View Full Version : Bob knows what you are going to do
There is no possibility of you choosing anything contrary, because he knows what you are going to choose, based upon your will. You have many options, but ultimately you choose to do something, and Bob knows it, no matter what it is. Since Bob knows what you were going to choose in any given situation, are you not choosing it? Do you have free will?
KrsJin
06-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Still have free will, still choosing it. Bob's just real good at guessing, or is able to access information we can't.
Rioting Soul
06-03-2007, 12:12 AM
There is no possibility of you choosing anything contrary, because he knows what you are going to choose, based upon your will. You have many options, but ultimately you choose to do something, and Bob knows it, no matter what it is. Since Bob knows what you were going to choose in any given situation, are you not choosing it? Do you have free will?
Just because Bob knows what you are going to do, does not mean you have no free will. If Bob says what you are about to do, then he says what you do in reaction to hearing the first prediction then he is not controlling your actions. He is only plotting out your causality, you still come upon those actions by your free will.
And this thread is fucking wierd.
Still have free will, still choosing it. Bob's just real good at guessing, or is able to access information we can't.
Isn't the only outcome what Bob knows? Doesn't that mean that there is only one outcome and therefore you don't actually have choice?
Did Bob know that I was masturbating AND falling asleep at the same time, 14 minutes ago?
Somebody I have talked with seems to have a problem rationalizing their position. He stopped responding, so I want to see if I am wrong before we proceed, that is why this thread existed.
I'm hoping to get some particular responses going a certain way.
Did Bob know that I was masturbating AND falling asleep at the same time, 14 minutes ago?
Indeed he does.
If Bob exists outside of time, then you can still have freewill as he experiences your past, present, and future all as his present.
Or I think that's how it works...
Hm... interesting... What do you think of what I said above about Bob and choice? Do you have free will considering this?
If Bob exists outside of time, then you can still have freewill as he experiences your past, present, and future all as his present.
Or I think that's how it works...
Rioting Soul
06-03-2007, 12:19 AM
Isn't the only outcome what Bob knows? Doesn't that mean that there is only one outcome and therefore you don't actually have choice?
Bob knows that Joe will raise his right hand, and he knows that Joe will raise his left if Bob says he will raise his right. If Bob doesn't say anything then Joe will indeed raise his right hand. I'm confusing myself and now I think he is controlling him(Joe just doesn't know it).
Bob knows that Joe will raise his right hand, and he knows that Joe will raise his left if Bob says he will raise his right. If Bob doesn't say anything then Joe will indeed raise his left hand. I'm confusing myself and now I think he is controlling him(Joe just doesn't know it).
Bob controls many factors, but did not make bob raise his hand, and does not make people do anything. He knows what they are going to choose though, ergo they don't ahve free will? Or do they?
Rioting Soul
06-03-2007, 12:26 AM
Bob controls many factors, but did not make bob raise his hand, and does not make people do anything. He knows what they are going to choose though, ergo they don't ahve free will? Or do they?
This is difficult to answer. It sounds the same as asking can a telepath control your thoughts. If I tell you what you are thinking and then what you thought in reaction to hearing the first mind read then am I controlling your thoughts?
This is difficult to answer. It sounds the same as asking can a telepath control your thoughts. If I tell you what you are thinking and then what you thought in reaction to hearing the first mind read then am I controlling your thoughts?
Bob isn't controlling your thoughts, but he knows them.
He isn't making you do anything, but he can control a lot of factors in life. He creates a lightning storm, and a tornado that is in your area! Does he make you go downstairs?
KrsJin
06-03-2007, 12:33 AM
Isn't the only outcome what Bob knows? Doesn't that mean that there is only one outcome and therefore you don't actually have choice?
The outcome is whatever you chose for it to be, Bob just happened to know you would do it. Assuming Bob was a guy. There is always only one outcome, regardless of whether something knew it was going to happen. But those outcomes result from a combination of choice and or circumstance.
Alzarath
06-03-2007, 12:35 AM
Don't fuck w/ Bob. (http://www.citynews.ca/images/2006-10/barker.jpg)
Coercion and Fore-knowledge are really different.
