Free will and omniscience

[GeeMack]

Good arguments. Unfortunately, since they are only good at disruption they qualify you as a troll and troll arguments are filed in the bird cage.

As much as you seem to enjoy people indulging your willful ignorance and convoluted excuses for logic, you do realize your position is unsupportable without your liberal application of dishonesty.

 

[Belz...]

You are confused not so much about how debates are supposed to progress, you're confusion is not realizing that debates are supposed to progress.

Word salad.

There's no point in a debate where one debater (you) is not debating honestly.

 

[Belz...]

Good arguments. Unfortunately, since they are only good at disruption they qualify you as a troll and troll arguments are filed in the bird cage.

Uh oh, watch out !



Anybody hurt ?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I made the same response to Bill a few pages back when he first raised the argument that the choice was the source of the knowledge. It didn't seem to register then, so I doubt it will now.
Dave

Note that Myriad's lack of comprehension was due to apparently entering a debate without so much as going back a few pages to get the clarification of the issue.
Note that my rebuttal specific to Myriad's post was unchallenged.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

As much as you seem to enjoy people indulging your willful ignorance and convoluted excuses for logic, you do realize your position is unsupportable without your liberal application of dishonesty.

Troll on.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Word salad.
There's no point in a debate where one debater (you) is not debating honestly.

Salad dressing...gone sour.

 

[Myriad]

Here is clear, concise, and complete logic.

If it is the event of the choice that is the catalyst for the knowledge of the choice to enter the the OB's repository of all knowledge, then the knowledge of the choice does not limit the event of the choice, but rather it is the event that limits the knowledge.

This constitutes a defeating counter to the idea that if knowledge occurs first then the choice is set in stone.

"Knowledge occurs first" is misstatement of my argument (and is also completely undefined in your "clear" logic because your OB screws around with time, e.g. by possessing knowledge prior to the time of obtaining the knowledge, so temporal comparatives such as "first" become meaningless). The actual argument is: if infallible knowledge of the choice exists prior to the choice, then the choice is set in stone.

More precisely: your OB exists, and possesses the infallible knowledge, prior to the choice. Hence the chooser cannot make a contrary choice without causing a logical contradiction. If an action would cause a logical contradiction, that is sufficient to prove the action impossible under the stated premises. The chooser making a choice contrary to the OB's existing knowledge is therefore impossible, and thus free will cannot exist under the premise that the OB exists.

So, the only way to defeat my argument is to clearly show why the choice cannot form the OB's knowledge of the choice.

Nope. How the OB's knowledge is formed is irrelevant and any response to your proposition for how the OB's knowledge is formed would be equally irrelevant. As you yourself stated, any such mechanism is "not within the definition of omniscience."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

"Knowledge occurs first" is misstatement of my argument

Between the two things that have been the center of this debate, the event of the choice and the knowing the choice, the OB having the knowledge occurs first in time, which is to say it occurs before the event of the choice. You had to have that simple English interpreted for you?

(and is also completely undefined in your "clear" logic because your OB screws around with time, e.g. by possessing knowledge prior to the time of obtaining the knowledge, so temporal comparatives such as "first" become meaningless).

"possessing prior to the time of obtaining"? Why are you inventing this now?

The actual argument is: if infallible knowledge of the choice exists prior to the choice, then the choice is set in stone.

Yes, and then there is a counter argument you need to address without simply restating your argument, if you intend to engage in productive debate.

More precisely: your OB exists, and possesses the infallible knowledge, prior to the choice. Hence the chooser cannot make a contrary choice without causing a logical contradiction. If an action would cause a logical contradiction, that is sufficient to prove the action impossible under the stated premises. The chooser making a choice contrary to the OB's existing knowledge is therefore impossible, and thus free will cannot exist under the premise that the OB exists.

This is your same argument. It does not address my counter argument.

Nope. How the OB's knowledge is formed is irrelevant and any response to your proposition for how the OB's knowledge is formed would be equally irrelevant.

Well, saying my counter argument is irrelevant works well in some situations (such as a dialogue where you've become completely befuddled), but it is not an analytical counter at all here. Here it fails.

As you yourself stated, any such mechanism is "not within the definition of omniscience."
Respectfully,
Myriad

You know you would fail if you actually tried to show where I said that.

My claim on this is that the OB has knowledge prior to an event, by whatever means I don't need to address, because whatever that means is, it allows knowledge from an event to be known to the OB at a prior time, and consequently, the knowledge does not limit the event, because the event is the source of the knowledge to the OB

If you start out assuming that a fundamental part of my argument is invalid without any analysis to support it, well than you are demonstrating a fundamental mistake in debate.

 

[tsig]

Ignoring the tough parts of my post makes it easier to debate, doesn't it?



Let's get simple again.
Here is clear, concise, and complete logic.

If it is the event of the choice that is the catalyst for the knowledge of the choice to enter the the OB's repository of all knowledge, then the knowledge of the choice does not limit the event of the choice, but rather it is the event that limits the knowledge.This constitutes a defeating counter to the idea that if knowledge occurs first then the choice is set in stone.
So, the only way to defeat my argument is to clearly show why the choice cannot form the OB's knowledge of the choice.
This counter has not yet been successfully presented.

If it is the event of the choice that is the catalyst for the knowledge of the choice to enter the the OB's repository of all knowledge, then the the OB is an historian not an OB.


