Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

@xris,

xris;110553 wrote:

The future may not be fixed in terms that we cant predetermine. If we have the ability to exert free will and that free will is seen to be done , why is the ability to observe that free will before it occurs in our time frame illogical?

I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't even know what it means to "observe free will". We make choices and act, and our choices and actions are not compelled. Is that what you mean?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;110555 wrote:

I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't even know what it means to "observe free will". We make choices and act, and our choices and actions are not compelled. Is that what you mean?

The world is our stage and we are merely actors , acting out our life's story. We assist in its writting but not when the audience can view our story.

You appear not to understand the idea that a story is a story, it does not matter when you read that story it will always be the same story. Read it after your death or before your born, its the same story, its your story.

@xris,

xris;110488 wrote:

Paradoxes are not allowed in the sequences of time , creator or not, you cant change the laws of nature.

What do you think of Hume's criticism of causality? I personally think a better word for "laws" would be "tendencies."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110634 wrote:

What do you think of Hume's criticism of causality? I personally think a better word for "laws" would be "tendencies."

or maybe "habits".

@kennethamy,

Prothero,

I agree, "habits" is also good. I think philosophy should keep science on its toes. For science is founded upon concepts as much as measurements. And while professional scientists are probably pretty conceptually sophisticated, I feel that many have absorbed certain scientific concepts without a sufficient examination of just these interpretative concepts. For instance, this questionable metaphor "law." The enemies of science are often its truest friends, but I am excluding those who reject the claims of "reason" entirely.

I like Paul Feyerabend. His Against Method seems to have the open-mindedness that I associate with "true" science.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110634 wrote:

What do you think of Hume's criticism of causality? I personally think a better word for "laws" would be "tendencies."

Im not sure how it can relate to my statement. You have an event and it had cause but you cant predict the outcome of a cause. If we have laws that nature has made, nature can not oppose and act differently to its design. Creators must act accordingly.

@kennethamy,

Respectfully, I suggest that you check it out. Causality is arguably a useful fiction.

Why should the future resemble the past? Just because it has? This is a sort of induction of induction itself....

Hume's criticism is quite radical, quite surprising. It's an eye-opener. Science must consider its axioms/assumptions or it's half-science....

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110660 wrote:

Respectfully, I suggest that you check it out. Causality is arguably a useful fiction.

Why should the future resemble the past? Just because it has? This is a sort of induction of induction itself....

Hume's criticism is quite radical, quite surprising. It's an eye-opener. Science must consider its axioms/assumptions or it's half-science....

Hume may be radical but he has his opponents. I believe if we abide by certain criteria the result could be described but if we dont know the criteria then the outcome can not be defined. There is grey area but also very distinct reason to believe the future can be determined. Determination has objectives, it can have obstacles but that does not destroy the idea of determination.

@kennethamy,

He does have have his opponents, but I have not yet heard his criticism of causality refuted.... That doesn't mean it hasn't been. If anyone knows a good counter to Hume on this, let me know. It's a fascinating subject..

But Hume does open a crack in our notions of determinism. To call Nature's tendencies "laws" becomes more explicitly metaphorical. We impose an interpretation because it serves us somehow, either practically or emotionally. The concept of natural law may even trace back to Spinoza. The laws of nature are the mind of God, that sort of thing.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110669 wrote:

He does have have his opponents, but I have not yet heard his criticism of causality refuted.... That doesn't mean it hasn't been. If anyone knows a good counter to Hume on this, let me know. It's a fascinating subject..

But Hume does open a crack in our notions of determinism. To call Nature's tendencies "laws" becomes more explicitly metaphorical. We impose an interpretation because it serves us somehow, either practically or emotionally. The concept of natural law may even trace back to Spinoza. The laws of nature are the mind of God, that sort of thing.

God is not the law giver. Nature has determination, to deny that is futile. It may appear to act differently with differing conditions but it abides by certain criteria. If you find his notions on determinism so convincing you can use his arguments to dispute my opinions. I relish the challenge. I will return tomorrow , till then good night, my bed calleth.thanks xris

@xris,

xris;110674 wrote:

God is not the law giver. Nature has determination, to deny that is futile. It may appear to act differently with differing conditions but it abides by certain criteria. If you find his notions on determinism so convincing you can use his arguments to dispute my opinions. I relish the challenge. I will return tomorrow , till then good night, my bed calleth.thanks xris

I appreciate your spirit, but my goal is not to deny the usefulness of the causality principle but rather to historicize it. I would rather you investigate his arguments yourself. To not investigate a challenge to your deterministic world view..is this not similar to a theist ignoring arguments against God?

recon
Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110676 wrote:

I appreciate your spirit, but my goal is not to deny the usefulness of the causality principle but rather to historicize it. I would rather you investigate his arguments yourself. To not investigate a challenge to your deterministic world view..is this not similar to a theist ignoring arguments against God?

recon

i recognise the arguments but not the conclusions, it appears you are not sufficiently convinced either.

@kennethamy,

I belief both, neither, and can't remember the question. Smile

Philosophy Forum

Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know