Free will and omniscience

[GeeMack]

You've made this point quite a few times and I have rejected it every time.

Of course you have. That's called willful ignorance.

You supposedly offer me a way to succeed like you're dangling a carrot.

I'm offering you a way to succeed because so far you've failed 100%, and as long as you continue with the strategy you're working with, you'll continue to fail.

I assume you imagine that if you can get me to bite then you will have your opportunity to pounce with some amazing counter argument.

No counter argument is necessary when you haven't even offered a cogent argument to counter. I'm just pointing out your willful ignorance and what seems to be an intentional effort to build your position on lies. Haven't you noticed the only one fooled by your dishonest semantic shuffle is you? Oh, that's right, since you've deceived yourself, you probably haven't noticed.

 

[Belz...]

Well then, either this apparent forum discussion does not constitute a debate or
You are proposing a new type of causality, which is:

False dichotomy.

A type that allows knowledge from one moment in time to be known at a prior moment in time (omniscience) but does not allow knowledge from one moment in time to be the source of the knowledge known at a prior moment in time.

This has ALREADY been explained to you MANY times. The OB may simply have complete knowledge of the future by extrapolating from the original state of the universe (or a prior state, whatever). I also mentioned time travel. In any case, true omniscience precludes free will. Your idea that the chooser's choice retroactively informs the OB makes it non-omniscient at some point. That's ok, mind you. The OB doesn't need to be omniscient at all times, just from a certain point in time. The fact remains that once it KNOWS something will happen, no other alternative may occur. The chooser cannot, the 'second time around', pick something else.

Do expound on that type of causality and your justification for applying it to this debate.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is only one kind of causality: something causes another thing.

You do answer to the common sense of rational debate, if you wish to remain in a rational debate.

Speaking of common sense, how about we maintain the laws of causality and logic in the context of the debate ?

You can certainly go with another kind of debate--that is your prerogative.

What's this 'kinds of logic', 'kinds of causality' and 'kinds of debate' routine ?

You made the claim that the "laws of logic which allow such a discussion break down" (referring to my omniscience argument), but it "doesn't have anything to do with it being physically possible".

Indeed. You can have any combinaison of physical laws, but logic always stays the same. If there exists a context in which causality and logic break down, there is no way to have a rational discussion about it.

Specify which laws of Boolean logic break down because of my argument

Laws of Boolean logic ? Boy, you sure are stretching for that overtime. ALL of them.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Of course you have. That's called willful ignorance.

I'm offering you a way to succeed because so far you've failed 100%, and as long as you continue with the strategy you're working with, you'll continue to fail.

No counter argument is necessary when you haven't even offered a cogent argument to counter. I'm just pointing out your willful ignorance and what seems to be an intentional effort to build your position on lies. Haven't you noticed the only one fooled by your dishonest semantic shuffle is you? Oh, that's right, since you've deceived yourself, you probably haven't noticed.

Let's make this simple--you make the argument, I'll review it, and agree with it if I think it has value.
Everything you ask for right there--go ahead.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

False dichotomy.
This has ALREADY been explained to you MANY times. The OB may simply have complete knowledge of the future by extrapolating from the original state of the universe (or a prior state, whatever). I also mentioned time travel.

Let's add that the OB may simply be able to force any choice on anybody at anytime.

The OB has the power to extrapolate from one state to all future states of the universe.
The OB has the power to travel in time.

The simple rebuttal here is that this debate is about omniscience, not omniscience plus special powers.

In any case, true omniscience precludes free will.

1) What is true omniscience as opposed to another kind?
2) If you are going to assume your point is true why are you making any arguments for it?

Your idea that the chooser's choice retroactively informs the OB makes it non-omniscient at some point. That's ok, mind you. The OB doesn't need to be omniscient at all times, just from a certain point in time.

Then to be consistent with your notion of omniscience, when the future choice informs the OB's knowledge then simultaneously the OB's knowledge will be complete.

The fact remains that once it KNOWS something will happen, no other alternative may occur.

That fact(?) would be a conclusion if you were presenting an argument rather than an assumption.

The chooser cannot, the 'second time around', pick something else.

There is no second time around, there is only a choice, at the time it happens.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is only one kind of causality: something causes another thing.

Guess how many logical fallacies you just expressed.

Speaking of common sense, how about we maintain the laws of causality and logic in the context of the debate ?

After having been asked several times you have refused to explain what laws you refer to.

What's this 'kinds of logic', 'kinds of causality' and 'kinds of debate' routine ?

