a source of knowledge.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That is a lie. You agreed that your definition of omniscience requires an atemporal being.

Show me where I lied.

So you've already redefined omniscience, you've thrown it into a magical realm, and now you want to redefine logic too?

Good rebuttal. You masterfully presented a sound argument to demonstrate that the premises (antecedents) are faulty and the conclusion (consequent) is invalid.
Way to go!

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So there is no temporal aspect to the chooser or the action of the choice, other than that they exist only in their own time are temporal.

Yes.

So there is a temporal aspect to the knowledge of the choice, the atemporal knowledge... possessed by the atemporal being.

Yes.

Yes. Before the chooser even exists to make the choice.

Yes.

You are trying to redefine terms to mean exactly the opposite of what pretty much all other English speaking people mean when they use them.

No. Do you have any examples of this?

Your argument has devolved from dishonest, disjointed, self-contradictory, and illogical to just plain stupid.

Your argument has devolved into a search for synonyms.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

No, I'm not using physical causation, just causation, and that's coming from you, not from me. Causation implies causality, and causality implies a temporal sequence. So your argument boils down to a statement that free will and omniscience are compatible so long as causality is both valid (for the choice to be the cause of the knowledge) and invalid (for the knowledge to be able to precede its cause).

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

If it were no more than a matter of convenience, you'd be able to express your argument without it. Tense is a property of verbs, and verbs express causality. As soon as you use a verb you're invoking causality, and your whole argument rests on causality being irrelevant.

Dave

 

[GeeMack]

The source of knowledge of the OB can be from an action.

The omniscient being knows the outcome of the action before it occurs. If it requires the action to occur before the omniscient being knows the result, the omniscient being isn't omniscient. That is, unless you're going to dishonestly redefine the actor to be atemporal, too. And although I've suggested you might want to go that route in order to save your otherwise failed argument, you seem reluctant to take it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, I'm not using physical causation, just causation, and that's coming from you, not from me. Causation implies causality, and causality implies a temporal sequence. So your argument boils down to a statement that free will and omniscience are compatible so long as causality is both valid (for the choice to be the cause of the knowledge) and invalid (for the knowledge to be able to precede its cause).

You would have to present analysis that causality, other than physical causality, implies a temporal sequence.
You are invoking causality and/or temporality as characteristics of omniscience. Both would be restrictive extensions of the definition of omniscience. Not allowed.
This is qualitatively different from the absence of restrictive extensions that I have noted under the definition of omniscience.

If it were no more than a matter of convenience, you'd be able to express your argument without it. Tense is a property of verbs, and verbs express causality. As soon as you use a verb you're invoking causality, and your whole argument rests on causality being irrelevant.Dave

As I have pointed out numerous times, I could add "at any time" to every use of a verb, but that would not be convenient nor necessary, if you are paying attention.
If you are saying that my argument is invalid because there are not the proper words to state it, then you'll just have to find an interpreter.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The omniscient being knows the outcome of the action before it occurs.

Agreed.

If it requires the action to occur before the omniscient being knows the result, the omniscient being isn't omniscient.

It doesn't require it.

That is, unless you're going to dishonestly redefine the actor to be atemporal, too.

I'm not going to.

There is no refutation to my argument here, whatsoever.

And although I've suggested you might want to go that route in order to save your otherwise failed argument, you seem reluctant to take it.

As demonstrated, my argument does not need to go that route.

 

[Belz...]

I can tell you want to derail the thread to get away from relevant debate.

Then your ability to discern my intentions is as bad as your logic, your memory or your understanding of reality...

.. or was that a clever dodge, after I demolished your accusations ?

A chooser and a choice are not atemporal things, they only exist in their time.
We do not know nor need to know if the OB itself is atemporal.

How is this relevant ?

A choice can be known out of its time by an OB.

Obviously, otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient.

The OB's knowledge is atemporal, not chronological, The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise.

As we already said before, that's fine for a thought experiment, but it violates all known laws of causality. And under that speculation, nothing makes sense, so it's hard to take it seriously.

From these statements it is reasonably concluded that omniscience places no constraint on free will, and to restate it, "Free will and omniscience are not incompatible."

Only in a world where nothing makes any sense. In any world where it does, they are incompatible. The mere fact that you have to make up a context in which all bets are off in order for free will and omniscience to coexist shows how desperate you are.

 

[GeeMack]

There is no refutation to my argument here, whatsoever

You don't really have an argument. You have an assertion which is based on dishonesty. At various times it requires you to redefine the atemporal omniscient being as time constrained and/or not all-knowing, and at other times you're redefining the time constrained actor as being atemporal. When someone points out your redefinition of the omniscient being, you jump over to redefining the chooser. When someone points out that dishonest ploy, you jump back to redefining the omniscient being. It seems to require lying to support your position. That's not an argument; it's a lie. Hell, for the past several pages pretty much all you've done is repeat the same dishonest nonsense, and of course try to blame other people for your failure. But it's yours. All of it. You own it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Then your ability to discern my intentions is as bad as your logic, your memory or your understanding of reality...
.. or was that a clever dodge, after I demolished your accusations ?
How is this relevant ?
Obviously, otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient.
As we already said before, that's fine for a thought experiment, but it violates all known laws of causality. And under that speculation, nothing makes sense, so it's hard to take it seriously.

