Free will and omniscience

[H'ethetheth]

From the point of view of this atemporal being (omniscience kinda makes you atemporal to begin with) this has already happened. You can't change it.

Sure you can. You won't, but you can.

I think this is the crux of the matter, or at least, this is where I can't follow your logic anymore.

My problem is this:
In what sense can one be said to be able to change ones mind if one won't change it under any thinkable circumstance whatsoever? What does that even mean? How would one go about testing such a thing, even with the cooperation of the omniscient being in question?

 

[punshhh]

I think this is the crux of the matter, or at least, this is where I can't follow your logic anymore.

My problem is this:
In what sense can one be said to be able to change ones mind if one won't change it under any thinkable circumstance whatsoever? What does that even mean? How would one go about testing such a thing, even with the cooperation of the omniscient being in question?

The problem is that an omniscient being cannot be understood by us sufficiently, to deal with the issue of freewill. If you examine a sequence of choices in any detail you come up against potentially infinite regression. This may be manageable if we're dealing with numbers or atoms. But when we are dealing with a being and what this being knows it becomes impossible in any relevant way.

I am only required to remind one of the implications of infinity when applied to knowing, to illustrate this.

Say I was deciding what to cook for dinner in a hypermarket. The omniscient being would know/be aware of an infinite variation in possible outcomes in the hypermarket. Indeed with such insight as one would expect from such a being, the being would know how the combination of every atom in an infinitely large universe would affect the movement and interaction of every atom down to the Planck scale (and infinitely beyond it). In fact it would be aware of many infinitely short segments of time between the change of state between two atoms in the hypermarket and its implications.

When the choice was made about what the dinner would consist of, there would potentially be infinite variation in influencing factors for the precise chemical change which swung the issue to become lost in. Such complexity would be a breeze for this being to know. In fact it would know infinitely more details than that.

The distinction between a free choice and a pre-determined choice would become lost in the detail and the difference in cosmic impact between the few choices I was actually realistically likely to chose from might be so slight that there may be space for a genuinely free choice to be made.

Not to mention the large number of choices I was involved in between the entrance of the hypermarket and the point where the menu for the evening were known to myself.

And during all this I knew I was either going to have omelette or curry. I just hadn't made up my mind yet.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The problem is that an omniscient being cannot be understood by us sufficiently, to deal with the issue of freewill. If you examine a sequence of choices in any detail you come up against potentially infinite regression. This may be manageable if we're dealing with numbers or atoms. But when we are dealing with a being and what this being knows it becomes impossible in any relevant way.

I am only required to remind one of the implications of infinity when applied to knowing, to illustrate this.

Say I was deciding what to cook for dinner in a hypermarket. The omniscient being would know/be aware of an infinite variation in possible outcomes in the hypermarket. Indeed with such insight as one would expect from such a being, the being would know how the combination of every atom in an infinitely large universe would affect the movement and interaction of every atom down to the Planck scale (and infinitely beyond it). In fact it would be aware of many infinitely short segments of time between the change of state between two atoms in the hypermarket and its implications.

When the choice was made about what the dinner would consist of, there would potentially be infinite variation in influencing factors for the precise chemical change which swung the issue to become lost in. Such complexity would be a breeze for this being to know. In fact it would know infinitely more details than that.

The distinction between a free choice and a pre-determined choice would become lost in the detail and the difference in cosmic impact between the few choices I was actually realistically likely to chose from might be so slight that there may be space for a genuinely free choice to be made.

Not to mention the large number of choices I was involved in between the entrance of the hypermarket and the point where the menu for the evening were known to myself.

And during all this I knew I was either going to have omelette or curry. I just hadn't made up my mind yet.

But that doesn't matter to my argument.
The thing is, what Avalon is proposing is utterly unfalsifiable. That is, there is no conceivable observation that would not agree with his theory, making it meaningless if true, because it's indistinguishable from being not true.

ETA: In fact, the only way to establish whether he's right, would be to ask the omniscient being "is it true that I could change my mind, but won't?" and it would say "yes" or "no", and nothing would change, so we'd get on with our lives.

Or maybe it would say: "It's impossible to tell". I hope it would, anyway.

 

[dlorde]

... When the choice was made about what the dinner would consist of, there would potentially be infinite variation in influencing factors for the precise chemical change which swung the issue to become lost in.

The distinction between a free choice and a pre-determined choice would become lost in the detail and the difference in cosmic impact between the few choices I was actually realistically likely to chose from might be so slight that there may be space for a genuinely free choice to be made.

But what do you mean by 'genuinely free'? there are deterministic processes and there is randomness; by referring to the potential influence of 'infinite variation in ...precise chemical change' you seem to be suggesting that it is randomness that makes a choice 'genuinely free'. I would suggest the contribution of random processes simply makes a choice genuinely random. If you're after unpredictability, you don't necessarily need random influence; non-linear dynamics can give you unpredictability in deterministic processes via chaos. However, it's still not clear to me what you mean by 'genuinely free' and how random chemical variation contributes.

Are you really saying 'genuinely free' == 'random' ?

 

[cyborg]

Are you really saying 'genuinely free' == 'random' ?

For most people they want "genuinely free" to mean, "the past could have been different".

