well that's my point......there is NO knowable outcome.....the outcome cannot be known in advance

Check again my last post...because that brings a problem with non-Being.

I'm not sure I follow.

The future is not coming from total emptiness it just doesn't come before itself.

it would be like a gopher digging a tunnel. He cannot be digging ahead of the furthest point he is currently digging. "Now" is the leading edge of the tunnel that is being dug in time.

Dug towards in what ???
you obviously know this is unacceptable !
Whatever is the passage of Time points to determinism...the meting of what is already there. No need for exterior, beyond Universe, or Multiverse Space...

Actually this was my first argument for Determinism when I was around 15...

well even if that was the case it doesn't necessarily imply determinism.....at least not for you or I.

obviously if proposition bivalence is true then you are correct in terms what of you're saying in terms of the passage of time being the meeting of what is already there and I don't deny proposition bivalence and I don't deny free will

but from the side of the argument I've been debating(not the side I hold mind you), what you say cannot be.

There could be nothing beyond this point in time.

Time would be like I'm saying a tunnel that is being built that had nothing at the leading edge before it was reached.

Worse you would still have to explain how space grows bigger then himself without a final cause and determinism !!!

isn't that what science currently says thought? That the universe is literally expanding into nothing?

Obviously I see what you're getting at and I agree it's a problem for anyone who would agree with the argument I've made(not the one I hold).

I'm saying that just because the future has already happened so to speak does not imply that I did not freely choose what I chose. It just means that what I freely chose I would always freely choose and would never freely choose the opposite.

you are saying well he can't tell me....I"m saying well suppose he does.....and you're saying, no, because he can't...

he can't tell me or he won't tell me?

if he can't tell me then why can't he? .

As I said, he cannot tell you because it would be false, and he cannot tell you what is false. Isn't that so? You yourself laid down that condition. So, he can tell you what you are going to do only if you are going to do it. But, since you are not going to do it, he cannot tell you that you will do it. What could be more obvious?

Of course, if you were going to do it, then he would tell you that you were going to do it. But I am supposing you will not do it. Of course, if I am wrong about that, and you do it, then he will tell you you are going to do it. And what can be more obvious than that?

I don't see the problem except that you are some how supposing that you will not do it, and he tells you that you will do it. But, according to you, that is impossible. Isn't it? Therefore the possibilities are that he does not tell you that you will do it, or else he tells you you will do it, and lies. But the second is impossible, so the first must be true.

by the definition of being my desires it's free. Regardless of what causes my desires....right?

by the definition of being my desires, it's free. Regardless of what causes my desires....right?

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 02:02 PM ----------

OK, so you said he can't tell me.

the only reason he CAN'T tell me is because a value does not exist absolutely prior to the happening....

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 02:03 PM ----------

No, that's not the reason at all. I already gave you the reason. The reason he cannot tell you is that if you chose not to do it, then if he told you it would happen, he would be telling you what was false, and you said he cannot do that, didn't you? So, since he cannot tell you what is false, and you will not die, then how can he tell you that you will die? Answer, he cannot tell you that you will die. Because, to repeat it would be false, and he cannot tell you what is false. Nothing whatever to do with bi-valence.

ok checking in one more time before I leave.....exactly what he's not getting.

the ONLY way a value could exists absolutely before the fact is if telling me will not make a difference

Not at all. For, since you will not die because you will not choose to die, Z. will not tell you that you will die. Why would he if you are not going to die? I still don't understand the problem Maybe we are on different pages here. Tell me, exactly what does he say to you?

typing from class...lol....

there exists a proposition, A, which states, "You will die tomorrow because you choose X".

Everything Zoltar says is true. Zoltar knows ALL.

proposition bivalence states that proposition A is either true right now......or proposition A is false right now.

Zoltar knows which it is.

Let us suppose proposition A is true just for the sake...

unless you think that propositions can change from true to false then Zoltar CAN tell you and have no worry that what he says can be false...

do you see what I'm saying?

What do you mean Zoltar knows what it it.

Apparently you are going to choose to die. But I still don't see the problem.