Rant 153: Freedom?

[Dags]

Let,Äôs bastardize Pascal,Äôs Wager:

Say you act as Free Will exists.  You make your choices, take responsibility, learn to control your life, and shape it the way you please.  It,Äôs hard work, but it makes you happy.

At the end of your life, in some mythical/mystical hypothetical situation, you find out that everything was predetermined.  You may feel like a chump, but at least you were happy.

To me this seems like say you went to work everyday and worked 40 hour weeks at the No Exit Co. for fourty long years. You finally get to go to the top floor where the big boss's work to file for your pension and discover only one person sitting at a small desk with some takeout sitting on top. Confused you inquire " Isn't this where I file for my pension " the guy slips a contract your way that says. You will now get your pension the only catch is you keep your mouth shut about what your going to be told or we come and kill you! Hesitantly you sign. The guy tells you a little known fact. You could have stayed at home all these years, you could have done whatever you wanted to everyday for the last 40 years and still gotten your check. Now you'll get your retirement but you didn't even have to show up here to sign this to get that. Now that you know this; you keep your mouth shut! Or we WILL come and kill you.

That sounds more like fatalism. If I'm fated ( determined ) to be cured of this disease, I will be; whether or not I go to the doctor. I don't agree this is the case. Nor that " acting " in accordance with your choices in life; change the truth of determinism.  Determinism doesn't change anything; it's an explanation; I think it's a truer explanation myself.

On the other hand, say you act as if everything is Predestined.  Nothing is actually your fault, all your problems were ,Äúmeant to be,Äù, and resistance to the will of Predestination is futile.  

At the end of your life, in some mythical/mystical hypothetical situation, you find out that Free Will exists.  Now you,Äôre depressed and a sucker, because any problem you had was completely able to be avoided and/or overcome.

On the first part; I never " get it " why the not your fault, thing? Is a quick assumption about determinism? Each person lives their life and dies their death; each person is responsible ( faults or credits ) go to them for all their actions.

Also; this thing about any problems that a person was able to overcome even though they didn't? Is in the negative. AFAIK The future hasn't happened yet. It's unwritten.

What will happen cannot be changed once it's in the past. Therefore because of what I do now; I cannot do another thing at this moment. In the future I can make plans for the future; Once the future becomes the past I will have done only what I have done and again am back where I started from ( in the present ) the only time I can actually do anything.

So you may as well act as if Free Will exists, because any other choice is a sucker,Äôs game.

How does a determinist act. No different than that of a person believing they have free will. The only thing that is missing from the free will defense here is God. A God that has foreknowledge of what will come to pass. Otherwise; the way I see it; all future events cannot be known; ie; all states of the universe at every moment in time future and past infinitely. This is where the whole free will defense seems to rum amok.

What's the mysterious experience that let's you know which it is. In the afterlife with God sucking my cock and explaining it to me in mumbled engrish?

Personally, I think that Free Will as a concept exists (,ÄúNothing is true; Everything is permitted,,Äù Hassan I Sabbah), but I also think that almost every human has too many self-imposed mental structures to act on it, and most people have physiological and psychological habits so ingrained upon them that they become entirely predictable.

All concepts exist as concepts; says nothing as to whether they are true or not. Even the truth concept.-heh I really enjoyed your post man that was thought out. But I am grateful if and only if you enjoyed writing what you wrought. That LMN?ò is the master key. No one but you can write for you, or live your life for you, no one can experience your experience.

Enjoy IT. Wahtever the fuck IT is.-heh

- Dags

[Dags]

Still the determinist argument seems valid in as much as the free will argument seems valid. Both sides have gathered impressive evidence to support their own assertions. But both sides are simple delusional when taken to extremes.

As I see it taken to the extremes determinism changes nothing. It's an explanation that stems from empirical laws regarding matter and physics; from the philsophy of materialism; and basically the relationship of cause and effect; applied to us.

If tommorrow I start speaking fluent Japanese as If I've done so for many years; then free-will would have more merit. That things can arise from nothing at all; without cause. A choice ( at the heart of the free-will debate ) doesn't come from nothing at all. It's made one way or the other; and It seems to me that since only one choice will be made; then thinking some other choice could have been made is delusional.

This is where I mentioned training and how it can make a difference in the simple phrase ;;; If I had only knew then what I know now.  I think there is something of substance there.