Your avoidance to explain which laws of logic and causality you refer to indicates you would rather not debate rationally, although you still seem to wish to debate.

Indeed. You can have any combinaison of physical laws, but logic always stays the same. If there exists a context in which causality and logic break down, there is no way to have a rational discussion about it.

1) There is no form of physical laws regarding time which would allow for my argument to be true without it also violating logic?
That would true for someone who hadn't gotten beyond middle school physics and logic.
2) You are separating causality from physical law. What is causality?
3) And you still haven't explained that breakdown in logic.

Laws of Boolean logic ? Boy, you sure are stretching for that overtime. ALL of them.

from a prior thread:

What laws of logic are you referring to?

Boolean. Are there any other ones I'm not aware of ? Come on, stop stalling.

I stretched as far as your recent post.
You claimed that my argument violated Boolean logic. Be specific.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's make this simple--you make the argument, I'll review it, and agree with it if I think it has value.
Everything you ask for right there--go ahead.

Let's make this simpler. You've failed. You haven't presented your position in a rational understandable way. If you don't come at it from an entirely different angle, like changing the criteria as I've suggested, you're bound to continue to fail. Sure, my suggestion would require you to be be dishonest... again. But you've already proved you're willing to lie to make your point, so it seems it would make little difference to you. Or you can, of course, just keep on failing as you have been.

 

[Belz...]

Let's add that the OB may simply be able to force any choice on anybody at anytime.

Indeed.

The simple rebuttal here is that this debate is about omniscience, not omniscience plus special powers.

You're mistaken. It's not about special powers, but the discussion has clearly included the question of HOW omniscience comes around. Otherwise you'd never have come up with your own take on it.

1) What is true omniscience as opposed to another kind?

Point taken.

2) If you are going to assume your point is true why are you making any arguments for it?

???

Then to be consistent with your notion of omniscience, when the future choice informs the OB's knowledge then simultaneously the OB's knowledge will be complete.

Right, but before that point it was not omniscient. I'd also like to point out that this creates a paradox, in case you missed it. As long as we're working within the framework of normal logic, your scenario is problematic.

That fact(?) would be a conclusion if you were presenting an argument rather than an assumption.

It comes with the definition of omniscience. I KNOW something will occur. It therefore can't be changed, otherwise I didn't KNOW it.

There is no second time around, there is only a choice, at the time it happens.

Odd. The chooser's choice informs the OB back in time but then the OB doesn't live through the event ?

Guess how many logical fallacies you just expressed.

Humour me.

After having been asked several times you have refused to explain what laws you refer to.

I answered this already. Did you miss it ?

1) There is no form of physical laws regarding time which would allow for my argument to be true without it also violating logic?

I don't see how. As I told you before, in order to form a syllogism or to construct a logical argument, you need one event to follow from its causes i.e. causality.

2) You are separating causality from physical law. What is causality?

So far as we know, a feature of space-time.

3) And you still haven't explained that breakdown in logic.

I just did in response to your #1.

from a prior thread:

I stretched as far as your recent post.
You claimed that my argument violated Boolean logic. Be specific.

Bill, your inability to follow a conversation or understand the words used within it is frankly not my problem.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Let's make this simple--you make the argument, I'll review it, and agree with it if I think it has value.
Everything you ask for right there--go ahead.

Let's make this simpler. You've failed. You haven't presented your position in a rational understandable way. If you don't come at it from an entirely different angle, like changing the criteria as I've suggested, you're bound to continue to fail. Sure, my suggestion would require you to be be dishonest... again. But you've already proved you're willing to lie to make your point, so it seems it would make little difference to you. Or you can, of course, just keep on failing as you have been.

This is how you have chosen to debate:
I listen to your gripes
I present my argument again as simply as possible:
The OB knows a thing, at any time, because the thing happens, at any time.
You gripe again that that is incomprehensible and ask me to change it for you.
And because you cannot comprehend a simple straight forward idea and I won't change it to make it easier for you, you call me a liar.

Why don't you try a new track--analyze my argument, and make relevant counters that don't just amount to ignoring and gainsaying my argument.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You're mistaken. It's not about special powers, but the discussion has clearly included the question of HOW omniscience comes around. Otherwise you'd never have come up with your own take on it.

I have not tried to explain how omniscience works, only that within the parameters of its definition an analysis can reveal that omniscience does not necessarily constrain choice.