(FTFY)

 

[GeeMack]

My claim on this is that the OB has knowledge prior to an event, [...]

And when the event occurs, the list of choices available to the supposed free-will chooser consists of a single item, that which is already known by the omniscient being prior to the event. All the waffling and wavering the chooser may do will not change the already known outcome. Or the omniscient being isn't omniscient. Your willful ignorance of that and your dishonest changing of the criteria is fully anticipated. You're welcome.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If it is the event of the choice that is the catalyst for the knowledge of the choice to enter the the OB's repository of all knowledge, then the the OB is an historian not an OB.
(FTFY)

Why? As if fixing? it relieved you of any responsibility for being responsible for your post.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

And when the event occurs, the list of choices available to the supposed free-will chooser consists of a single item, that which is already known by the omniscient being prior to the event. All the waffling and wavering the chooser may do will not change the already known outcome. Or the omniscient being isn't omniscient. Your willful ignorance of that and your dishonest changing of the criteria is fully anticipated. You're welcome.

Am I to assume that you think ignoring 90% of my post makes your response less irrelevant?

 

[GeeMack]

Am I to assume that you think ignoring 90% of my post makes your response less irrelevant?

Your claim is that the omniscient being has knowledge prior to an event.

My claim on this is that the OB has knowledge prior to an event, [...]

If you want to change your criteria, you may at any time. Even though I think we'd all agree it's dishonest, you certainly haven't been shy about it before.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Your claim is that the omniscient being has knowledge prior to an event.
If you want to change your criteria, you may at any time. Even though I think we'd all agree it's dishonest, you certainly haven't been shy about it before.

As always, without exception, that has been my claim, based on the common definition of omniscience: all-knowing.

 

[tsig]

As always, without exception, that has been my claim, based on the common definition of omniscience: all-knowing.

So the source of the OB's knowledge of your choice is the choice you made?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So the source of the OB's knowledge of your choice is the choice you made?

Yes.

 

[GeeMack]

My claim on this is that the OB has knowledge prior to an event, [...]

Your claim is that the omniscient being has knowledge prior to an event.

As always, without exception, that has been my claim, based on the common definition of omniscience: all-knowing.

Well no, it hasn't always been your claim. It has been established that you have lied several times in attempting to support your position, so it's no surprise that you've done it again.

The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event, the alleged free-will choice. The list of options available to the chooser at the time of the event consists of a single item, that which was known to the omniscient being prior to the event. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event.

As always, you may change your criteria at any time. It is dishonest of course, but that hasn't stopped you before.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

​

Your claim is that the omniscient being has knowledge prior to an event.

​

Well no, it hasn't always been your claim. It has been established that you have lied several times in attempting to support your position, so it's no surprise that you've done it again.

As usual, you say something that you believe will hurt my argument or help yours, and yet it does neither because there is absolutely no substance to it.

The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event, the alleged free-will choice. The list of options available to the chooser at the time of the event consists of a single item, that which was known to the omniscient being prior to the event. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event.

So you state your beat up claim again...

As always, you may change your criteria at any time. It is dishonest of course, but that hasn't stopped you before.

and return to your trolling again.

 

[GeeMack]

As usual, you say something that you believe will hurt my argument or help yours, and yet it does neither because there is absolutely no substance to it.

Reminding you that you've been caught in lies and that the support for your position is built on a foundation of dishonesty has substance. Since you haven't been honest and obviously aren't able to support your position without changing the criteria at your whim, it appears to be unsupportable, or at the very least, supporting it is beyond your capabilities.

So you state your beat up claim again...

My beat up claim? It's your claim, unless you're going to change the criteria again. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event, the alleged free-will choice. The list of options available to the chooser at the time of the event consists of a single item, that which was known to the omniscient being prior to the event. The omniscient being has knowledge prior to the event. You said it yourself.

and return to your trolling again.

Offering you the only out you possibly have to escape your cycle of failure isn't trolling. It's an attempt to help you since you are clearly unable to succeed at this on your own. You're welcome.

 

[Myriad]

This is your same argument. It does not address my counter argument.

Your counter argument does not provide any rationale for altering or contradicting a single point in my argument. Therefore there is nothing to address.

Specifically:

My argument says that the OB possesses infallible knowledge of my choice, before I make the choice. Your counter argument... agrees with that, as it must for "omniscience" to have anything like its conventional meaning.

My argument says that my acting contrary to the OB's knowledge would create a logical contradiction. Your counter argument does not address that claim.

My argument claims that more than a single choice of action being possible, at a time prior to the choice, is a necessary condition for free will. Your counter argument does not address that claim.

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.

My argument claims that the premise of an OB therefore renders impossible something that must be possible for free will to exist. Therefore it necessarily rules out free will. Your counter argument doesn't address that claim, other than to contradict it without any applicable rationale.

You do not get to declare your counter argument conclusive, without a rationale for how it applies to or affects my argument. Anyone can say, "the earth revolves around the sun, therefore your argument is false; to defeat my counter argument, you must prove the earth doesn't revolve around the sun." But unless you can explain what specific part of the chain of reasoning of the original argument is contradicted by the earth revolving around the sun, such a counter argument can be dismissed without further rationale as irrelevant.

Respectfully,
Myriad