And I think a big part of Freewill comes down to how you define it.
Some define it as being able to pick the choice they want, and as long as they get their choice it doesn't matter if there are any other choices.
Others define it as being able to pick from more than one choice. Even if they've already decided on a choice, they need to know they have multiple choices.
So I don't know if that helps, but hey what the hell more information is always more fun!
IMO, yes you have freewill even if Bob knows the outcome. As long as the choice was made devoid of external influence the choice was freely made.
TheIlluminati
06-03-2007, 12:38 AM
Bob isn't controlling your thoughts, but he knows them.
He isn't making you do anything, but he can control a lot of factors in life. He creates a lightning storm, and a tornado that is in your area! Does he make you go downstairs?
No. Because by that logic, if I punch someone in the face, I have control over their sensation of pain.
Isn't the only outcome what Bob knows? Doesn't that mean that there is only one outcome and therefore you don't actually have choice?
No. That Bob knows what the outcome is has no relevance to your free will. You in being an autonomous being can do what you wish; that someone external to that knows what you will do does not change your own choice.
Well, now that I look up, what DanD said.
No. Because by that logic, if I punch someone in the face, I have control over their sensation of pain.
Pain isn't a choice though. You don't get punched and decide to feel pain. It's an involuntary action.
Edit: And you don't control their sensation of pain, you only control the stimulus that triggers it.
The outcome is whatever you chose for it to be, Bob just happened to know you would do it. Assuming Bob was a guy. There is always only one outcome, regardless of whether something knew it was going to happen. But those outcomes result from a combination of choice and or circumstance.
So, are you saying that when I say that there is only one potential outcome, that which you cannot deviate from and which Bob knows, that saying that you don't have free will because there is only one end result is a non-sequitor and fallacious?
Do you mean to say that that is your choice and of course you cannot contradict it, and it is already your choice? Therefore, Bob knows what you are going to choose, and your choice is the end result therefore it doesn't contradict free will and bob's omniscence?
Wow, anyone have any objections?
The tornado thing was just retarded, I was just trying to show that Bob can control factors, including the weather!
TheIlluminati
06-03-2007, 12:44 AM
Can I ask you what Bob's source of knowledge is, or is not relevant?
What if Bob just happens to know all possibilities of all the combinations of your choices, that way no matter what you did, Bob knew it, because he knows all combinations of all choices that can be made.
Rioting Soul
06-03-2007, 12:46 AM
Hmm. Bob sees causality as plain as a roadmap. If by "controlling" you mean Bob provides a stimulus to steer causality down a route he determines then I agree.
Free will, being able to choose within your nature. For instance, you cannot choose to create a tsunami, but you can choose to eat, not eat something, stab anybody or not, give away your 360 or not, ect.
Hmm. Bob sees causality as plain as a roadmap. If by "controlling" you mean Bob provides a stimulus to steer causality down a route he determines then I agree.
Agreed. If Bob causes or coerces then your free will (at least for that decision) is shot.
Edit:
Can I ask you what Bob's source of knowledge is, or is not relevant?
I'm just assuming Bob is omniscient, atemporal, and eternal. If I shouldn't assume some of that lemme know.
TheIlluminati
06-03-2007, 12:51 AM
Pain isn't a choice though. You don't get punched and decide to feel pain. It's an involuntary action.
Edit: And you don't control their sensation of pain, you only control the stimulus that triggers it.
That's what I had discerned from the storm-downstairs part, perhaps I misunderstood.
Do Bob's perfect prediction capabilities derive a perfect knowledge of the past (this would imply the perspective of a type of determinism)? Or does he have a truer kind of foresight not based on the past?
Rioting Soul
06-03-2007, 12:54 AM
Agreed. If Bob causes or coerces then your free will (at least for that decision) is shot.
If Bob provides no stimulus then he will not have affected causality, he would not have created a ripple in the pond. This is the only scenario IMO where Bob isn't controlling.
MrBlank
06-03-2007, 12:54 AM
Bob might be the best builder i know...
fucking chillin with rofl waffles and shit.