"that's fine for a thought experiment"
"under that speculation, nothing makes sense"
"it's hard to take it seriously"

So, you are still thinking that this is a discussion about real omniscience.

How sad.

Only in a world where nothing makes any sense. In any world where it does, they are incompatible. The mere fact that you have to make up a context in which all bets are off in order for free will and omniscience to coexist shows how desperate you are.

"Only in a world where nothing makes any sense"
"In any world where it does"
"you have to make up a context"

How very, very sad.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You don't really have an argument. You have an assertion which is based on dishonesty. At various times it requires you to redefine the atemporal omniscient being as time constrained and/or not all-knowing, and at other times you're redefining the time constrained actor as being atemporal. When someone points out your redefinition of the omniscient being, you jump over to redefining the chooser. When someone points out that dishonest ploy, you jump back to redefining the omniscient being. It seems to require lying to support your position. That's not an argument; it's a lie. Hell, for the past several pages pretty much all you've done is repeat the same dishonest nonsense, and of course try to blame other people for your failure. But it's yours. All of it. You own it.

What I note most tellingly is that you make a lot of attacks about my statements but none of them directed at any specific statements. This is the fallacy of a non-specific attack. It means you have no valid rebuttal.
Check any of the claims above.

And whenever I laid the argument out in detail then you argued about some tangential issue to avoid the heart of the debate.
A few examples:
1) I am using the wrong verb tense.
You ignored the resolution to this many times.
2) I am changing definitions.
I specifically asked for examples of how I have changed definitions: no response.
3) My OB doesn't know chronological knowledge.
This was just a ridiculous idea.
4) I need to change my argument.
You needed something easier.

 

[Belz...]

"that's fine for a thought experiment"
"under that speculation, nothing makes sense"
"it's hard to take it seriously"

So, you are still thinking that this is a discussion about real omniscience.

Omniscience is a logical impossibility, so no. You think only real things can be taken seriously ? How about addressing what I said ?

"Only in a world where nothing makes any sense"
"In any world where it does"
"you have to make up a context"

How very, very sad.

What's sad is that you have nothing to add to the discussion and no argument, so now instead of trying to change the subject or misrepresent my posts, you just insult me.

Come back when you've matured a bit.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Omniscience is a logical impossibility, so no. You think only real things can be taken seriously ? How about addressing what I said ?

From my earlier post:
"The OB's knowledge is atemporal, not chronological, The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise."

Your earlier response (what you said):
"that's fine for a thought experiment, but it violates all known laws of causality. And under that speculation, nothing makes sense, so it's hard to take it seriously.

Me addressing what you said:
1) Now you say omniscience is a logical impossibility. Well, decide on an argument, is it a logical impossibility or is it impossible within the laws of causality (which you made reference to but never specified).

2) You say that omniscience violates all known laws of causality so it's hard to take it seriously and then you imply that a thing doesn't need to be real to be taken seriously.
You seem to seriously waffle.

For your convenience:

A choice can be known out of its time by an OB. *
The OB's knowledge is not necessarily chronological, *
The time-frame of an action is independent of the OB's time-frame. *
Whatever the specifics of an action are (at any time), those specific items of knowledge constitute the knowledge that the OB has (at any time) of the action. *
An action can be the source of the OB's non-chronological knowledge. *
A choice type of action can be the source of the OB's knowledge of the choice. *

(* The definition of omniscience (all-knowing) does not preclude this description.)

From these statements it is reasonable to conclude that omniscience places no constraint on free will, and to restate it, "Free will and omniscience are not incompatible."

Do you have an argument other than "omniscience is not really possible"?

 

[GeeMack]

For your convenience:

A choice can be known out of its time by an OB. *
The OB's knowledge is not necessarily chronological, *
The time-frame of an action is independent of the OB's time-frame. *
Whatever the specifics of an action are (at any time), those specific items of knowledge constitute the knowledge that the OB has (at any time) of the action. *
An action can be the source of the OB's non-chronological knowledge. *
A choice type of action can be the source of the OB's knowledge of the choice. *

(* The definition of omniscience (all-knowing) does not preclude this description.)

From these statements it is reasonable to conclude that omniscience places no constraint on free will, and to restate it, "Free will and omniscience are not incompatible."

Which doesn't work unless you define the chooser, the being applying the alleged free will, as atemporal, too. Of course you already knew that, your feigned steadfast willful ignorance notwithstanding.

ETA: Okay, maybe it's not feigned.