dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
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?
|
I can't make this much simpler - your time traveler analogy doesn't apply. I've said this multiple times, yet you hang onto it as if it were your last hope. If you cannot accept that this is a fallacy, then you should take a logic course.
Frozen River - uh, I already said that's a valid perception/abstraction, but it isn't the only form of viewing the situation which nullifies it as some form of rebuttal. In other words, just because this is a valid view, there are an infinite number of other views that an omniscient being would possess and would not be confined to simply one.
Not once did I ever confine omniscience to one view, merely said that is one view he would perceive which validates the claim.
You still haven't address how a deterministic path can exist with free will. You are refusing to address it. I'm growing exceedingly tired of repeating myself.
I can step back and simply ask if your path is deterministic from the perspective of an omniscient being. Do you acknowledge this?
|
