Tom, what is the word? JINX? My reply was to Vaster, not to you, yet we've said the same thing at the same time.

I see this as related to:Excepting that the guy does not know before the coin is flipped -- unless it's rigged.

And I don't recall hearing if you believed in single-threaded or multi-threaded future. From what Tom pointed out, that would be helpful in understanding.

Let's discuss free will for a moment. I've mentioned two definitions, the "incompatibilistic" or "libertarian" view, and the "compatibilistic" view. Under the compatibilistic view (so called, because it is compatible with determinism), "free will" means the ability to do what you want to do. Under this view, there is no logical inconsistency with the idea that the future is single-threaded. That is, there's really only one thing that can happen in the future, but we just don't know what it is.

Under the libertarian view, "free will" means the ability to choose among 2+ options, being able to do "this and not that" or "that and not this." It's not a matter of being able to do that which one wants to do (although it includes that) but of being able to bring about different options, the ability to impact the course of the future.

My understanding is the Rosangela holds to the first view (that is, the compatibilistic view) She, in defining "free will" in the past, has used language very similar to what I've said. I'm not aware that anyone else participating in this discussion holds to the first option besides her, however. I'm wanting to clarify that I understand this correctly.

Good memory! Yes, "jinx" is the word.

Ok.

Glad you mentioned this, as I was thinking of this too (that it would be good to clarify). I think Rosangela and MM believe in single-threaded futures. That's my impression.

What is the difference between God and us? Are you suggesting we aren't ignorant of the future?


How can someone say that what consists of realities and what consists of possibilities have equal clarity? Obviously this is not true.

Yes, single-threaded. BTW Tom (since you are more familiar with this subject than I) in which way is the libertarian definition of free will related to the Arminian tradition, since Arminius believed the future to be single-threaded?

Many Aminians believe the future to be single-threaded. I believe this is logically inconsistent, which is what I've been arguing. I think the logically consistent choices are single-threaded + compatibilistic free and multi-threaded + incompatibilistic (= libertarian).

The libertarian view is related to the Arminian tradition because it's not deterministic.

(Let me know if this didn't answer your question).

God is bigger, and smarter, and better looking.



No, my point was that if the future is multi-threaded, then there's no ignorance involved if God doesn't see it as single-threaded. The difference between God and us is we can't see the future (regardless of whether it's single-threaded or multi-threaded). Actually, we can see the future to some extent, but it's very limited (for example, if you're very familiar with some process, you can visualize what's going to happen).



God sees both with equal clarity. But the future is much more complex than the past. But God sees it perfectly, just as He sees the past perfectly. Even though the future consists of trillions of possibilities, God's intelligence is such that He can see all of these possibilities with perfect clarity.

I agree, though I don't see how this would be possible if the future is equally set as is the past.