Sure we have certain biological things that we can't control (such as the big three: Old Age, Sickness, Death). Sure a lot of our neurology is hardwired. And that's the rub on the determinist side - they falsely assume that hardwiring means predetermined. Even though the study of cognition and linguistics proves that though much more than we expect is already hardwired into our nervous systems, the outcome is still up in the air. The determinists also look to superficial aspects such as biochemistry, physiological functions, emotional habits, etc. Those are just waves on the ocean. And saying the ocean is made of water gets you no closer to the truth.

Chance is determined. Chaos is determined. Randomness is determined.

A whirlpool is an emergent property of water. It has an extra somethingness that a simple drop of water doesn't like a wave; Yet when the whirlpool dissipates you are left with water. Does the whirlpool come from nothing? No. Arise from chance, chaos, randomness? Perhaps. But not from nothing. Just as the human cognitiion and linguistics do not arise out of nothing; nor the decisions each person makes.

The free will proponents can seem to err too much in saying that our entire reality can be chosen for us by us in untrammeled limitlessness.  However, like the determinists, much of what they are saying makes sense and can be supported by the evidence. Free will supporters also like to focus too much on the superfical aspects like emotions, thoughts, and dreams, without ever once dwelling on the possible interelated causes of such conditions. Again, the see the waves and forget the ocean.

I haven't mentioned compatablism yet. But this seems to be the middle ground between the two; so not to make an excluded middle argument. Accounts for as you say both the waves and the ocean; or a little bit both.

I do try and account for both emergent properties and the substance that makes them possible.

Both sides are merely paradigms and intellectual diddling around them gets us no where fast.

Where do we go? Every think of how we'll depending on where you have traveled. When reading about this or that person or about this or that time in the history of man. Where you might be standing where this or that guy once stood. Looking at a mountain just the same; taking a shit. All those names in any books of any time period sopped up air, ate food, took a shit just like we do. Where did they go? Fast or slow....

Why not try to find the nature of your mind and of life for yourself and let's leave tired and worn out theories to the past

I suppose after reading a little bit of this and that from long dead and really really old long gone philosophers and thinkers and such that even though I don't esteem myself in the same regard as them; I share in their spirit to communicate ideas and thoughts. To spend some time reflecting on the thoughts I have about this or that. I think the free will / determinism argument has been going on for at least four centuries give or take a few years.-heh It's still a pretty good one. Really hard to prove free-will and really against common reason to think otherwise.

For a really good and succint! Philosophy take a look at Carvaka if you haven't heard of it; the oldest thought out atheistic philosophy I know of; created as a response to the religion of that time and locality.

http://www.humanistictexts.org/carvaka.htm

If it's NEW to me; then It's new enough for me to check out the first time. I wouldn't expect anyone to get excited about watching The Matrix 1999 for the twentieth time either. But, damn you know some people never get tired of that movie. So I have no idea about the reasons behind that other than no one can ENJOY my swimming for me. Even if I paid them to do it; it's just not the same as getting in the water and doing it. doing it....

- Dags

note: I know earlier I said I don't understand what I'm saying; I changed my mind; when I read it today ti made perfect sense. Now I'm tired so I won't understand this If I read it again. So I won't. I need to take a break now. See you back here when I get back if your still here and all that. Alright then.

[DJRubberducky]

On the other hand, say you act as if everything is Predestined.  Nothing is actually your fault, all your problems were ,Äúmeant to be,Äù, and resistance to the will of Predestination is futile.

On the first part; I never " get it " why the not your fault, thing? Is a quick assumption about determinism? Each person lives their life and dies their death; each person is responsible ( faults or credits ) go to them for all their actions.

How can they be responsible for their actions if their actions were predetermined by an outside force?  "Predestination", at least in the sense LMN0 is using it, means that Somebody Out There has already decided that you *will* do a particular thing at some point in your life.  You can't make the choice to do otherwise.  And you didn't make the choice to do it.  It was completely taken out of your hands.  And with that lack of power (to do otherwise) comes a lack of responsibility.

(Unrelated: I've also heard "predestination" used to mean that &deity; has already determined which souls are going to heaven and which are going to hell.  You couldn't be saved by doing good deeds, or even condemned for doing bad ones.  Your motivation for doing good and avoiding evil was to check and see if you were one of the saved, and/or flaunt said status to others.)