Right, but before that point it was not omniscient. I'd also like to point out that this creates a paradox, in case you missed it. As long as we're working within the framework of normal logic, your scenario is problematic.

It was your point that the OB doesn't need to be omniscient at all times.
I'll agree that we only need to consider moments when the OB is omniscient, whether that is all of the time or some of the time is immaterial to the argument..
You have demonstrated no paradox.

It comes with the definition of omniscience. I KNOW something will occur. It therefore can't be changed, otherwise I didn't KNOW it.

That's not the definition, that's analysis, and as I have pointed out, there is an exception to that analysis.

Odd. The chooser's choice informs the OB back in time but then the OB doesn't live through the event ?

The OB may live prior to, simultaneously with , and after the event, and it is the same event that informed his knowledge.

Humour me.

According to the dictionary: omniscience follows causality.

I answered this already. Did you miss it ?

You said Boolean; i said be specific; you replied with nothing.
You said causality; I said be specific; you replied with nothing.

I don't see how. As I told you before, in order to form a syllogism or to construct a logical argument, you need one event to follow from its causes i.e. causality.

Causality and Boolean logic are independent of each other.

My argument was simple, rational, and sensible.

If the OB has knowledge of an event, then the event really happens.
The OB has simultaneous knowledge of all real events.
The knowledge the OB has is not related to the time-frame of the event.
The OB can have knowledge of a future event.
The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future happens because of omniscience.
The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future is constrained because of omniscience.
This is logical, but the form is not Boolean.

So far as we know, a feature of space-time.

And again you avoid answering the question.

I just did in response to your #1.

And again you avoid answering the question.

Bill, your inability to follow a conversation or understand the words used within it is frankly not my problem.

And again you avoid answering the question.

 

[GeeMack]

My argument was simple, rational, and sensible.

So you keep saying, but no, not really. It is not cogent. Although you seem to think it is simple, rational, and sensible, take note that you continue to fail.

If the OB has knowledge of an event, then the event really happens.

It must, or the being isn't omniscient.

The OB has simultaneous knowledge of all real events.

... past, present, and future.

The knowledge the OB has is not related to the time-frame of the event.

Well, when it comes to events that occur within the temporal existence of time constrained beings like the alleged free will chooser, the omniscient being knows the outcome of that being's future. And the omniscient being knows what that chooser will choose before the choice is made.

The OB can have knowledge of a future event.

It does have that knowledge or it isn't omniscient. And when that future comes to be, the chooser will make the choice that the omniscient being knew it would choose.

The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future happens because of omniscience.

But the future happens the way the omniscient being knows it will, or the being isn't omniscient. When the chooser make its choice, it will be what the omniscient being knew it would be.

The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future is constrained because of omniscience.

Unless you change the characteristics of the chooser or actor to make it atemporal too, the omniscient being knows what will occur before the chooser even exists, much less when it begins considering the decision.

This is logical, but the form is not Boolean.

No. It's an attempt to dishonestly redefine the chooser as atemporal also, while at the same time dishonestly denying that is what you're doing. Dishonesty was the strategy AvalonXQ used and it resulted in failure. Notice how your use of that strategy is generating exactly the same result.

 

[Belz...]

I have not tried to explain how omniscience works, only that within the parameters of its definition an analysis can reveal that omniscience does not necessarily constrain choice.

You've done so by proposing a mechanism through which the being in question is omniscient. I'd call that explaining how it works, but it's a minor point, I guess.

You have demonstrated no paradox.

As I said, I wanted to see if you could spot it. As you are well aware, the OB would not only have to know everything, but he would also have to know that he knows that he knows that he knows that he knows ad infinitum. It's a bit ridiculous, but it comes with the definition. That's what happens when we create nonsensical terms. Of course, for most discussions about omniscience this is not very important, hence why it was just a passing comment.

That's not the definition, that's analysis, and as I have pointed out, there is an exception to that analysis.

The definition of omniscience is that YOU KNOW. If you DON'T KNOW something, then you're not omniscient. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Also, would you be so kind as to point out what exception you're talking about ?

The OB may live prior to, simultaneously with , and after the event, and it is the same event that informed his knowledge.

That makes little sense. If he lives atemporally, then the event cannot have informed him. If he doesn't live atemporally, then it comes right back to what I said: at some point the OB will "cross" the moment in time where said choice occurs, and it CANNOT be changed, ergo no free will at that point. If he's atemporal, your hypothetical is impossible.

According to the dictionary: omniscience follows causality.

