Originally posted by knightmeister
A potential future might be a future that could exist but doesn't. It's impossible to bump into a potential future because if it became real it would not be potential anymore.
I suppose it's like quantum uncertainty. A quantum particle could be said to have many potential futures but only one of them actually comes into existence. If you agree with ...[text shortened]... e happened but didn't. The problem is we only get to know that future that became a reality.
And here lies my whole argument - and the flaw in yours.
You say 'could exist but doesn't'. What does that mean? Either it exists or doesn't exist in the large 'whole timeline' scale. There is no 'could' or 'couldn't'.
The easiest way to visualize it is via the computer program analogy.
Let me take you through it, and I want to know which parts you do not understand.
1. A computer program cannot generate a random number without external input.
2. External input is dependent on context. By this I mean that on each run of the program, different random numbers might be inserted, and therefore different outcomes may result. But on any given run, only one outcome may result.
3. So if we know the context ie the computer program has been run and recorded, with a given random number as the input then the input ceases to be random. The point at which the 'random' number was inserted, which was, prior to the run, a 'choice', ceases to be a choice.
4. When we look at the generic program in isolation without reference to a given context or 'run' then we see 'choices' where random number input is possible and where we can correctly say there are multiple 'potential futures'.
5. However, if we look at the program in context, ie on a recorded run, there are no 'choices' and to talk of 'potential futures' is wrong, as the did not occur on this run.
6. To take the analogy back to reality, if we are part of a single unique run, then to talk about potential futures is to pretend the existence or possibility of multiple runs and therefore meaningless in this context.
7. Either there are multiple runs - and your God model is therefore wrong - or your talk of free will and potential futures is incoherent.