Agreed. If Bob causes or coerces then your free will (at least for that decision) is shot.
Edit:
I'm just assuming Bob is omniscient, atemporal, and eternal. If I shouldn't assume some of that lemme know.
Bob can possibly coerce people in different ways, does that mean he is making people do anything? No.
And yes, I think it's safe to say you can assume that DanD.
What if Bob just happens to know all possibilities of all the combinations of your choices, that way no matter what you did, Bob knew it, because he knows all combinations of all choices that can be made.
Bob knows all potentialities and actualities.
Bob's source(s) if there are any are irrelevent.
That's what I had discerned from the storm-downstairs part, perhaps I misunderstood.
Do Bob's perfect prediction capabilities derive a perfect knowledge of the past (this would imply the perspective of a type of determinism)? Or does he have a truer kind of foresight not based on the past?
Well, the difference I see with pain v. storm ideas is that Pain is an involuntary reaction, and the choice to go downstairs is just logical.
For the second part, it depends whether Bob is bound by time. If he is not, then he is in a constant state of present, and Bob does not have past or future, he just is and because of this experiences our past and future as the present.
Bob can possibly coerce people in different ways, does that mean he is making people do anything? No.
Note: This is my opinion
Granted you still have to make the choice, however, if Bob has a gun to your head and tells you to pick the red ball and he'll shoot you otherwise, you still have the opportunity to make a choice, but there is really only one logical choice.
Now, I doubt that is what you mean by possible coercion, however, any external influence by Bob can sway your opinion and thus change the number of possible logical choices. All choices need to be on the same level without incentives so that all choices can be weighed the same way.
Well, the difference I see with pain v. storm ideas is that Pain is an involuntary reaction, and the choice to go downstairs is just logical.
For the second part, it depends whether Bob is bound by time. If he is not, then is in a constant state of present.
Bob exists outside of time, he is made of himself and not matter.
Ferdinandz
06-03-2007, 01:00 AM
You should be banned for this thread
Oh and Kix are horrible.
KrsJin
06-03-2007, 01:08 AM
So, are you saying that when I say that there is only one potential outcome, that which you cannot deviate from and which Bob knows, that saying that you don't have free will because there is only one end result is a non-sequitor and fallacious?
Well, you obviously couldn't deviate from it after it had been chosen. But assuming that we do indeed have free will, we could deviate from any option we so choose, at any time, prior to choosing it.
Example: I chose to post a smily over here on my right. I'm looking at it and think I'll post this poo-head looking one (which apparently is an angel but on my screen it looks like a blue thing with doo-doo on its head). But as I went to click it I decided to roll with the sweating guy. I deviated from my initial decision, but did so prior to chosing to go with this :sweat: . Homeboy Bob knew this however, cause well, Bob just knows whatever we're gona choose.
Going a bit deeper, and I'm getting a bit more tired but try and follow with this one. Everything in this world must have a result or one outcome. Be it an action or a choice. If it didn't have a result, it would not exist. To exist, is to have a result, or to be, is to have a result. You existing is the result (or outcome) of you being born and surviving long enough to still exist. These results though, again, resulted from circumstance and the options chosen given those circumstances. Bob knew your birth and existance was gona happen cause Bob's tight like that, but the beginning of your existance was the result of a choice which was chosen with "free-will". Though your parents didn't specifically choose you... they just got lucky with that lol.
Do you mean to say that that is your choice and of course you cannot contradict it, and it is already your choice? Therefore, Bob knows what you are going to choose, and your choice is the end result therefore it doesn't contradict free will and bob's omniscence?
Yeah actually, I should have just said yes to this rather than type what I just did lol.
Wish I was in a better mindset for actually thinking lol. Odd topic for SRK, and I feel like I'm back in philo class, but it's fun lol.
Note: This is my opinion
Granted you still have to make the choice, however, if Bob has a gun to your head and tells you to pick the red ball and he'll shoot you otherwise, you still have the opportunity to make a choice, but there is really only one logical choice.
Now, I doubt that is what you mean by possible coercion, however, any external influence by Bob can sway your opinion and thus change the number of possible logical choices. All choices need to be on the same level without incentives so that all choices can be weighed the same way.
