Hello.Emanresu wrote:Hello,Modus.Ponens wrote:Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice.
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second one, because I think that this kind of omniscience would itself become a determinant of one's choices/actions - unless we assume that knowledge is a passive thing with no influence on choice/action, which is certainly not what the Buddha taught. In other words: The omniscience you mention would enable the omniscient being to change the future it "foresees" as far as its own sphere of influence is concerned, unless (and I can only repeat myself here) you assume that knowledge (omniscience in this case) is passive and cannot itself become a determinant. So there is no room for fatalism in the sense that the future is unchangable regardless of what one knows. Knowledge can make a huge difference, which is still deterministic, but not fatalistic like "I see it coming but can't do anything", because if I see it coming I can change it (provided it is within the range of what I can do with my body or mind).
All the best!
Good point. You pointed out a stronger paradox. Since I think such omniscience doesn't exist, this is in the domain of speculation. However, we can discuss it . I think the mistake in your line of thought is that such omniscient being would foresee a different scenario from what could happen if he acted differently. The thing is that there is only one possible future due to pure determinism and such being is compleetely bound to act acording to causes. He/she would be the only one devoid of choice because he/she would be aware of that.