1) That's not pointing out a fallacy.
2) That's only one.
3) Which dictionary ?
4) What does this have to do with anything ?

You said Boolean; i said be specific; you replied with nothing.
You said causality; I said be specific; you replied with nothing.

This is either a lie or you read diagonally. I answered already. Let me answer again: ALL OF THEM. You know another kind of logic, now ?

Causality and Boolean logic are independent of each other.

They are different things, but they are interdependent.

If the OB has knowledge of an event, then the event really happens.
The OB has simultaneous knowledge of all real events.
The knowledge the OB has is not related to the time-frame of the event.
The OB can have knowledge of a future event.
The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future happens because of omniscience.
The definition of omniscience does not claim that the future is constrained because of omniscience.
This is logical, but the form is not Boolean.

Except this is not an argument. You've got a bunch of premises but no conclusion. So much for simple, rational, and sensible.

I agree with all of the above. No one said the future happens because of omniscience, by the way. It simply follows from the features of omniscience, as described by its definition, that if you know something will happen, it cannot happen any other way. It's not that omniscience constrains the future: it simply knows the future.

And again you avoid answering the question.

Actually, that was my answer. How is answering a question avoiding answering it ?

And again you avoid answering the question.

It was in the same post. How could you miss it ?

And again you avoid answering the question.

Pointing out your inability to understand my answers to your question does not constitute avoiding answering the question, especially when said answers lie in the same post as my pointing out your inability to understand my answers to your question, and you instead answer that I'm avoiding answering your question which simply proves your inability to understand my answers to your question.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well, when it comes to events that occur within the temporal existence of time constrained beings like the alleged free will chooser, the omniscient being knows the outcome of that being's future. And the omniscient being knows what that chooser will choose before the choice is made.

It does have that knowledge or it isn't omniscient. And when that future comes to be, the chooser will make the choice that the omniscient being knew it would choose.

But the future happens the way the omniscient being knows it will, or the being isn't omniscient. When the chooser make its choice, it will be what the omniscient being knew it would be.

Your points are all true but do not present a rebuttal to my argument.

My argument is not that the chooser does something different than what the OB knows, it's never been that, I have pointed that out many times, and you seem to ignore it every it time.
My argument is that the chooser chooses whatever he freely will, and that action is what informs what the OB knows in a prior time-frame (or in any time-frame).
You have not refuted that scenario in the slightest bit.

Maybe my argument is too subtle in its simplicity for you to comprehend.

Unless you change the characteristics of the chooser or actor to make it atemporal too, the omniscient being knows what will occur before the chooser even exists, much less when it begins considering the decision.

Completely unnecessary to my argument, which you would realize if you understood my argument and how simple it is.

No. It's an attempt to dishonestly redefine the chooser as atemporal also, while at the same time dishonestly denying that is what you're doing. Dishonesty was the strategy AvalonXQ used and it resulted in failure. Notice how your use of that strategy is generating exactly the same result.

This is absolutely false. The time-frame of the chooser is completely irrelevant, which you would understand if you could comprehend the simple argument I have presented many times.

 

[GeeMack]

This is absolutely false. The time-frame of the chooser is completely irrelevant, which you would understand if you could comprehend the simple argument I have presented many times.

We'll leave aside the other falsehoods in your response because, frankly, your incessant dishonesty is so transparent it's just not worth pointing out every instance of it. As for the above comment, the time-frame of the chooser may be irrelevant to you, because making the chooser atemporal appears to be the only way you can make your assertion work. And yes, you have presented that position many times. And yes it's just as dishonest this time as it has been every other time.

When you, the time constrained chooser, woke up this morning, you had not yet decided what to have for dinner. The omniscient being already knew you'd have spaghetti. By the time you get around to making your decision, you will choose spaghetti, exactly as the omniscient being knew you would. It always knew it. You didn't always know it. This morning when you woke up, the entire list of options for your alleged free-will choice for dinner is... spaghetti.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You've done so by proposing a mechanism through which the being in question is omniscient. I'd call that explaining how it works, but it's a minor point, I guess.

I don't recall presenting any mechanism for omniscience.

As I said, I wanted to see if you could spot it. As you are well aware, the OB would not only have to know everything, but he would also have to know that he knows that he knows that he knows that he knows ad infinitum. It's a bit ridiculous, but it comes with the definition. That's what happens when we create nonsensical terms. Of course, for most discussions about omniscience this is not very important, hence why it was just a passing comment.

