Quote:
Originally posted by Moonduck
I don't see the dichotomy. Let's agree, for the nonce, that there is a hypothetical being capable of peering into the far future. Said being glimpses the future. Let's say that the future is the one actual future, and nothing will alter it. Where does this invalidate the concept of free will? Any possible future, even this single dominant deterministic one, was built on the actions of those exercising their free will.
In essence, simply having a set future does not mean that one does not free will, it simply means that this theoretical being can see the result of that will.
|
if your actions are fixed, then you don't have free will. That is the entire definition of free will.
If we cannot alter our actions, then we don't have free will, we are mere automata with the
illusion of having free will.