Knowing about it doesn’t change the freedom of the choice.

That’s not true though. If there’s a God, and God knows everything, how does that take away free will?

Knowing about it doesn’t change the freedom of the choice.

==

There’s no way for us to know. We’d never have a God’s eye perspective to be able to test it out. For all intents and purposes, we have free will because we _don’t_ have omniscience. If some other being _does_, and we do not have their insight, our choice is free from our perspective.

From their perspective? We can’t know. They’re beyond us.

==

That’s the trouble. You’re not talking about omniscience as a concept properly. You’re talking logic with aristotle’s excluded middle. You’re working with an artificial human construct (logic) and placing a being that is supposed to be beyond that, and then constraining that being to the human system you’ve devised.

It’s ridiculous. I understand what you’re saying, but you’ve got the pyramid upside down.

==

In short, your hierarchy has:
LOGIC (system)
OMNISCIENCE (concept)
GOD (hypothetical being)

on top.

Logic is the god of your system and reigns with omnipotence.

In your system, everything will succumb to the will of Logic. But logic itself as a system cannot be questioned in your system. It is the unquestionable thing.

==

That is your axiom. Part of your belief structure. You’ve put logic as “beyond belief” and into a category of Absolute Truth. Untouchable. Undefeatable. This is the role that logic plays for you.

==

Actually, I’m agnostic. I don’t know if God exists or not. Probably not. But I know logic is a human system. A very effective system, but nevertheless, a human system.

==

Logic did not fall from the heavens like the hebrew letters of old. Logic did not construct the Universe from its axioms and proofs. It’s a pragmatic system for sorting things out with.

==

I am being logical, but I am using other techniques of rhetoric, for convincing requires rhetoric, not naked logic.

For example, I am utilizing analogies. I am making metaphors, drawing from one system and bringing it into another system. I’m painting images in your mind to convince you that logic is wonderful but not everything.

So, logic is a part of these things, and what I’m doing in this conversation can be mapped out utilizing some system of logic or another, but it’s better described as rhetoric. Rhetoric has more convincing power than skeletal logic.

==

Indeed, it is very useful. I tend to think of some of the broader descriptions (that are built up with logic) to describe it with such as:

Don’t take things at face value. Be skeptical of intentions. See if somebody is trying to sell me on an idea. How are they trying to convince me? How much can I trust them?

This of course related to dealing with people.

With regards to survival when there are no people around to communicate with, I tend to think in terms of affordances rather than logic, even though affordance is built with logic.

“How much space do I have to work with? What actions can I take at present given the situation? What are my capabilities? What are my tools? What is easiest? What is efficient? What is most effective?”

Things like that. These all involve logic, but they can be very complicated to map out using logic.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five + 2 =

Leave a Reply