[LMNO]

To me this seems like say you went to work everyday and worked 40 hour weeks at the No Exit Co. for fourty long years. You finally get to go to the top floor where the big boss's work to file for your pension and discover only one person sitting at a small desk with some takeout sitting on top. Confused you inquire " Isn't this where I file for my pension " the guy slips a contract your way that says. You will now get your pension the only catch is you keep your mouth shut about what your going to be told or we come and kill you! Hesitantly you sign. The guy tells you a little known fact. You could have stayed at home all these years, you could have done whatever you wanted to everyday for the last 40 years and still gotten your check. Now you'll get your retirement but you didn't even have to show up here to sign this to get that. Now that you know this; you keep your mouth shut! Or we WILL come and kill you.

That sounds more like fatalism. If I'm fated ( determined ) to be cured of this disease, I will be; whether or not I go to the doctor. I don't agree this is the case. Nor that " acting " in accordance with your choices in life; change the truth of determinism.  Determinism doesn't change anything; it's an explanation; I think it's a truer explanation myself.

Perhaps one of our metaphors was a bit off.  I,Äôll work off of yours, if you don,Äôt mind.

Let me start by assuming a few things:
1. The ,Äújob,Äù = one,Äôs life on earth.
2. The ,Äúboss,Äù = some higher power who knows

So, one cannot ,Äúquit,Äù the job, except for suicide.  Which is a choice, but a seemingly limited one.

Which means, the choices one makes in the job, as you graduate from mail boy to CEO, are seemingly yours to make.

But then, at retirement, The Mysterious Boss tells you that your career path was chosen before you were even hired.  

My point being, in this proposed situation, what would happen if you acted like you had free will, and you actually didn,Äôt?  Indeed, this does sound like fatalism, because in this instance, I,Äôm taking the fatalistic view.  It,Äôs my opinion that one would feel good about their lives because even an illusion of self-control would be better than the knowledge that your hard work meant nothing; that no matter what you do, you can,Äôt change your future.

Oh, and there,Äôs no pension.

On the first part; I never " get it " why the not your fault, thing? Is a quick assumption about determinism? Each person lives their life and dies their death; each person is responsible ( faults or credits ) go to them for all their actions.

Also; this thing about any problems that a person was able to overcome even though they didn't? Is in the negative. AFAIK The future hasn't happened yet. It's unwritten.

What will happen cannot be changed once it's in the past. Therefore because of what I do now; I cannot do another thing at this moment. In the future I can make plans for the future; Once the future becomes the past I will have done only what I have done and again am back where I started from ( in the present ) the only time I can actually do anything.

In the second instance, to continue the metaphor, pretend I get hired as a mailboy, and I say to myself, ,Äúeverything has been determined, I just don,Äôt know what it is.  But if I just let the Universe do what it wants, my destination will reveal itself, and everything will be fine.,Äù

Decades pass, and I never get out of the mailroom, wile all my friends are executives.  I tell myself, ,Äúit must be that I have been destined to work in the mailroom all my life.,Äù

But then, at retirement, I find out from the mystery boss that it was up to me to determine how my career ladder would progress, that it wasn,Äôt foretold if I would be promoted.  It was my lack of choice-making that left me in the mailroom.  In this hypothetical, Once again, I feel it would be better to act as if one had Free Will, because in this instance, it turns out your did.

The point being, in each instance, it seems better to act as if you had Free Will.

How does a determinist act. No different than that of a person believing they have free will.

That, I don,Äôt see.  If a Determinist acts, it seems to me that it would be under a conviction that what they are doing was Meant To Be.  This reeks of Greyface.  A Free Will-ist would act with more of a sense of personal responsibility.

The only thing that is missing from the free will defense here is God. A God that has foreknowledge of what will come to pass. Otherwise; the way I see it; all future events cannot be known; ie; all states of the universe at every moment in time future and past infinitely. This is where the whole free will defense seems to rum amok.

The difference is, if the future is predetermined, then there will always be someone who will claim to know what that predetermination is (Cf: Manifest Destiny).  

I must confess, I,Äôll have to ask for further clarification as to your point about God (or the absence thereof), Free Will, whether the future can be known, and running amok.

What's the mysterious experience that let's you know which it is. In the afterlife with God sucking my cock and explaining it to me in mumbled engrish?

It,Äôs a hypothetical that allows this meta-think to posit that there is a way for the answer to be 100% known.  It sets up the game rules for this metaphor.  Nice imagery, though.

All concepts exist as concepts; says nothing as to whether they are true or not. Even the truth concept.

