Discussion in 'Religion' started by zacariah88, Feb 22, 2023.
Was those choices influenced... or uninfluenced freewill choices.???
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The variables in-between no doubt influence the decision making process. If I were in a different town, I would have made different choices. If I were living a different lifestyle, I would have made different choices. If I weren't hungry, or if the sun wasn't shining I wouldn't have been there nor would I have chosen to sit in the shade. It was 75 degrees, sun out, and the shade seemed like it would feel welcoming. I was right. I sat down in the shade and it felt nice. These variables all added to my choice to both be there and choose to sit in the shade, so yes ...
The choices were influenced by the in-between variables associated with my particular circumstances.
An wit all those particular circumstances bein what they were… coud you have chosen differently than what you did.???
What do you think? Honestly ....
There are many definitions of freewill there is freewil for the non-religious, the religious, freewill perfect, the law of mosaic from the slavery concept, Jesus from sin you have freeill to choose him or being to keep on sinning. and freewill from liberals. Modern freewill as well concept.
I dont thank that you coud have chosen differently.!!!
Yeah, I wanted to sit in the shade so that's what I did.
I could have, but I chose what I desired most, which seems to always be the case with choice making in general.
Its intuitive to look back and emagine that you coud have chosen differently… but why woud you have chosen a less desirable option than the shade you wanted most.???
Consider the idea that we move through time, sequentially and in only one direction. Generally, it's not a tough concept to grasp.
But what do vector and sequence mean to what is timeless? This is a little bit harder to imagine.
What is timeless does not look back; the past is a concept more important to those of us bound to our vector of sequence, our passage through time. You look back; what is timeless simply looks, as such. You look back at something in the sense that it happened; what is timeless looks, and simply sees. It is not, for the timeless, looking back to see what happened, but looking to see what is.
Living sequentially in time, experience describes events leading to a result; potential outcomes fall away until the real outcome is achieved. For the timeless, that outcome always was.
There is no hidden aspect that makes our brains somehow infinite; compared to our finite selves with finite potential, the scale of what is timeless easily exceeds our capacity to comprehend.
In this context, the act of choosing, assessing the variables and deciding, is easily symptomatic of our sequential experience, and if viewed from outside that vector and sequence, looks simply like part of what is. Within our timebound experience, we describe a choice. A timeless perspective does not see sequence leading to a choice that describes an outcome; rather, it sees the only outcome that was ever possible.
This is what it means that the scale of determinism can easily exceed our ability to recognize.
If god made all and knows all then he knows everything you will do ergo
you have no freewill.
Youre just programed pupet in gods computer game
Gods are just creation of ancient simple minded men who had no clue about anything
There is a purpose we all have and we freewill is part of why ? We are here.
This does not follow.
I knew you were going to post this. Does that mean you had no choice in posting it?
Free will just means that you can do what you want when you want, without something stopping you from making the choice you want.
It doesn't matter whether somebody knows what choice you'll make. If nothing is preventing you from making that choice, it's still a free choice.
Suppose I know your favorite icecream flavour is strawberry. You and I go to the icecream shop and we're about to order. I think to myself "scorpius loves strawberry icecream. I'm sure he's going to order strawberry icecream."
Meanwhile, you're looking over the available flavours. You see chocolate and peppermint, but you don't like those nearly as much as strawberry icecream. "I'll have a strawberry icecream!" you say.
"Aha! I knew that's what you'd choose", I say.
Does my knowing in advance what you'd choose mean that your choice wasn't free? You got exactly the flavour you wanted. Nobody stopped you from choosing chocolate or peppermint instead of strawberry.
Not true. If someone knows then you don't have a choice.
But - despite the use of the word - you didn't know.
It was an infomed "guess" but it wasn't factual knowledge.
If chocolate had been chosen you'd have been surprised but it wouldn't have been an earth-shattering phenomenon.
Knowledge (i.e. factual, true) prior to events is in itself constraining.
For it to be true and factual then no other "choice" is possible.
That is still a non sequitur.
What phenomenon do you propose intercedes when you try to make a choice?
See, I dont think you can confidently draw that conclusion until and unless you can demonstrate a physical mechanism by which one can *know* the future. Without that, you can't conclude that free will is constrained.
Here's a spurious example: God observes his multiverse in which you make all possible choices. He knows your actions yet you are not constrained.
Sure, whatever, I guess that makes sense.
I don't think that follows.
Imagine you are given a (supposedly) free choice of what number to pick.
You can pick any from the infinite numbers (ignoring the practical impossibility of such).
God would know, in your scenario, which number you would pick in each and every individual universe.
In each universe, however, you are individually constrained to pick the number that he knew you would pick in that universe.
The question that remains which you have not answered is : what form exactly does the constraint on my choice take?
Are you suggesting that, if all possibilities happen I am somehow constrained in a particular universe to pick number 13 and am *unable* to make a choice? How would that work? I don't think there is any such condition on universes in a multiverse.
Consider my rolling a die ad infinitum. Does my knowledge a forehand that the results will turn out 16.66% per side mean that any given roll is somehow physically constrained? Like, if I've rolled one each of 1 through 5, the sixth roll will be constrained to roll a six?
The form that it takes is in the output being the only possible output that it could ever have been.
It was the only possible output the day before the "choice" was made.
It was the only possible output a billion years before the "choice" was made.
No alternative equates to constraint.
In what way do you think that having but one genuine path is not a constraint, even if the individual is not aware of the constraint?
The lack of awareness of the constraint is why the incompatibilists refer to it as an illusion of choice, an illusion of freewill, when in (their view of) reality there is but a single possible path.
If there is foreknowledge, predetermination, whatever you want to call it, whether the mechanism is known or not by which it is achieved, then there is constraint, as per above, whether one is aware of it or not at the time.
But we, as individuals, are (possibly necessarily by dint of being self-aware/conscious) unaware of the constraint, and thus unaware that the apparent freedom we have is but an illusion.
Or so the incompatibilist might argue.
They view the picture from what Tiassa might describe as the infinite, while the compatibilist the moment-to-moment awareness.
And never the twain shall meet.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.