Oh no not another free will thread.

[Silver]

In what way was it impeded?

Tell me that, honestly.

Knowledge is a passive ability. In order for something to be impeded, it needs to be an active ability.

What active ability impeded my free will?

[The Grand Nudger]

In what way was it impeded?

Tell me that, honestly.

Knowledge is a passive ability.  In order for something to be impeded, it needs to be an active ability.

What active ability impeded my free will?

Again, it's not an issue of an active ability.  No one is claiming that the person who knows you will choose a, and cannot choose b..made it that way, themselves.
(I get that some religions do go that far..but it's not necessary or any requirement of mine)

What is the free component in that situation. What is free will doing, how is being exerted, in doing the only thing that you -can- do...out of a total actual range of options of 1...a, and a and a and a.

[henryp]

The implication is that the all-knowing being dictates our choices through Its knowledge.  But why isn't it us dictating the All-knowing being's knowledge with our choices?

So you're saying, he's omniscent but not omnipotent so we can determine what he actually knows. Ah, clever.

Still, the point at the end of it all is that if you will do X, you will do X. That's just a tautology. So if that's what you will do, then you can't do otherwise. If the future is determined, then there are no real options.  

If there were free will, and I chose an apple, the all-knowing being couldn't 'know' me into choosing a banana instead.  Its knowledge is a solely a reaction to my future choice.

The problem would be that you still wouldn't have any 'choices' besides compatabilist ones.  

I think you can view knowing the future in a world with free will as a form of time travel.  Whether that's existing outside of time, and viewing it as a totality, or somehow being magical inside it, the explanation is time being non-linear.  Which is silly.  But all-knowing beings and free will are already silly.  Once you open the silly door, silly is on the table.

I don't think time travel is a coherent concept. And again, if ultimately the being knows what you will do, then the being knows what you will do. Maybe you will determine what the being knows... but how? That's where I would simply give you Strawson's argument.

But you say you don't believe in free will anyway. So I take it you are playing Devil's avocado? I mean, uh, advocate?

Yeah, it's just a thought exercise.  With an omniscient being, or really just a being with any knowledge of the future, and free will, non-linear time is how that would exist.  But I view knowledge of the future in a world with free will as being a form of time travel.  So when you say it's incoherent, I agree, but I think that's built into the premise of the thought exercise, not something I'm adding to it.

Regarding your tautology, if I were a free will omniscient believer, I wouldn't accept "you will choose apple" as a premise.

My premise would be:  In the future, I have the free will to choose between apple, banana, and carrot.
I will choose apple if and only if in the future I chose apple.
I will choose banana, if and only if in the future I chose banana.
I will choose carrot, if and only if in the future I chose carrot.

So you will choose apple if you will choose apple is valid.  But it's only true if in the future you chose apple.  If you chose banana, you will choose apple is false.  But this requires time travel.

[Silver]

Then there was no obstruction of free will. /End.

[GrandizerII]

What they know has no direct influence over my decision making, however. That's the fact you cannot seem to grasp. Yes, they know what I will choose. I still have a choice, however. All they see is me making the choice between the two. They did not in any way influence my choice, they did not in any way affect my free will. How hard is that to grasp?

No one is saying that knowledge influences a choice. Rather, full knowledge of the future indicates a lack if libertarian free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems like there was.  You couldn't choose b, for example...of a total two "options" a and b, you could only choose a.

[Silver]

It seems like there was.  You couldn't choose b, for example...of a total two "options" a and b, you could only choose a.

It's not about an unwillingness to choose. Stop using that semantic crap.

It's merely about having chosen one over another, because in the end choice is directly tied to free will. So long as you have the option of choosing one over another, your free will is intact.

You're unnecessarily twisting the argument backward for your own benefit, and it is unbecoming at this point.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems like there was.  You couldn't choose b, for example...of a total two "options" a and b, you could only choose a.

It's not about an unwillingness to choose.  Stop using that semantic crap.

Unwillingness?  In the proposition...you're incapable.  

It's merely about having chosen one over another, because in the end choice is directly tied to free will.  So long as you have the option of choosing one over another, your free will is intact.  

You didn't have the option of choosing b in the a or b choice.  You could only choose a.  That's what you will do.  Where is the freedom tied directly to that?

You're unnecessarily twisting the argument backward for your own benefit, and it is unbecoming at this point.

Technically, this is for your benefit, so you're on the same page as people who posit that certain futures pose problems for free wills. We've already seen one way in which wills or choices are not free in the face of a certain future. Between the options of a and b..you can't choose b.

[henryp]

What's your take on what i said?  The idea that time is not linear, and our choice could be viewed as dictating what God knows?

The premise is that God knows what you do before you do it.  But if God is operating outside of time, from that perspective, He'd just be viewing the choice you made without the concepts of 'before' and 'after'.

This would still completely invalidate the theist notion of free will, regardless of the nature of time and regardless of whether parallel worlds are a thing. God knows what you will inevitably do in this or that specific timeline because the choices are hardcoded into the system. If choices were made freely in the libertarian sense of the term, then there's no logical way God could 100% know what you end up doing in the future.

Here's my time travel hypothetical.

Bob video tapes Larry choosing between a banana and an orange.  Larry chooses an orange of his own free will.  Bob sends the video tape back in time to himself.  Bob now knows Larry will choose an orange.

Does Bob's knowledge of Larry choosing an orange make him choose the orange?  Or does Larry choosing an orange of his own free will cause Bob to know Larry will choose the orange?

[Silver]

At this point, I'm exhausted. Thank you for the debate.