Perhaps I should have said, ,ÄúPersonally, I fee Free Will exists technically (,ÄúNothing is true; Everything is permitted,,Äù Hassan I Sabbah), but I also think that almost every human has too many self-imposed mental structures to act on it, and most people have physiological and psychological habits so ingrained upon them that they become entirely predictable.,Äù


And just so we remember where I,Äôm drawing this hypothetical from, it,Äôs loosely based on Pascal,Äôs Wager.

[LHX]

maybe it could be said that once you conceptualize a pre-determined scenario
it become inescapable

you will never be able to truly convince yourself of 'free will' any longer




maybe it can be said that 'free will' only lasts as long as it takes to understand a new set of responsibilities
until you die
at which point you learn what you were really responsible for

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

Dags, I get what you are saying. But I believe the "fluent Japanese in an instant" example was unnecessary and ...still if it happened, it says nothing about either side: free-will or determinism. God could have zapped you. Or lightning. Or Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammer could have blown your mind up and allowed you to do it.  Who knows?

I have actually been into some earlier Indian philosophers/wise men. Nagarjuna is one of my favorites, do to his insistence on breaking down theories, ideas, and cherished assumptions.

[Dags]

Perhaps one of our metaphors was a bit off.  I,Äôll work off of yours, if you don,Äôt mind.

Let me start by assuming a few things:
1. The ,Äújob,Äù = one,Äôs life on earth.
2. The ,Äúboss,Äù = some higher power who knows

So, one cannot ,Äúquit,Äù the job, except for suicide.  Which is a choice, but a seemingly limited one.

Which means, the choices one makes in the job, as you graduate from mail boy to CEO, are seemingly yours to make.

But then, at retirement, The Mysterious Boss tells you that your career path was chosen before you were even hired.  

I meant it more literally. As an example of fatalism; NOT determinism. The point being that everyone that works at No Exit Co. (name coming from the current board name) gets paid whether they work or not; just the same. Fatalism.

In the deterministic world; things are exactly the same as the world people thinking they have free-will live in. Nothing is different about them; except an understanding that there is no free lunch. Nothing comes from nothing.

Fatalism is the philosophy that inaction changes nothing. If it's "meant to be; then it will be" ; determinism is not fatalism.

My point being, in this proposed situation, what would happen if you acted like you had free will, and you actually didn,Äôt?  Indeed, this does sound like fatalism, because in this instance, I,Äôm taking the fatalistic view.  It,Äôs my opinion that one would feel good about their lives because even an illusion of self-control would be better than the knowledge that your hard work meant nothing; that no matter what you do, you can,Äôt change your future.

Acting is just that. The mind allows for many beliefs about reality and what is true; delusions and such that people can ad hoc their way through life is they so choose; as Nietzche said " "A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

Oh, and there,Äôs no pension.

Nope you DO get a pension for the hard work you didn't have to do. You just have to keep your mouth shut and not tell the others what you know.-heh

In the second instance, to continue the metaphor, pretend I get hired as a mailboy, and I say to myself, ,Äúeverything has been determined, I just don,Äôt know what it is.  But if I just let the Universe do what it wants, my destination will reveal itself, and everything will be fine.,Äù

Decades pass, and I never get out of the mailroom, wile all my friends are executives.  I tell myself, ,Äúit must be that I have been destined to work in the mailroom all my life.,Äù

But then, at retirement, I find out from the mystery boss that it was up to me to determine how my career ladder would progress, that it wasn,Äôt foretold if I would be promoted.  It was my lack of choice-making that left me in the mailroom.  In this hypothetical, Once again, I feel it would be better to act as if one had Free Will, because in this instance, it turns out your did.

Sort of like the mystery boss tells you what determinist already know. You must do something ( cause ) to get the desired benefits of that action (effect ). Well I suppose others can do for you; but it cost someone something. Determinism doesn't contradict physics and natural laws.

The point being, in each instance, it seems better to act as if you had Free Will.

You ask further on for me to define some things can you define what you mean by free-will. I'm thinking free-will is the " freedom " to act outside of your predisposition; I guess that's a good enough term. To act outside of what you would do given your personal and individual sum of experiences and knowledge and things of that nature.

Shit man... hmm...  Too wordy... Free-will as the ability to choose against your own nature. I suppose is a much simplier way of putting it.

I'm not saying against nature as limited to all pleasent things; I'm just saying given the scope and breadth and depth of your individual character only one choice really exist. In the sense of future, present, and past. Just as a past choice is ONE and not ANOTHER. All choices are ONE and NOT ANOTHER. I'm not shouting either just tired and typing quotation marks.

