|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2003 : 08:21:13
|
|
Logically incompatible. Any compatibilists want to challenge? DA?
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 08:48:19 [Permalink]
|
Don't you still make choices regardless of whether anyone else already knows the outcome?
Who's to say that a divine foreknower can't state "I know he's going to choose, of his own free will, to buy a new car." ? |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 09:54:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Logically incompatible. Any compatibilists want to challenge?
In fairness, since you are the one making the claim, ...  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 10:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Don't you still make choices regardless of whether anyone else already knows the outcome?
Who's to say that a divine foreknower can't state "I know he's going to choose, of his own free will, to buy a new car." ?
Doesn't that imply that we only have the illusion of free will ? of making choices ? That the choice made was predestined. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 12:35:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Doesn't that imply that we only have the illusion of free will ? of making choices ? That the choice made was predestined.
If I have (or choose to take) no control over your actions, then I am irrelevant to the question of your free will. How would simply [sic] knowing your actions in any way constitute or imply controling your actions? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/17/2003 12:36:45 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 14:33:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Don't you still make choices regardless of whether anyone else already knows the outcome?
Who's to say that a divine foreknower can't state "I know he's going to choose, of his own free will, to buy a new car." ?
If we assume perfect foreknowledge, there is a point prior to "A chooses X" that makes the statement "A does X" a true statement. If "A chooses X" implies that A could have chosen ~X, "A does X" does not. Thus, both of these statements cannot be true. If "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A could have done ~X.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 15:31:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
If "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A could have done ~X.
Then are the folowing two assertions identical?- if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A could have done ~X
- if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A would have done ~X
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 16:05:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then are the folowing two assertions identical?
if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A could have done ~X
if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A would have done ~X
I wouldn't say identical but both true as would A did ~X, A will do ~X, etc. not be possible of course assuming that all are taking of the same event/choice.
quote:
Who's to say that a divine foreknower can't state "I know he's going to choose, of his own free will, to buy a new car." ?
The point is once this divine foreknower states this (and assuming his foreknowledge is perfect) I am then predestined to buy that car and I can make no other choice to change that event. I am stuck, even if it seems to me that I actually am making a choice to buy that car its a facade because I am already predesinted to buy it and there is nothing I can do to change it.
PhDreamer did a great job laying out the logical impossibility of perfect foreknowledge and true free will. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 17:01:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Then are the folowing two assertions identical?- if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A could have done ~X
- if "A does X" is true, it is not possible that A would have done ~X
Long day and I'm having a bit of trouble thinking clearly right now, but I will tentatively state... under the presumption of perfect foreknowledge, I would say their truth values are identical. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 19:47:12 [Permalink]
|
I think we have to make a distinction between prediction and prophecy at least in current usage.
If I predict that Leiberman won't get the Democratic nod what I am doing is looking at the current state of things and based on that am making an educated guess.
If I prophesied that same thing then I would be magically looking into the future itself and reporting what I saw back to the present day. That would mean that the future was already set and there waiting, other wise I wouldn't be able to see it. Not only would there be no such thing as free will there would be no such thing as chance. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 22:03:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
I think we have to make a distinction between prediction and prophecy at least in current usage.
If I predict that Leiberman won't get the Democratic nod what I am doing is looking at the current state of things and based on that am making an educated guess.
If I prophesied that same thing then I would be magically looking into the future itself and reporting what I saw back to the present day. That would mean that the future was already set and there waiting, other wise I wouldn't be able to see it. Not only would there be no such thing as free will there would be no such thing as chance.
Noted. That is an important point. We are hopefully all aware that we are discussing prophecy? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 00:23:19 [Permalink]
|
Another item that needs to be entered is how a non-thiest accounts for the ego (or personality ),who makes the decisions,from an impersonal beginning.  (edited for this post)The Metaphysical Necessity
As Jean-Paul Sartre put it, the basic philosophical question is that something is there, rather than that nothing is there. This is the
question of metaphysics, the existence of being. There are only a few possible answers to this: 1. Everything that is came from
absolutely nothing: no energy, no personality, no mass. This answer is so unthinkable that it warrants no real consideration. 2.
Everything that is had an impersonal beginning. Reductionism takes this approach. Everything must be explained in terms of time,
chance, and impersonal matter. This fails to explain the "mannishness," the personality with which we are all invested. Schaeffer
call this "paneverythingism," instead of the usual generous but misleading appellation "pantheism." 3. There has been a personal
beginning to everything.
In the view of a personal beginning, the natures of God and man are discussed. God in personal but infinite. Man is finite, the
characteristic that separates the created order from the infinite God. But man is also personal, separating man from the rest of
the creatures, crowning "him with glory and honor." God is also personal unity in diversity, three persons in one God. This God has
spoken and told us the truth about Himself and about all that is.  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 01/18/2003 00:32:26 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 04:13:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
PhDreamer did a great job laying out the logical impossibility of perfect foreknowledge and true free will.
Perhaps. Or, perhaps he has simply exposed a well-worn paradox inherent in omniscience. How might the argument change if you dispense with the "free will" criteria? The answer is: not at all, because omniscience precludes the possibility of the foreknown being a factor in a determined event. It's the classic time-travel paradox.
Speaking of self referential systems, if you haven't read Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, I highly recommend it.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/18/2003 04:17:54 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 12:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Another item that needs to be entered is how a non-thiest accounts for the ego (or personality ),who makes the decisions,from an impersonal beginning.(edited for this post)The Metaphysical Necessity
I've never seen this usage of "personal" defined, other than "it's something that can't be explained/created by an impersonal source," which is question-begging and/or "it's something that humans have/something that makes us human," which is tautological. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 12:50:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Perhaps. Or, perhaps he has simply exposed a well-worn paradox inherent in omniscience. How might the argument change if you dispense with the "free will" criteria? The answer is: not at all, because omniscience precludes the possibility of the foreknown being a factor in a determined event. It's the classic time-travel paradox.
To be fair, there are schools of compatibilism that propose various modifications on the main premise of omniscience in order to avoid the paradoxes. I, however, have difficulty seeing these as anything other than ad hoc rationalizations.
quote:
Speaking of self referential systems, if you haven't read Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, I highly recommend it.
Seconded. BUT, be prepared to devote several months; rereading passages several times is almost a necessity. Hofstader is almost too brilliant for his own good.  |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 18:44:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
To be fair, there are schools of compatibilism that propose various modifications on the main premise of omniscience in order to avoid the paradoxes. I, however, have difficulty seeing these as anything other than ad hoc rationalizations.
Be that as it may, it still appears that the 'problem' with foreknowledge is indemic. I must admit to not being very good at this stuff, but, it seems to me, the problem is not that omniscience is logically incompatible with free will, or that omniscience is logically incompatible with determinism, but that omniscience is paradoxical.
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
... be prepared to devote several months; rereading passages several times is almost a necessity. Hofstader is almost too brilliant for his own good.
Hofstadter is pretty sharp, but it's Achilles, the Tortoise who I have trouble with. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
