Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
The central question in free will is not, as you maintain, whether or not we have the ability to do otherwise. The central question is whether our actions are up to us -- this is why randomness is incompatible with free will. The question of whether or not we have the ability to do otherwise comes up because it seems like, if an action is up to us, we could have done otherwise. But this definition itself has its problems. In any case, I think it's easier to see how omniscience, which does not entail any influence on our actions, fails to conflict at all with free will. (Whereas Omnipotence might, but probably doesn't, and Providence gets really tricky).
|
You have made a distinction which is essentially without a difference. And certainly either "definition" has its problems. And to counter your bald statement with my own, omniscience, a priori, conflicts with the exercise of free will, as well as any theory that we have free will even if we don't exercise it.
And "randomness" would be incompatible with omniscience, but if you use the term as it relates to the chaos theory, which is how I and others have used it, it certainly is compatible with free will, and a prerequsite.
But as you once pointed out, all of this has pretty much been discussed before. (And why dance around the term omnipotence, as if it were not the real elephant in the room?)
In any case, I think we, too, are at the point where we need to agree to disagree.