How does a determinist act. No different than that of a person believing they have free will.

That, I don,Äôt see.  If a Determinist acts, it seems to me that it would be under a conviction that what they are doing was Meant To Be.  This reeks of Greyface.  A Free Will-ist would act with more of a sense of personal responsibility.

Well the reality of the situation makes it necessarily so. Whatever a person does is what they do. Irregardless of what they believe about it. Reality kicks the real McCoy and determinism doesn't contradict it as far as I know.

The difference is, if the future is predetermined, then there will always be someone who will claim to know what that predetermination is (Cf: Manifest Destiny).  

People claim all sorts of things. The future hasn't happen yet or it wouldn't be the future. Determinism doesn't change that. Problem with prediction is the number of variables. Determinism stems from cause and effect; which is the basis of physics and such; As far as I know; no evidence exist to prove that the future has already happened. Nor that it can be certainly known as Einstein said " Reality is an illusion; albeit a persistant one". If reality were to change so would our empirical laws concerning it; conservation laws; etcetera...

I must confess, I,Äôll have to ask for further clarification as to your point about God (or the absence thereof), Free Will, whether the future can be known, and running amok.

Free-will stems from the assumptions that everything comes from nothing. That effects do not require causes. You can choose things apart from your nature; you can decide and have abilities outside of your nature; experience; etcetera... That was my point about speaking fluent Japanese tommorrow; an effect with no cause....

I think God is an extra assumption given to anthromorphic leanings to understand the effects of the world; apart from understanding the cause...

I think I explained a bit more what I regard as the free-will argument.....

I don't think the future can be known entirely; but understanding reality as being persistant and for what " like causes produce like effects " we can predict many things within reason .....

What I meant by running amok is trying to ad hoc reasons why a person could make choices apart from what they have already chosen to do. This or that; instead of what was actually chosen. All one does is all one does; our minds certainly allow for us to play a this or that scenario which is great I'm not knocking it; but once the choice slides into the past; it cannot be any other.

What's the mysterious experience that let's you know which it is. In the afterlife with God sucking my cock and explaining it to me in mumbled engrish?

It,Äôs a hypothetical that allows this meta-think to posit that there is a way for the answer to be 100% known.  It sets up the game rules for this metaphor.  Nice imagery, though.

Sure. Thinking of what I said about ' If I'd known then what I know now' choices would be different. That's why knowledge is power. Training in the way a person should go, they won't depart from it.  Not saying that people don't exercise self training or that folks don't follow their own natural predilictions either.

All concepts exist as concepts; says nothing as to whether they are true or not. Even the truth concept.

Perhaps I should have said, ,ÄúPersonally, I fee Free Will exists technically (,ÄúNothing is true; Everything is permitted,,Äù Hassan I Sabbah), but I also think that almost every human has too many self-imposed mental structures to act on it, and most people have physiological and psychological habits so ingrained upon them that they become entirely predictable.,Äù

Yet I would disagree as to what Hassan has said about nothing being true.

Nothing doesn't exist because it can't be defined. Nothing is the absense of something. If you can define something then it's not nothing. What is the nothing Hassan can speak of? All absense of truth? Yet to say " Hassan is quoted as saying this nonsense " Is a true statement. Therefore a truth can be said ABOUT what Hassan has wrote. Thus invalidating his statement.

Also everything is too vague to defend. But I do like quotes and they pack alot into a tight space. It'd require some elaboration, or I'd have to read more of his work to understand what he means with that; doubting that I'd agree with it; I'm already biased... so....

Anyways... In determinism reality exist in it's true state; We then can manipulate reality by producing effects and recording what we learn about it. If it's consistent then that tells us something about reality. Because we can communicate what we have learned; not everyone has to start from the beginning; we can try and build on that knowledge but difficult as it may be; so much is known already that takes a full lifetime to even contemplate or try and learn a fraction of it.

- Dags

And just so we remember where I,Äôm drawing this hypothetical from, it,Äôs loosely based on Pascal,Äôs Wager.

Yeah; I based my hypothetical on the ideas of fatalism and tried to explain why determinism is not fatalism at all. Though it might seem that way without knowing what is which one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

[Dags]

On the other hand, say you act as if everything is Predestined.  Nothing is actually your fault, all your problems were ,Äúmeant to be,Äù, and resistance to the will of Predestination is futile.

