By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 01 February 2013
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

You didn't in any way take my exact statement. You made an absolutely insane leap regarding the word 'outside' in order to create a fictitious argument that suits your point.

Again, Outside does not mean 'cannot see' in any sense of the word. Your statement was about the most asinine thing I've heard anybody say in a while.

EDIT: Also, notice my statement assumed He would see time, as I asked how he would see it from his unique vantage point (meaning in what manner, or what it would look like).

So instead of answering my original question - how a deterministic path can exist with free will, you now want me to answer an unanswerable question? You want me to speculate on how an omniscient being views time?

Right...and I'm the pigeon holer...lmfao.

An omniscient being would view time in only one way - the way we view it because it is the Universal truth - bound by the Laws of the Universe. Snow globe comes to mind. 

Deterministic path cannot exist with free will - please address this without expanding the argument.

1. Already did, time traveler and frozen river analogy say hi, as well as the ensuing points regarding perspective and fixed vs non fixed perspective of spacetime, and the argument that observation or knowledge by a 3rd party does not fundamentally change the decision making process. It's a theoretical discussion and you're not able to step outside the box, so nothing else really to say there. Also, note I clearly said that paragraph was rhetorical (meaning I wasn't asking for an answer, just making the point that you're claiming to have a concrete answer to an unanswerable question as the basis of your argument, I'm not claiming a concrete answer, just a theory).

1. Yep.

3. This is the problem, you are saying for certain that an omniscient being would view time in only the way we view it, but then you won't even consider theories or ideas (because you've got the answers to the unanswerable questions of humanity). If I accept your axiom, then you're correct, but if you accept mine, then I have a point as well. These arguments are all based on axioms (as any philosophical discussion would be), so you need to stop pretending you have some complete and perfect point with no alternative views. I'm not even saying that about my points! Your fixed perspective is absolute truth? Well, there goes every single theory about spacetime in the world of theoritcal physics, better tell those morons they're definitely wrong and they should stop discussing such folly! 

4. Already did, done with that, you simply refuse to even consider the axioms for the sake of discussion. Any philosophical discussion uses axioms, which are, by definition, 'expanding the argument'. You want to have a philosophical discussion without anything philosophical or 'outside the box' being allowed, again, pointless.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?