Options vs Choices.

[PureX]

I would like to point out that we might have one number of viable options available to us, while having another number of actual choices available to us. And that the reason for the difference in the number options and the number of choices is recognition. An option that we do not recognize as an option may still be a viable option, but it's not a recognized choice. And is therefor not an actionable possibility.

The reason I mention this is because it is a good example of how "X" can be both true and not true at the same time, and even within the same context.

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

 

[Estro Felino]

Bravo...excellent thread.
You have clarified what free will is.
Free will is the capability of choosing between available options.

If an option is available, you can make a choice.
If an option is unavailable, you cannot make a choice.

For example: making children. Nobody forces you to make children.
Making children is a choice. They choose to become parents.


There are countless choices you are forbidden from making, because others prevent you from making them.
For example, you would like to build a church on the top of a hill.
The Government can forbid you from building it.
That's an unavailable option. You cannot choose anything.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I would like to point out that we might have one number of viable options available to us, while having another number of actual choices available to us. And that the reason for the difference in the number options and the number of choices is recognition. An option that we do not recognize as an option may still be a viable option, but it's not a recognized choice. And is therefor not an actionable possibility.

The reason I mention this is because it is a good example of how "X" can be both true and not true at the same time, and even within the same context.

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

I would say the truth is that there are 3 ways to get to Denver for bIll. Just because Bill does not know the third way does not mean that it is not true for him. It still is true but Bill does not acknowledge it as true because he lacks information. Until someone can provide good evidence that there is a third way he cannot believe there are three ways.

God may exist. If he does exist that is truth, but no one can believe god exists until good evidence is presented for the claim.

X cannot be true and not true at the same time.

 

[Quintessence]

I would state this more simply as - be cognizant of the limits of human knowledge and experience. This is well-recognized in philosophy and I think that it is also well-recognized on a common sense level.

 

[MikeF]

I would like to point out that we might have one number of viable options available to us, while having another number of actual choices available to us. And that the reason for the difference in the number options and the number of choices is recognition. An option that we do not recognize as an option may still be a viable option, but it's not a recognized choice. And is therefor not an actionable possibility.

The reason I mention this is because it is a good example of how "X" can be both true and not true at the same time, and even within the same context.

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

And what if Bill wants to go to El Dorado, the city of Atlantis, or to the Fountain of Youth, or the End of the Rainbow? How would you characterize his options and choices in this regard?

 

[Quintessence]

And what if Bill wants to go to El Dorado, the city of Atlantis, or to the Fountain of Youth, or the End of the Rainbow? How would you characterize his options and choices in this regard?

Weren't asking me, but when traveling to places that are not accessible in now-time or now-space (e.g, the past, the future, other dimensions of reality), it's not like there's an absence of options. Most don't know how to do shamanic-style journeying these days (though this is definitely something in my own toolbox as a practicing Druid) so everyday folks usually do things like read books, tell each other stories, engage in theatre performances, watch movies, etc.

 

[PureX]

And what if Bill wants to go to El Dorado, the city of Atlantis, or to the Fountain of Youth, or the End of the Rainbow? How would you characterize his options and choices in this regard?

If Bill believes there are no such options, then he has no actionable choice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there are no such options. It just means that if there are, Bill doesn’t have access to them … by his own belief.

 

[PureX]

Bravo...excellent thread.
You have clarified what free will is.
Free will is the capability of choosing between available options.

If an option is available, you can make a choice.
If an option is unavailable, you cannot make a choice.

For example: making children. Nobody forces you to make children.
Making children is a choice. They choose to become parents.


There are countless choices you are forbidden from making, because others prevent you from making them.
For example, you would like to build a church on the top of a hill.
The Government can forbid you from building it.
That's an unavailable option. You cannot choose anything.

Free will is only as free as we will allow.

 

[PureX]

I would say the truth is that there are 3 ways to get to Denver for bIll. Just because Bill does not know the third way does not mean that it is not true for him. It still is true but Bill does not acknowledge it as true because he lacks information. Until someone can provide good evidence that there is a third way he cannot believe there are three ways.

God may exist. If he does exist that is truth, but no one can believe god exists until good evidence is presented for the claim.

X cannot be true and not true at the same time.

And yet it is.

