I'm not sure a human necessarily could, any more than a human could tell the difference between actual reality and a perfect sensory simulation of reality.
Free will and omniscience
- Thread starter AvalonXQ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- free will omniscience
I'm not sure a human necessarily could, any more than a human could tell the difference between actual reality and a perfect sensory simulation of reality.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
So you're acknowledging that you are unable to support your position from the opening post...
...and that your assertion, "Omniscience isn't conceptually any different ...," is nothing more than a wild guess, a conjecture. Is that a fair summary?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Then it's pretty much navel-gazing territory. My position is that if this is a simulation of reality that I can't tell from reality, I'm damn sure going to enjoy it without worrying about whether or not it is "real". If Neo breaks in from outside the Matrix, I'll deal with it when it happens.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
In computational terms it is not incompatible to say that an Oracle exists that knows the answer to any question; it merely leads to definitional issues when one tries to define a non-computational mechanism for choice where it is not equivalent to the Oracle defining the choice.
A computational mechanism of choice being known by an Oracle does not cause this problem since it can also be known by anything that computes.
Hence again the problem is the mechanism of choice, not the idea of being able to know all choices and Avalon is quite correct to say what he does. The problem only comes if one wishes to say that the choice mechanism is not constrained by anything and also have an Oracle in the system -the Oracle must be a constraining factor since it is always going to be equivalent to another system that operates by the choice mechanism being driven by an Oracle. Hence it is a definitional paradox.
A computational mechanism of choice being known by an Oracle does not cause this problem since it can also be known by anything that computes.
Hence again the problem is the mechanism of choice, not the idea of being able to know all choices and Avalon is quite correct to say what he does. The problem only comes if one wishes to say that the choice mechanism is not constrained by anything and also have an Oracle in the system -the Oracle must be a constraining factor since it is always going to be equivalent to another system that operates by the choice mechanism being driven by an Oracle. Hence it is a definitional paradox.
Bill Thompson 75
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,437
Major premise: There is a being who knows exactly what I will do.
Minor premise: I can do something.
Conclusion: What the being knows and what I do must be exactly the same.
The conclusion does not invalidate either premise.
This is an argument that demonstrates that free will and omniscience are not necessarily incompatible.
I think what you wanted the conclusion to say is:
What I must do is exactly what the being knew I would do,
but that would not have been a correct usage of logic.
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
I'm just wondering, how would it affect this discussion if an omniscient being only had a finite ability to process it's infinite knowledge? For example, it would know any choice you would make, but unless it was focusing it's attention on this portion of it's knowledge, wouldn't be aware of it. And it would only be able to focus it's attention on a tiny portion of it's knowledge at any specific time.
And if this omniscient entity were a god, it may have created the universe and known all of the consequences that this creation would have, but wouldn't have been aware of the details it never bothered to think about, such as the minutiae of the everyday lives of ordinary people. Could such a god be regarded as having determined all your actions in advance?
Not really. The main reason I made that list at the start of the thread was because I know how in these types of discussions people end up talking past each-other, using the same terms to mean very different things. I was hoping to highlight this problem and therefore prevent the thread from becoming hopelessly mired.
It doesn't seem to have worked.
And if this omniscient entity were a god, it may have created the universe and known all of the consequences that this creation would have, but wouldn't have been aware of the details it never bothered to think about, such as the minutiae of the everyday lives of ordinary people. Could such a god be regarded as having determined all your actions in advance?
Understood. My definition is informal and meant for discussion purposes only, not for writing a dictionary. I just thought you had a hobby of collecting these things.
Not really. The main reason I made that list at the start of the thread was because I know how in these types of discussions people end up talking past each-other, using the same terms to mean very different things. I was hoping to highlight this problem and therefore prevent the thread from becoming hopelessly mired.
It doesn't seem to have worked.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
So in a nutshell;
US: Gave several examples of why freewill would'nt exist if god did(and related matters)
and their argument
US: Gave several examples of why freewill would'nt exist if god did(and related matters)
and their argument
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
It was a noble effort. But I'd say roughly 75% of the "discussions" in here boil down to semantics.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Small correction (in red). Greek gods never claimed omniscience. It's not exclusively Christian or Abrahamaic, but it's only a small subsets of the gods that have been described that boast this trait.So in a nutshell;
US: Gave several examples of why freewill wouldn't exist if an omniscient god did (and related matters)
and their argument
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Noted. They did have Zeus and he had some bad mama jama lightning bolts.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Sorry your not reading it in the true/original language plus thats your interpretation.
I can see how christians do this so easily.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That's omnipresent, not omniscient. It is sort of like the definition of "omniscient" that I offered earlier, meaning that he knows everything going on, but not what will happen in the future.
The funny thing is, a God that knows, without error, everything that will happen, is just as powerless to change anything as any mortal. Obviously the Christian god is not like that, or there would have been no need for the Great Flood. He's a god who changes his mind. So what happens to free will when God changes his mind?
Actually, the discussion has looked more like this...
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: You're not listening to us!
US: You're not giving us any mechanism by which knowledge alters decision-making capability!
THEM: You're still not listening to us!
US: You're still not giving us any mechanism!
THEM: It's definitional!
US: We're using different definitions!
THEM: You're not listening to us! We're going to stop making blind assertions without genuine argument or any evidence now, and start making childish attacks instead.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: Omniscience constrains behavior. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will.
US: Omniscience places no constraint on behavior. Therefore, omniscience is compatible with free will.
THEM: You're not listening to us!
US: You're not giving us any mechanism by which knowledge alters decision-making capability!
THEM: You're still not listening to us!
US: You're still not giving us any mechanism!
THEM: It's definitional!
US: We're using different definitions!
THEM: You're not listening to us! We're going to stop making blind assertions without genuine argument or any evidence now, and start making childish attacks instead.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Ahem. It's not true, at least no proof of the existence of Zeus.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
You don't need a "mechanism". If the future is known with no way to change it, that is all you need to now. NOTHING can change it.
That's why the idea that the future can be perfectly known is completely silly. If you're just playing the roles already written, you're no more than a mindless automaton. I don't think even you believe that.
I certainly do, and you haven't given me one!
I claim that God's foreknowledge does not constrain behavior; you claim that it does but can't articulate why it does.
And then I get attacked for not listening. I'm certainly listening; I'm just not hearing more than bald assertions.
People keep using the "script" analogy, but remember that a script is a set of instructions that tell people what to do. Here, we're talking about a transcript -- which, again, does not constrain behavior. All it does is successfully describe it.
Assuming a universe with free will, I see no mechanism proposed by which a transcript of a conversation going back in time to just before the conversation happens (but not being read by anyone in the conversation) negates that free will.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The first step in that claim would be proving that your god exists, otherwise you may as well just tell us campfire stories.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
IMO it's been more like this:
US: Here is why an Omniscience GOD and free will contradict each other.
Them: I reject your reality and subsitute my own
I'm going to give another whirl and try another analogy.
In this scenario I am GOD; You will represented by Super Mario; Pressing start will represent birth and the goombas will represent goombas.
If; I program this game, every action that occurs within it and how it will end, that it plays itself, then even if you have no awareness of what I programmed you to do, You will still makle the choices I predetermined you to make. For example I program it so that exactly 5 minutes into the game you will jump, Then that is exactly what is going to occur.
You have no choices even if they are present they are unavailable to you because as stated I have already programmed you to play out my script to whatever end I decided and everything in between is just filler.
However if I am not omniscient then it would be impossible for me to program the game as I would have no idea what choices you would make. To use my earlier example at 5 minutes into the game you might just stand there and do nothing or perhaps backtrack 3 steps.