(no subject)
Help me with the final proof.
An attempt to create a philosophical proof of a previous argument:
1. There exists the ability to accurately predict certain events
2. Precision of these predictions necessarily relies on the understanding of all relevant variables, their relationships and the prior knowledge of their values.
3. No prediction which accurately meets the aforementioned requirements has ever been incorrect.
4. Predictions have been incorrect.
5. Therefore, unpredictability is the result of a lack of understanding or knowledge of variables, how variables relate, or their values.
1. Unpredictability is the result of a lack of understanding or knowledge of variables, how the variables relate, or their values.
2. Therefore, the ability to meet these requirements with respect to any event will yield the predictability of the respective event.
I am having trouble relating these two to a final proof denying the existence of free will without the statement "any piece of knowledge is acquirable" which would render the argument unsound. Any thoughts? For that matter, can anyone show either proof as invalid?
An attempt to create a philosophical proof of a previous argument:
1. There exists the ability to accurately predict certain events
2. Precision of these predictions necessarily relies on the understanding of all relevant variables, their relationships and the prior knowledge of their values.
3. No prediction which accurately meets the aforementioned requirements has ever been incorrect.
4. Predictions have been incorrect.
5. Therefore, unpredictability is the result of a lack of understanding or knowledge of variables, how variables relate, or their values.
1. Unpredictability is the result of a lack of understanding or knowledge of variables, how the variables relate, or their values.
2. Therefore, the ability to meet these requirements with respect to any event will yield the predictability of the respective event.
I am having trouble relating these two to a final proof denying the existence of free will without the statement "any piece of knowledge is acquirable" which would render the argument unsound. Any thoughts? For that matter, can anyone show either proof as invalid?