On the first part; I never " get it " why the not your fault, thing? Is a quick assumption about determinism? Each person lives their life and dies their death; each person is responsible ( faults or credits ) go to them for all their actions.

How can they be responsible for their actions if their actions were predetermined by an outside force?  "Predestination", at least in the sense LMN0 is using it, means that Somebody Out There has already decided that you *will* do a particular thing at some point in your life.  You can't make the choice to do otherwise.  And you didn't make the choice to do it.  It was completely taken out of your hands.  And with that lack of power (to do otherwise) comes a lack of responsibility.

(Unrelated: I've also heard "predestination" used to mean that &deity; has already determined which souls are going to heaven and which are going to hell.  You couldn't be saved by doing good deeds, or even condemned for doing bad ones.  Your motivation for doing good and avoiding evil was to check and see if you were one of the saved, and/or flaunt said status to others.)

Determinism doesn't change responsibility. It might make for understanding certain behaviors don't arise from nothing at all. That if someone does something that was the only choice available to them. Past actions cannot be changed. Teaching someone something, training someone to do something, does change what they will do in the future. A persons future can be systematically projected; As much as a person capable by nature to be trained to fly a fighter jet; can in the future pilot a fighter jet. Determinism doesn't change anything apart from how things already are.

If a person does something ' then they are responsible for having done it '. No one else but them did it.

Understanding both of these things; then it becomes more readily understood why parents are held accountable for the actions of their children in many instances. Because they are the primary trainers of them; the responsibility doesn't rest on the child. Past a certain age though a person reaches an age of accountability and they are held responsible for what they do in certain instances.

Maybe it'd be simplier to just say that determinism changes not one thing about " How we do business "  

A primer for materialism and in regards to humans in general check out " what is man " by mark twain - here for free and all that ....

http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

- Dags

[Dags]

Dags, I get what you are saying. But I believe the "fluent Japanese in an instant" example was unnecessary and ...still if it happened, it says nothing about either side: free-will or determinism. God could have zapped you. Or lightning. Or Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammer could have blown your mind up and allowed you to do it.  Who knows?

I have actually been into some earlier Indian philosophers/wise men. Nagarjuna is one of my favorites, do to his insistence on breaking down theories, ideas, and cherished assumptions.

It was just an example of an effect ( speaking Japanese ) without a cause ( no training or reason to have the ability )

I think it does; it would show a choice existed other than what already is available to a person; or within their " spectrum of choices " for the day.

It didn't happen though. Although I do know some Japanese; but I also spent some time in Japan. So? Not really miraculous if I did. Just trying to make an relevant example. Fluent Japanese OTOH... Ouch... Enough to get around Japan was bad enough and I could tell from their tiny expressions my mouth was chainsawing their language! Oh well .... Good thing a LOT of them speak engrish.

On that about breaking down theories, ideas, and cherished assumptions I hear you on that man.

Lots of things that are considered proven scientific facts all began as theories, ideas, and assumptions so I'm not knocking them on that account. I'm typing this into what was once just an idea, so you might read it or someone else. Reality is the arbitrator of what really happens though.

What's odd; strip things down of all the rhetoric, flashy displays, extra superfulous jargon, and basically anything that isn't a bare assed theory, idea, or assumption. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to see what's being said; lot's of times little to nothing. Though, at least sometimes, all those other things can make it up; by at least keeping it entertaining.-heh

- Dags

[Caster Braids]

Last time I checked, Predestinationers and Free-Willers were still tied in the Fourth Quarter.

Either way, it doesn't matter.

[LMNO]

Before I get into this more deeply (as it will probably take most of the morning), I just want to point out that it looks like we're talking about separate issues.

I was soley referring to "there is no set future, and no master plan", v "the future can be known, and there is a master plan."

You seem to be dealing with "Nothing can be changed" v "specific actions produce specific results."

In this, the two positions are dealing with completely different issues.  If you like, I can switch gears & talk about Determinism.

Your call.

[LHX]

double post

[LHX]

"the future can be understood, and there is a master process."

for the record
that is roughly my current understanding

You seem to be dealing with "Nothing can be changed" v "specific actions produce specific results."

the contents can change
the process cannot

[LHX]

Last time I checked, Predestinationers and Free-Willers were still tied in the Fourth Quarter.

Either way, it doesn't matter.

thats the way they staged it

they take tips from professional wrestling

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

the contents can change
the process cannot

Both the process and the contents are simply conditions and contingencies that are subject to and composed of yet more of the same.

What do you say to back up you statement?