True and not true are empty abstractions until they are applied to some aspect of reality. In this case, however, that aspect of reality is choice. But choice depends on options, and options depend on awareness. And our awareness is limited. Which means the options both are and aren't optional, depending on our awareness of them being optional. So which is it? Are they an option or aren't they?

The answer is that they both are and they aren't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

It's not true and not true at the same time. That's just sloppy thinking and not being clear about the proposition. Given bill's current knowledge and assuming he doesn't want to do further research, he has two choices open to him. In absolute terms (given all the information), there are three.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

What 'theory of god'?

 

[PureX]

It's not true and not true at the same time. That's just sloppy thinking and not being clear about the proposition. Given bill's current knowledge and assuming he doesn't want to do further research, he has two choices open to him. In absolute terms (given all the information), there are three.

But Bill doesn't live in an absolute reality. So in Bill's reality (as with all humans) there is no third option, nor a third choice.

What 'theory of god'?

All of them.

 

[ratiocinator]

But Bill doesn't live in an absolute reality. So in Bill's reality (as with all humans) there is no third option, nor a third choice.

And....?

We are all limited by the information (evidence) available to us. That doesn't mean that something can be true and not true, it means that we can only arrive at provisional conclusions that are the best fit to the evidence we have.

All of them.

I see none that I'd dignify with the term 'theory'....

 

[Koldo]

Weren't asking me, but when traveling to places that are not accessible in now-time or now-space (e.g, the past, the future, other dimensions of reality), it's not like there's an absence of options. Most don't know how to do shamanic-style journeying these days (though this is definitely something in my own toolbox as a practicing Druid) so everyday folks usually do things like read books, tell each other stories, engage in theatre performances, watch movies, etc.

Don't mistake any of those things as actually traveling to those places though.

 

[Koldo]

I would like to point out that we might have one number of viable options available to us, while having another number of actual choices available to us. And that the reason for the difference in the number options and the number of choices is recognition. An option that we do not recognize as an option may still be a viable option, but it's not a recognized choice. And is therefor not an actionable possibility.

I agree.

The reason I mention this is because it is a good example of how "X" can be both true and not true at the same time, and even within the same context.

I have no idea how you have reached this conclusion. You have said something can be an option but not a choice at the same time. This merely means that X and Y are not same thing, and therefore X can be true and Y can be false.

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

I have no idea how this relates to any theory of god.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What we experience are waves of probability breaking on the shores of perception

 

[PureX]

I agree.



I have no idea how you have reached this conclusion. You have said something can be an option but not a choice at the same time. This merely means that X and Y are not same thing, and therefore X can be true and Y can be false.

They are not the same words, but they are the same 'thing', i. e. available possibility.

I have no idea how this relates to any theory of god.

The reality of God is an available possibility that is not available to those who are, for whatever reason, incognizant of it as such.

 

[Koldo]

They are not the same words, but they are the same 'thing', i. e. available possibility.

You lost me here.
As far as I understood what you were saying: recognized choices are strictly available (and viable) options, whereas viable options include both what is available and what is not.

The reality of God is an available possibility that is not available to those who are, for whatever reason, incognizant of it as such.

But how did you reach this conclusion?

 

[PureX]

You lost me here.
As far as I understood what you were saying: recognized choices are strictly available (and viable) options, whereas viable options include both what is available and what is not.

It's about the difference between the truth, and reality. That there is a difference, and that it's cognitive.

But how did you reach this conclusion?

I didn't "reach" it. I simply recognized it.

 

[Koldo]

It's about the difference between the truth, and reality. That there is a difference, and that it's cognitive.

I didn't "reach" it. I simply recognized it.

Your posts sound more and more disconnected from your OP. I have nothing else to add to this topic.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And yet it is.

True and not true are empty abstractions until they are applied to some aspect of reality. In this case, however, that aspect of reality is choice. But choice depends on options, and options depend on awareness. And our awareness is limited. Which means the options both are and aren't optional, depending on our awareness of them being optional. So which is it? Are they an option or aren't they?

The answer is that they both are and they aren't.

I disagree. What is real is true whether we know it or not. I do agree that choices are limited to our knowledge, but that does not change reality. True and not true are not abstractions, they describe reality. Something cannot be red and not red at the same time, or the earth cannot have one moon and not one moon at the same time. One of the statements is true whether we know which is true or not.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it seems like you are saying that if we don't know about an option then that option is untrue for us. Is this what you are saying?