Bob doesn't coerce like that. Even so, he still wouldn't logically make you absolutely do anything. If someone wants your cake and you don't want have to throw it away and are full and don't want it, you still won't necessarily give it to them even if you like them and want them to have it, even though probability is high.
Wish I was in a better mindset for actually thinking lol. Odd topic for SRK, and I feel like I'm back in philo class, but it's fun lol.
Me too, man.
About the coercion thing:
IMO, The problem with coercion is that if there is any incentive to make Bob happy or any allegiance to Bob it screws up all the possible choices and can narrow them down to a single choice you would not have made otherwise.
I guess that doesn't technically violate freewill as you get to make the choices, but I feel that freewill needs to have an open possibility of multiple logical choices.
Looking at the first quote, you could boil it down to:
Does the fact that your choice of action is inevitable imply that you have no choice at all?
But the second quote implies coercion. Coercion changes things completely, I think.
Your choice is inevitable, based upon it being your choice. You are still making the choice, if not how are you not?
If Bob coerces you in any way, even though I said he doesn't do stuff like stick a gun to your head in situations, although he can technically kill you, is it logical that he is making you do anything? What about the other situations?
Well, you obviously couldn't deviate from it after it had been chosen. But assuming that we do indeed have free will, we could deviate from any option we so choose, at any time, prior to choosing it.
Example: I chose to post a smily over here on my right. I'm looking at it and think I'll post this poo-head looking one (which apparently is an angel but on my screen it looks like a blue thing with doo-doo on its head). But as I went to click it I decided to roll with the sweating guy. I deviated from my initial decision, but did so prior to chosing to go with this :sweat: . Homeboy Bob knew this however, cause well, Bob just knows whatever we're gona choose.
Going a bit deeper, and I'm getting a bit more tired but try and follow with this one. Everything in this world must have a result or one outcome. Be it an action or a choice. If it didn't have a result, it would not exist. To exist, is to have a result, or to be, is to have a result. You existing is the result (or outcome) of you being born and surviving long enough to still exist. These results though, again, resulted from circumstance and the options chosen given those circumstances. Bob knew your birth and existance was gona happen cause Bob's tight like that, but the beginning of your existance was the result of a choice which was chosen with "free-will". Though your parents didn't specifically choose you... they just got lucky with that lol.
Right. It's possible that we could do something else, but once we choose it, that is the outcome.
Yes, I believe everything that happens has a cause. Too bad my parents didn't get lucky with me, I'm ugly and stupid. :wink:
Your choice is inevitable, based upon it being your choice. You are still making the choice, if not how are you not?
If Bob coerces you in any way, even though I said he doesn't do stuff like stick a gun to your head in situations, although he can technically kill you, is it logical that he is making you do anything? What about the other situations?
If you don't make the choice it was made for you or predetermined that you had to choose it. Think pre-arranged marriages.
If he tries to coerce you then he is pressing his agenda. If he has the ability to end your life, why take the chance of pissing him off? See the problem with coercion and freewill.
If you don't make the choice it was made for you or predetermined that you had to choose it.
If he tries to coerce you then he is pressing his agenda. If he has the ability to end your life, why take the chance of pissing him off? See the problem with coercion and freewill.
You will make the choice, because it is your choice, if you choose not to, Bob still knows. It is pre-realized by Bob.
I see your point, it makes it more probable for you to do something in some situations, but as you said it technically does not contradict free will.
KrsJin
06-03-2007, 01:29 AM
Too bad my parents didn't get lucky with me, I'm ugly and stupid. :wink:
Hope you're being modest with that and don't really believe that. I know the second bit isn't true already without knowing you.
Anyways gents, I'm out like last year. But sure as shit, I'll be back in a bit.
Fore-Knowledge does not hinder free will. Fore-Action does.
Perhaps, but coercion implies action. It implies you are pressured to act a certain way. If you act a certain way because of external pressure, then you didn't freely choose, sooo, I guess it does hinder it...
Damn, my brain hurts.
vBulletin® v3.8.0 Beta 4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.