Choice and freedom

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:
IF you could back and 'replay' this moment it would still be the same because we would make the exact same 'choices' again.
But Mat of course you can't.

Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't matter if you can or can't recreate this situation, the fact remains that remains that in this scenario that we are living there is only one outcome.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

Quote:

Do you even know what time is? Time is the order of events, if the present was the only part in time than that would be the only event. If that was the only event then nothing else would ever happen.

Well... yes. Can you think of one thing that does not happen in the present?

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

Quote:

….the fact remains that remains that in this scenario that we are living there is only one outcome.

I'm lost Mat in the semantics of it all. Somehow your conclusion seems tautological

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I'm lost Mat in the semantics of it all. Somehow your conclusion seems tautological

Let me rephrase: There is only one POSSIBLE outcome

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Quote:
Do you even know what time is? Time is the order of events, if the present was the only part in time than that would be the only event. If that was the only event then nothing else would ever happen.
Well... yes. Can you think of one thing that does not happen in the present?

I didn't say saying that anything doesn't happen in the present, I said that according to you, Only one thing EVER happens.

1 Reply

Just lurking.

0 Replies

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

Quote:
I'm lost Mat in the semantics of it all. Somehow your conclusion seems tautological
Let me rephrase: There is only one POSSIBLE outcome

If there is only one possible outcome wouldn't that kinda mean that the same exact outcome happened before, making it "determined" to always happen? Something has to happen to make something determined, which would imply we only exist to keep living the same exact determined life that once was, as in choice is moot, and when we "die" we are "reborn" to live the same life over again. If everything is determined then this must've happened before.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

No, that is not what I said.
I said that everything that does happen happens simultaneously. Everything but the actual event taking place is either memory (past) or expectations (future). But both memories and expectations are mental phenomenon happening in our head, in the present.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

Quote:

If there is only one possible outcome wouldn't that kinda mean that the same exact outcome happened before, making it "determined" to always happen?

No, if something is going to happen it does not mean that it already happened

Quote:

Something has to happen to make something determined

Yeah, what were doing right now is determining future events, but what we are doing now has already been determined by previous events.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

If that's what you meant, than that's fine. but what you SAID was

Quote:

The entirety of time itself is only one immeasurably small moment that we call the present.

Maybe I just don't get what your saying, but it sounds like your saying that the only time is the present. Which (In my opinion) is clearly wrong.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

Yes. The only time is the present.

Why do you think that is wrong?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Why do you ask ?
...check the said present now to see the answer he will give you tomorrow ! Very Happy

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I can see what your trying to say; the only time we experience is what is happening at that time. That does not mean that the only time is the present.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Sometimes we have to make choices when we do not want to.

Being presented with a choice can be just as restrictive to freedom as it can be empowering. It seems it depends entirely on the choice, or perhaps the options.

We often choose the lesser evil, which means that we choose to bring about a state of affairs that we'd rather avoid. Take as an example a guy with two lovers, both of whom have given him an ultimatum; "choose one of us or lose me". The guy wants to maintain both relationships but his girlfriends will not allow this, so he must choose something that is not what he wants.

Nevertheless, after he chooses, his friends will say that "he is doing what he wants", regardless of their approval of his choice.

This illustrates an important distinction between two notions of "want". These notions are equivocated over in some free will denial arguments.

0 Replies

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

I just believe that the future is unchangeable. Here, think of it this way, If you have a scenario, play it out, and then you play it out again, every time you play it out the outcome will be the same. Doesn't that mean that the future can't be changed?

Your thought experiment begs the question. If there is no future, then when you "play it out again", there is no outcome to be "the same" as. By assuming that there is a future state to which something can be the same, you have assumed a definite future. But as that is exactly what you're supposedly demonstrating, your thought experiment doesn't go anywhere towards doing so.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

If there is only one possible outcome wouldn't that kinda mean that the same exact outcome happened before, making it "determined" to always happen?

No, if something is going to happen it does not mean that it already happened

But according to your repeating scenerio theory if something is going to happen, it means it already did happen because it happened in the previous scenarios and will happen in this one.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

I am not saying that the scenario does keep repeating, I'm saying that if you could go back it would turn out the same as it did the first time, meaning it couldn't have happened any other way.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Your thought experiment begs the question. If there is no future, then when you "play it out again", there is no outcome to be "the same" as

I don't believe that there is 'no future'.

Quote:

By assuming that there is a future state to which something can be the same, you have assumed a definite future

I am not, in fact, asserting the consequent, because I am not saying that you would go back from the future, I am saying that you would go back from now. So it wouldn't be comparing it to the future, it would be comparing to how already turned out.
Please don't say "But you can't go back", I already know that, it's a hypothetical. Oh, and I thumbed up your post because it was a good argument.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

That's exactly what I mean. the only way there could be only one possible outcome is if you and I arent experiencing the first original go through. We must've somehow "went back" on the original and are "playing through it now, in which case, then yes, everything would be determined with only one possible outcome. But that is the only way there can be only a one possible outcome, or determined, reality. It must've already happened.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

Quote:
Your thought experiment begs the question. If there is no future, then when you "play it out again", there is no outcome to be "the same" as
I don't believe that there is 'no future'.

What you believe is irrelevant to how an argument works. To demonstrate that the future is fixed, your argument must work independent of the assumption that it does.

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

Quote:
By assuming that there is a future state to which something can be the same, you have assumed a definite future
I am not, in fact, asserting the consequent, because I am not saying that you would go back from the future, I am saying that you would go back from now.

But that is exactly the same. By assuming that the present state existed, to be "the same as", in the past, you have assumed the fixity of the future. The future is a directed relation between two points of time; if one of these points is past with respect to the other, then that other is future with respect to the first.

The libertarian position about free will is not that the agent can perform both actions A and not-A, it's that the agent can perform either action A or not-A. So it's not an objection to point out that at time one the agent performs a specific action, and that is all that your thought experiment could achieve, even if it could be constructed without begging the question.

1 Reply

Choice and freedom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know