Free will and omniscience

[Bill Thompson 75]

The property of knowing everything, including future events.

The property of knowing does not of itself imply necessity. Knowledge of something only implies awareness of it, and for omniscience it implies an awareness without a temporal component and without a causal component.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'm a little unclear on this "without respect to time" business. Can you give me a few examples of things that happen "without respect to time"?

Yes, one of those things is the idea of omniscience. Pleas pay attention.

Oops. You can't. The word "happen" implies time. In fact, there is nothing in this universe that is "without respect to time". It is a dimension of the universe.
In fact, to say something "is" implies a time componant, meaning "right now". Or are you talking about magic?

If you wish to argue aspects of the possibility of omniscience start another thread.

 

[dlorde]

The property of knowing does not of itself imply necessity. Knowledge of something only implies awareness of it...

Knowledge of something necessarily implies a something that is known.

 

[Tricky]

Knowledge of something only implies awareness of it, and for omniscience it implies an awareness without a temporal component and without a causal component.

That is pure gobbledygook. You cannot describe anything without a temporal componant, and to add it on to omniscience is nonsensical and arbitrary.

By the way, "know" and "knowledge" have the same root. Please pay attention.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If your actions determine what an omniscient being does or writes, then that being is not, by definition, omniscient.

I'll ask again, why not?

More specifically, why can't my future actions be the cause of the atemporal Oracle's current (and past and future) knowledge of those actions?

 

[GeeMack]

I'll ask again, why not?

More specifically, why can't my future actions be the cause of the atemporal Oracle's current (and past and future) knowledge of those actions?

Because regardless of the attributes you give your magical made up being, you are constrained by time. You have a past, present, and future. And anything you haven't done yet, you haven't done yet. That's how time works. Your atemporal fantasy being knows that, because, well, that's part of the deal with omnipotence. So it knows what you're going to do before you even exist, forever before it becomes part of your current decision making process. Any choice you make, any alleged exercise of your free will, is already known to the omnipotent one. You will make the choice that it knows you will make.

 

[Tricky]

I'll ask again, why not?

More specifically, why can't my future actions be the cause of the atemporal Oracle's current (and past and future) knowledge of those actions?

Because "cause" always precedes "effect". Inserting the word "atemporal" just makes the sentence a contradiction in terms, like saying "this sentence is a lie". It becomes totally meaningless.

Yes, I know that omnipotence itself is a magical characteristic, but trying to explain it by layering on other kinds of magic isn't helping defend the case. It just renders it even more fictional.

In "Prisoner of Azkaban" Harry Potter "caused" the dementors to disappear, an "effect" that saved himself, by going back in time and casting a Patronus spell. Wanna use that for your next defense of atemporality? It makes every bit as much sense.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Inserting the word "atemporal" just makes the sentence a contradiction in terms, like saying "this sentence is a lie".

Ah.

Well, if you're real answer when I talk about the compatibility of free will with the omniscience of an atemporal being is that you find atemporality to be nonsensical, you could have said so many pages ago.

I feel the same way about the posters who have recently let slip that they find free will to be nonsensical.

 

[Tricky]

Ah.

Well, if you're real answer when I talk about the compatibility of free will with the omniscience of an atemporal being is that you find atemporality to be nonsensical, you could have said so many pages ago.

I feel the same way about the posters who have recently let slip that they find free will to be nonsensical.

Yes, and we're explaining why we find it nonsensical. That's what these discussions are for. My argument for the nonsensical nature of atemporality is based on the fact that time never holds still and never goes backward. Now if you can find me a proven exception to this fact, then perhaps your defense of atemporality will have some logic or evidence, something it has thus far lacked.

But it is certainly true that I have no illusions that I am going to convince you. However, there may be many people reading this thread, including some who have not seen these arguments before. I think it is important that they see this gobbledygook exposed for the internally contradicting nonsense that it is. Politely, of course.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, and we're explaining why we find it nonsensical. That's what these discussions are for. My argument for the nonsensical nature of atemporality is based on the fact that time never holds still and never goes backward. Now if you can find me a proven exception to this fact, then perhaps your defense of atemporality will have some logic or evidence, something it has thus far lacked.

But it is certainly true that I have no illusions that I am going to convince you. However, there may be many people reading this thread, including some who have not seen these arguments before. I think it is important that they see this gobbledygook exposed for the internally contradicting nonsense that it is. Politely, of course.

Fair enough.

Of course, the only person who has attempted a rigid logical formulation in this thread, Myriad, has demonstrated that your position is essentially begging the question.

And the only one who has explicitly addressed the root of the probabilistic paradigm, me, has demonstrated how you are again begging the question by assuming what is specifically being argued against.

So while I have no doubt that people coming to the thread to confirm their preconceptions will find them confirmed, I also know that I have not yet once resulted to gobbledygook, while you have not once actually made an argument where you weren't already assuming your conclusion.

 

[Tricky]

Fair enough.

Of course, the only person who has attempted a rigid logical formulation in this thread, Myriad, has demonstrated that your position is essentially begging the question.