Your paradox seems to be that the OB would not only have to know everything but it would also have to know everything. I don't see a paradox.

The definition of omniscience is that YOU KNOW. If you DON'T KNOW something, then you're not omniscient. I don't see why this is hard to understand.
Also, would you be so kind as to point out what exception you're talking about ?

You have claimed that an event happens the way it happens because the OB has knowledge of it.
I claim that there is an exception to your claim wherein the OB knows the way an event happens because that is the way the event happens.
My claim is consistent with the definition of omniscience.

That makes little sense. If he lives atemporally, then the event cannot have informed him. If he doesn't live atemporally, then it comes right back to what I said: at some point the OB will "cross" the moment in time where said choice occurs, and it CANNOT be changed, ergo no free will at that point. If he's atemporal, your hypothetical is impossible.

The OB does not have to live atemporally; it doesn't matter one way or another.
The OB's knowledge is atemporal because it knows things outside of the temporal order in which they occur. For example, the OB knows events before they occur.
There is no disagreement that a choice cannot be changed after it occurs.
The argument, as it has always been, is that a choice can be freely made, at any time, and the OB knows, at any time. that that is the choice made.

1) That's not pointing out a fallacy.
2) That's only one.
3) Which dictionary ?
4) What does this have to do with anything ?

Per your request:
Causality is on page 233 and omniscience is on page 1007 in "Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary", 4th Ed., 2001.
Therefore, omniscience follows causality.

This is either a lie or you read diagonally. I answered already. Let me answer again: ALL OF THEM. You know another kind of logic, now ?

Well, my argument doesn't defy any Boolean laws and it certainly doesn't defy every definition of what constitutes causality.
So when I asked you to be specific and you replied "all of them" you were just exactly wrong.
You could now present specifics but that would not help, you need to show that my argument violates all Boolean laws and every form of causation.
Since you will be unable to do that this argument of yours has failed.

They are different things, but they are interdependent.

Causality has no dependence on Boolean logic.
Boolean logic has no dependence on causality.

Except this is not an argument. You've got a bunch of premises but no conclusion. So much for simple, rational, and sensible.
I agree with all of the above. No one said the future happens because of omniscience, by the way. It simply follows from the features of omniscience, as described by its definition, that if you know something will happen, it cannot happen any other way.

It's not that omniscience constrains the future: it simply knows the future.

This is exactly correct.
A chooser can freely make a choice among multiple available options.
The fact that the OB knows the options and the final choice in no way constrains which option the chooser finally chose.
There is no incompatibility between omniscience and free will.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

We'll leave aside the other falsehoods in your response because, frankly, your incessant dishonesty is so transparent it's just not worth pointing out every instance of it. As for the above comment, the time-frame of the chooser may be irrelevant to you, because making the chooser atemporal appears to be the only way you can make your assertion work. And yes, you have presented that position many times. And yes it's just as dishonest this time as it has been every other time.

When you refer to analysis and disagreement as falsehood and dishonesty you are outside of the normal usage of those English words in the context of a debate.
That is why I tend to ignore many of your irrelevancies.

When you, the time constrained chooser, woke up this morning, you had not yet decided what to have for dinner. The omniscient being already knew you'd have spaghetti. By the time you get around to making your decision, you will choose spaghetti, exactly as the omniscient being knew you would. It always knew it. You didn't always know it.

This is all fine.

This morning when you woke up, the entire list of options for your alleged free-will choice for dinner is... spaghetti.

This is where you fail because it does not follow from your prior statements.
You jump from knowledge to constraint without analysis.
The exception that invalidates your argument is that the OB's knowledge can come from the choice of spaghetti.
The OB knows the options and the final choice, but that doesn't mean there were no options.
As always, you need to show that OB cannot know something based upon the act that forms that knowledge.

 

[tsig]

I don't recall presenting any mechanism for omniscience.


Your paradox seems to be that the OB would not only have to know everything but it would also have to know everything. I don't see a paradox.


You have claimed that an event happens the way it happens because the OB has knowledge of it.
I claim that there is an exception to your claim wherein the OB knows the way an event happens because that is the way the event happens.
My claim is consistent with the definition of omniscience.


The OB does not have to live atemporally; it doesn't matter one way or another.
The OB's knowledge is atemporal because it knows things outside of the temporal order in which they occur. For example, the OB knows events before they occur.
There is no disagreement that a choice cannot be changed after it occurs.
The argument, as it has always been, is that a choice can be freely made, at any time, and the OB knows, at any time. that that is the choice made.


