Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zyr
Ah, here's a pair right now. No, wait, not Fraggles, what's the word for off topic people? Oh never mind. (Also, I believe Fraggles eat radishes, not turnips)
|
Note to self: Do not post while drunk.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zyr
Saying something is a possible outcome to a given situation is to say that were you to go through the situation an infinite number of times, at some point that thing would occur. To use previous metaphors, if Bob could choose chololate, then at some point, Bob would. If Bob choses vanilla 100% of the time then he never will, and thus cannot. Will not is the same as can not."
|
Does Bob not choose chocolate because Bob cannot choose chocolate... or does Bob not choose chocolate because Bob doesn't like chocolate?
I think
joe_eschaton said it better:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joe_eschaton
To make a choice there must be multiple courses of action yes, but which one of these is taken will obviously have to have been caused (or motivated; same thing). This doesn't bring causation and choice into conflict at all. Choice describes a state prior to action with its possible outcomes, causality manifests itself afterwards with the actual act that does occur.
No choice = no free will is about right. But choices can be caused and still be examples of a freely willing being. I choose this BECAUSE of that. I am still acting freely on a motive.
|
Also, your scenario does little to answer the question within the original context of an omniscient being knowing what would happen. There is no problem with, some of the infinite number of times, Bob choosing chocolate rather than his usual vanilla... and the omniscient being knowing chocolate's what he would choose that time around.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Francisco
Fraggles almost always come in pairs.
|
That is a disgusting mental image, you pervert.
I'll never be able to eat even an apple after reading that.