That is my point. I can be near a rock and an ant can be closer to the rock. The observer dependent position of the ant does not affect my proximity to the rock. We would have to agree on a frame of reference before we could begin debating my absolute position relative to said rock.
Your post and the previous are making the materialist argument (which in real life I agree with.) I was trying to further explain the Christian argument for free will in a world where omniscience is possible. An omniscient observer doesn’t affect the lived experience of free will for anything else. The watchmaker god theory is a popular way to reconcile this point. Even if free will as a discrete and measurable phenomenon does not exist e.g. one cannot show me they have x units of free will or whenever, that does not change the experience of free will for the individual.
Arguing for or against some imagined omniscience by switching the frame of reference to that of an imagined all knowing system or all encompassing formula and then using that framing to invalidate choice isn’t very sound reasoning. It may or may not be correct and it is falsifiable but we can’t test it in any meaningful way.
I think we generally agree with each other. The existence of an omniscient AI or deity doesn’t change the “experience” of free will. It doesn’t “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observed. It does “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observer, who can now say “This thing exhibits no unpredictable behavior to me”. You and I both think we have free will, because we can’t predict our own behavior. Our experience is unchanged, whether or not some other observer exists or could exist that could predict our behavior.
Agreeing on a frame of reference is exactly my point. “Does something have free will?” requires the follow-up question, “According to whom?”. Just like “I’m far from that rock” requires the followup question, “According to whom?”. The ant might think you’re far from the rock, something else might think you’re near the rock.
To boil it down a bit more, my point is just that you can always replace the phrase “free will” in speech with “unpredictable behavior” without loss of meaning, because that is what people actually mean when they say it, whether they realize that or not.
That is my point. I can be near a rock and an ant can be closer to the rock. The observer dependent position of the ant does not affect my proximity to the rock. We would have to agree on a frame of reference before we could begin debating my absolute position relative to said rock.
Your post and the previous are making the materialist argument (which in real life I agree with.) I was trying to further explain the Christian argument for free will in a world where omniscience is possible. An omniscient observer doesn’t affect the lived experience of free will for anything else. The watchmaker god theory is a popular way to reconcile this point. Even if free will as a discrete and measurable phenomenon does not exist e.g. one cannot show me they have x units of free will or whenever, that does not change the experience of free will for the individual.
Arguing for or against some imagined omniscience by switching the frame of reference to that of an imagined all knowing system or all encompassing formula and then using that framing to invalidate choice isn’t very sound reasoning. It may or may not be correct and it is falsifiable but we can’t test it in any meaningful way.
I think we generally agree with each other. The existence of an omniscient AI or deity doesn’t change the “experience” of free will. It doesn’t “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observed. It does “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observer, who can now say “This thing exhibits no unpredictable behavior to me”. You and I both think we have free will, because we can’t predict our own behavior. Our experience is unchanged, whether or not some other observer exists or could exist that could predict our behavior.
Agreeing on a frame of reference is exactly my point. “Does something have free will?” requires the follow-up question, “According to whom?”. Just like “I’m far from that rock” requires the followup question, “According to whom?”. The ant might think you’re far from the rock, something else might think you’re near the rock.
To boil it down a bit more, my point is just that you can always replace the phrase “free will” in speech with “unpredictable behavior” without loss of meaning, because that is what people actually mean when they say it, whether they realize that or not.
Yeah, we definitely agree with each other.