Per your request:
Causality is on page 233 and omniscience is on page 1007 in "Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary", 4th Ed., 2001.
Therefore, omniscience follows causality.


Well, my argument doesn't defy any Boolean laws and it certainly doesn't defy every definition of what constitutes causality.
So when I asked you to be specific and you replied "all of them" you were just exactly wrong.
You could now present specifics but that would not help, you need to show that my argument violates all Boolean laws and every form of causation.
Since you will be unable to do that this argument of yours has failed.


Causality has no dependence on Boolean logic.
Boolean logic has no dependence on causality.


This is exactly correct.
A chooser can freely make a choice among multiple available options.
The fact that the OB knows the options and the final choice in no way constrains which option the chooser finally chose.
There is no incompatibility between omniscience and free will.

Since the OB already knows the outcome there is no choice.

If there was a choice then the person might pick one the OB didn't know which means it wasn't an OB.

 

[SumDood]

To lighten the mood a bit:

Ed Glosser-Trivial Psychic

Just a silly SNL skit with Christopher Walken doing a 'Dead Zone' bit, but only making meaningless predictions, that do happen to come true (I assume).

So do Ed's predictions remove the free will of those involved?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Since the OB already knows the outcome there is no choice.

If there was a choice then the person might pick one the OB didn't know which means it wasn't an OB.

If you review the thread you will see where this analysis has been superseded many, many times.

 

[GeeMack]

When you refer to analysis and disagreement as falsehood and dishonesty you are outside of the normal usage of those English words in the context of a debate.

When I refer to your dishonest and false comments, I mean the comments you've made which are not true. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in describing those comments as lies. The alternative is you simply don't know what you're writing.

That is why I tend to ignore many of your irrelevancies.

Your ignorance and lack of honesty have been often noted because of their relevance.

This is where you fail because it does not follow from your prior statements.
You jump from knowledge to constraint without analysis.

No. It follows exactly from my prior statements and from the entire premise of the hypothetical concept under discussion. The analysis has been provided many, many times, not only by me, but by Tricky, not_so_new, tsig, Belz, Dave Rogers, Roboramma, and others in this thread. The reason you're not getting it and mistakenly believe there's a jump, is because you continue to willfully ignore the temporal aspect of the chooser. The knowledge is that of the omniscient being. The time constraint is on the chooser. No jump required. Try to keep up.

The exception that invalidates your argument is that the OB's knowledge can come from the choice of spaghetti.
The OB knows the options and the final choice, but that doesn't mean there were no options.

There were no options available to the chooser. When he woke up this morning the choice of spaghetti was already known. The list of choices consisted of a single item.

As always, you need to show that OB cannot know something based upon the act that forms that knowledge.

As Belz and Tricky have explained, several times and in quite plain language, causality requires a sequence related to time, a before and an after. The omniscient being is atemporal, regardless of your persistent and dishonest attempts to ignore that aspect when it suits your whim. And the chooser is not. It is time constrained, again regardless of your persistent and dishonest attempts to ignore that when you think you can get away with it.

 

[Belz...]

I don't recall presenting any mechanism for omniscience.

And yet I just explained that you did.

Your paradox seems to be that the OB would not only have to know everything but it would also have to know everything. I don't see a paradox.

Sorry, wrong word by me. It's an endless loop, though.

You have claimed that an event happens the way it happens because the OB has knowledge of it.

No.

I claim that there is an exception to your claim wherein the OB knows the way an event happens because that is the way the event happens.

Oh, I see I see. But I didn't claim that at all, so you were simply fighting a misconception.

The OB's knowledge is atemporal because it knows things outside of the temporal order in which they occur. For example, the OB knows events before they occur.

If his knowledge is atemporal, how can he not be ?

Per your request:
Causality is on page 233 and omniscience is on page 1007 in "Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary", 4th Ed., 2001.
Therefore, omniscience follows causality.

You're missing the actual quote that proves your point.

Causality has no dependence on Boolean logic.
Boolean logic has no dependence on causality.

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding lies, then.

A chooser can freely make a choice among multiple available options.

Here's the problem: if the OB is omniscient after the chooser made his choise, the timeline must follow its course to the future before that happens, and THAT creates a paradox.

 

[tsig]

If you review the thread you will see where this analysis has been superseded many, many times.

I've seen it avoided many times. Just like now.

OB knows>no choice

OB doesn't know>no OB.