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

Wow. I'm convinced !

The choices you could make, plural.

No, you choose only X.

Sure you can. You won't, but you can.

Avalon, you clearly don't understand the implications of the thought experiment: omniscience implies a removal from time. From the OB's point of view, your action has already taken place. There is no choice because everything's fixed.

Nope. A free will agent can choose something else, but the omniscient being still knows what decision it will make.

That is a contradictory statement.

You have yet to explain what is contradictory about these two concepts.

P^non(P) is a contradiction, Avalon.

Basic boolean, really.

 

[Belz...]

In what sense can one be said to be able to change ones mind if one won't change it under any thinkable circumstance whatsoever?

In the sense of "I believe in free will and nothing will shake that. I also believe in an omniscient god, so no matter what amount of dissonance is required to believe in both, I'll have that."

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that an omniscient being cannot be understood by us sufficiently, to deal with the issue of freewill.

How so ? The word has a very clear definition and very clear implications. You're just trying to make it so we can't point out the contradiction by redefining omniscience. You're not the first person in this thread to try that.

 

[dlorde]

For most people they want "genuinely free" to mean, "the past could have been different".

Yes, I suppose so. It seems like the special pleading I mentioned before - "I had a choice because if things had been slightly different, I'd have made a different selection". Well, yes... but given that things were as they were, that's not the case. Which points up the issue of the implied artificial restriction of 'things being different' to the individual's internal state. If the presented options were different, a different selection would be inevitable, if the universe didn't support life, a selection wouldn't be possible, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It's clearly special pleading to insist there's a choice because an arbitrarily restricted set of circumstances could have been different.

 

[punshhh]

But what do you mean by 'genuinely free'? there are deterministic processes and there is randomness; by referring to the potential influence of 'infinite variation in ...precise chemical change' you seem to be suggesting that it is randomness that makes a choice 'genuinely free'. I would suggest the contribution of random processes simply makes a choice genuinely random. If you're after unpredictability, you don't necessarily need random influence; non-linear dynamics can give you unpredictability in deterministic processes via chaos. However, it's still not clear to me what you mean by 'genuinely free' and how random chemical variation contributes.

Are you really saying 'genuinely free' == 'random' ?

I see what your saying, I put free in italics because it is a slippery word. I see it on a sliding scale of influence from the environment. At one end of the scale the choice is essentially deterministic with a local impression or appearance of free will. At the other end truly free will is only experienced by an omnipotent god. Every thinking entity is somewhere on this scale.

No I am not saying free = random. Surely random is imperfect and on a sliding scale likewise.

 

[dafydd]

I see what your saying, I put free in italics because it is a slippery word. I see it on a sliding scale of influence from the environment. At one end of the scale the choice is essentially deterministic with a local impression or appearance of free will. At the other end truly free will is only experienced by an omnipotent god. Every thinking entity is somewhere on this scale.

No I am not saying free = random. Surely random is imperfect and on a sliding scale likewise.

There is no truly free will then.

 

[punshhh]

How so ? The word has a very clear definition and very clear implications. You're just trying to make it so we can't point out the contradiction by redefining omniscience. You're not the first person in this thread to try that.

We can only describe an omniscient being from our limited perspective. Including implications that being omniscient is logically understandable and that the laws of physics/nature as we understand it is universal.

Surely an omniscient being is a supernatural entity in every way imaginable and beyond that ad infinitum.

 

[punshhh]

There is no truly free will then.

Yes, or if there is it is beyond us to know or recognise it.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, or if there is it is beyond us to know or recognise it.

Which one would you bet on?

 

[dafydd]

We can only describe an omniscient being from our limited perspective. Including implications that being omniscient is logically understandable and that the laws of physics/nature as we understand it is universal.

Surely an omniscient being is a supernatural entity in every way imaginable and beyond that ad infinitum.

You continually go on about our limited perspective. What does that mean? Why invent super beings for no good reason? Please stop throwing infinity willy-nilly into your posts, it seems to be your stock answer, apart from let's pretend that there are gods. ''Beyond that ad infinitum'' Meaningless.

 

[punshhh]

You continually go on about our limited perspective. What does that mean? Why invent super beings for no good reason? Please stop throwing infinity willy-nilly into your posts, it seems to be your stock answer, apart from let's pretend that there are gods. ''Beyond that ad infinitum'' Meaningless.

Its because I don't think humans can answer such questions and any attempts to do so are surely limited in scope.

Omniscient begs infinity, unfortunately.

 

[Brian-M]

I suppose the gaping hole in any discussion like this is the question of whether or not omniscience is even logically possible.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I suppose the gaping hole in any discussion like this is the question of whether or not omniscience is even logically possible.

I think it is if determinism is true. However, if I understand correctly, quantum mechanics seems to point to the fact that there are truly random events. So maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, or if there is it is beyond us to know or recognise it.

It follows that to all intents and purposes it does not exist.

 

[dafydd]

Its because I don't think humans can answer such questions and any attempts to do so are surely limited in scope.

You have a dim view of the intelligence of mankind. Attributing everything to mysticism and a vague concept of gods is limited in scope. Reality is endlessly fascinating.

Omniscient begs infinity, unfortunately.

Why?