And the only one who has explicitly addressed the root of the probabilistic paradigm, me, has demonstrated how you are again begging the question by assuming what is specifically being argued against.

It seems odd that you would ask for logic, when the whole basis of logic is temporal. Premises first, then conclusions. If you postulate an atemporal being (or really atemporal anything) then you cannot logically defend them, as the rules of logic don't apply, being temporal. Similarly, you can't use cause and effect. Temporal, ya know. There is only one tool you have in your box. Magic. This being exists outside of laws of science, logic or the universe. Sure, believe in it if you like. Harry Potter is more fun and more consistent.

So while I have no doubt that people coming to the thread to confirm their preconceptions will find them confirmed, I also know that I have not yet once resulted to gobbledygook, while you have not once actually made an argument where you weren't already assuming your conclusion.

And you have never once refuted the conclusions without resorting to the magic of "atemporality". When you are shown that effect must follow cause, your response is, "Not if it's atemporal". You think this is good logic?

 

[AvalonXQ]

It seems odd that you would ask for logic, when the whole basis of logic is temporal. Premises first, then conclusions.

I disagree. "Premises first, then conclusions" is a useful abstraction, but here's another one.

Logic is spacial. Premises at the bottom, with conclusions built above them. Conclusions are "based on" premises; conclusions must "rest on" sound premises.

You can, in fact, examine the conclusions first, but they will only be as sound as the underlying premises.

Don't make the mistake of believing that because we usually state premises first, that there is any sort of mandatory temporal relationship between premises and conclusions. It's a useful convention, it's convenient for verifying soundness, but logic certainly doesn't require it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Also, don't mistake the map for the territory. The soundness of logic is not based on the peculiarities of how we construct it or express it.

 

[Tricky]

I disagree. "Premises first, then conclusions" is a useful abstraction, but here's another one.

Logic is spacial. Premises at the bottom, with conclusions built above them. Conclusions are "based on" premises; conclusions must "rest on" sound premises.

You can, in fact, examine the conclusions first, but they will only be as sound as the underlying premises.

Don't make the mistake of believing that because we usually state premises first, that there is any sort of mandatory temporal relationship between premises and conclusions. It's a useful convention, it's convenient for verifying soundness, but logic certainly doesn't require it.

You think you can have a conclusion without premeses? Well, that certainly explains a lot. Start with the conclusion. We'll figure out the premises later. Can't think of any? Oh, I've got a good one. Beings can exist outside of time. NOW the conclusion makes sense. (Pats on the back all round.)

 

[Tricky]

Also, don't mistake the map for the territory. The soundness of logic is not based on the peculiarities of how we construct it or express it.

It is, though, as you say, based on sound premises. Is one of your premises that atemporal beings can exist? Do you consider that a sound premise? If so, why?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You think you can have a conclusion without premeses?

No. I think that your idea of "starting with premises and turning them into conclusions over time" is a useful abstraction based on the way people usually think, not an actual part of the logical system.

A logical argument includes the premises and the conclusions; there's no actual temporal element.

 

[GeeMack]

A logical argument includes the premises and the conclusions; there's no actual temporal element.

Certainly not when you ignore it.

 

[Tricky]

No. I think that your idea of "starting with premises and turning them into conclusions over time" is a useful abstraction based on the way people usually think, not an actual part of the logical system.

A logical argument includes the premises and the conclusions; there's no actual temporal element.

While that may be true in the sense of how research is done, i.e. an effect is noticed and the reasons are sought, it is certainly not true of logic. You may refine your premises based on the clear effect, but the cause STILL preceeds the effect.

But I'd appreciate an answer to this: Do you hold the existence of atemporal beings as one of your premises?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That is pure gobbledygook. You cannot describe anything without a temporal componant, and to add it on to omniscience is nonsensical and arbitrary.

Omniscience is a property which is atemporal, which is say, an omniscient being knows everything at all times. The omniscient being doesn't know one thing before or after another; it knows all things at all times. There is no time component involved with this way of knowing things.

By the way, "know" and "knowledge" have the same root. Please pay attention.

Is this in any way relevant?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Because "cause" always precedes "effect". Inserting the word "atemporal" just makes the sentence a contradiction in terms, like saying "this sentence is a lie". It becomes totally meaningless.

Yes, I know that omnipotence itself is a magical characteristic, but trying to explain it by layering on other kinds of magic isn't helping defend the case. It just renders it even more fictional.

In "Prisoner of Azkaban" Harry Potter "caused" the dementors to disappear, an "effect" that saved himself, by going back in time and casting a Patronus spell. Wanna use that for your next defense of atemporality? It makes every bit as much sense.

You are trying really hard to argue the actuality of omniscience, which has nothing to do with this thread.
You also seem to be trying to confuse the issue by introducing omnipotence, which is a separate argument.
And introducing cause and effect is assuming that cause and effect is relevant to omniscience, which you haven't established. It's not relevant because omniscient knowledge does not occur in a temporal order.