Rhythm,
Observations refuting your claim. You are the one making the claim here, not me.
Then it seems clear to me that we are talking about the same thing when we use words like choice or free will. I don't know why you think otherwise.
In my version it is beyond mere possibility; it is absolutely certain that you have that choice.
That is your claim - that foreknowledge precludes free will. It is not self-evident logic. You have not provided either justification or demonstration that you are correct. It is the very point that is in contention - whether prior knowledge of an outcome changes the nature of the process producing the outcome; changing it from a free choice to a constrained choice. You think that the only logical answer is constraint. I think that our observations of time, the nature of events, and the nature of free will contradict that answer. We have actual life experience of enacting in the present our plans and expectations for the future, and watching as they pass into history.
More fundamentally, we know about the distinction between knowledge of reality and the nature of reality. Knowledge of reality has no effect on the nature of reality. Thus, whether it is -fore-knowledge or -post-knowledge is irrelevant. It is still just knowledge. It has no effect on the nature of the event. It does not steal away our free will.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
Rhythm Wrote:Claims supporting claims.
Observations refuting your claim. You are the one making the claim here, not me.
Rhythm Wrote:Done that twice now.
Then it seems clear to me that we are talking about the same thing when we use words like choice or free will. I don't know why you think otherwise.
Rhythm Wrote:In my version of choice or free will there is at least the possibility that you could choose a - or- b.
In my version it is beyond mere possibility; it is absolutely certain that you have that choice.
Rhythm Wrote:This is not the case, in the case of a true claim to foreknowledge.
That is your claim - that foreknowledge precludes free will. It is not self-evident logic. You have not provided either justification or demonstration that you are correct. It is the very point that is in contention - whether prior knowledge of an outcome changes the nature of the process producing the outcome; changing it from a free choice to a constrained choice. You think that the only logical answer is constraint. I think that our observations of time, the nature of events, and the nature of free will contradict that answer. We have actual life experience of enacting in the present our plans and expectations for the future, and watching as they pass into history.
Rhythm Wrote:It should be fairly obvious that an anecdote regarding your knowledge of an event that's already happened doesn't have any applicability to the proposition of foreknowledge or it's consequences.Foreknowledge is seeing the future. Seeing the future means seeing everything as events that have already happened. Thus, my anecdote is obviously and directly applicable. We know about events that have already happened. They are the exact record of the operation of our free will. They are the proof of our free will, not a contradiction of it.
Rhythm Wrote:More fundamentally, if you hadn't been arguing, with that anecdote, that your -post- knowledge of the dice roll didn't make it happen that way...a claim that wasn't even made about foreknowledge, it would have had some relevance to our discussion at all.
More fundamentally, we know about the distinction between knowledge of reality and the nature of reality. Knowledge of reality has no effect on the nature of reality. Thus, whether it is -fore-knowledge or -post-knowledge is irrelevant. It is still just knowledge. It has no effect on the nature of the event. It does not steal away our free will.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
