Free will and omniscience

[Belz...]

Tricky, I still don't see how atemporality solves the problem of free will vs omniscience. Maybe I'm a bit slow.

 

[Roboramma]

And both Avalon and Bill have agreed that this atemporality must exist in order to make free-will and omniscience compatible. Avalon has even accepted the term "magic" to describe it.

Right, I'm just saying I don't agree that even accepting atemporality, that free will and omniscience are compatible. It seems to me that, even if we accepted that (and you can call it magic if you like) atemporality, they'd still be incompatible.

But it seems you think that with atemporality free will and omniscience are not incompatible, which surprised me.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, I still don't see how atemporality solves the problem of free will vs omniscience. Maybe I'm a bit slow.

Right, I'm just saying I don't agree that even accepting atemporality, that free will and omniscience are compatible. It seems to me that, even if we accepted that (and you can call it magic if you like) atemporality, they'd still be incompatible.

But it seems you think that with atemporality free will and omniscience are not incompatible, which surprised me.

Well, maybe it doesn't "solve" it, but by introducing a magical concept like "atemporality", which isn't even clearly described, one could say, "oh yeah, travel through time and know the answer AFTER the free will decision is made and they are compatible.

Basically, it's still gobbledygook, but if one of your premises is "with magic you can do anything, regardless of physical impossibility", then really, all bets are off.

Again, I refer to the time-travel sequence in the Harry Potter novel, The Prisoner of Azkaban.

***
The first time Harry tried to cast a Patronus charm to drive off the dementors, it was weak and didn't work. But he was saved by someone else casting a powerful Patronus charm.

Then Harry and Hermione go back in time, using the time turner, and they come upon the "earlier" Harry, and this time, Harry casts the spell, which "early" Harry saw. Harry says to Hermione, "I knew I could do it, because I'd already done it."
***

This is the sort of magical time travel thing that makes Omniscience/Free-will at least sound reasonable. To some people.

So I'm willing to accept that atemporality (or any kind of magic) resolves the internal contradiction and makes the whole point moot. With magic, you can do anything. No logic need be used.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Cosmic coercion is one solution to the paradox, cosmic restraint is the other. Which is it to be?

If an entity can know which way you'll turn before you make the turn, either the entity must be constrained from telling you, or you must make the predicted turn, willing or not. If neither was the case, you'd be free to turn the other way and demonstrate the prediction was incorrect and the entity not omnisciently prescient.

If you'd care to argue the point rather than simply assert it incorrect, things might progress.

If you think I have not been presenting analysis to defend my argument then you have just not been paying attention. Go back and reread the thread so you can catch up.

Coercion and restraint are not aspects of omniscience unless you want to present a new definition.

Scenario 1
The entity truthfully thinks, "You will turn left."
You think, "I am going to turn left" and then you turn left.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

Scenario 2
The entity truthfully says to you, "You will turn left."
Oops, we are no longer talking about omnisciencel.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well that's good then. Good luck with your science fiction novel, because being "outside of time" is in fact time travel. If you see things before they occur, you must travel through time to do so. Or are these some new goofy definitions you're coming up with?

I do not see (know) things before they occur. An omniscient being, on the other hand, is defined to do just that and there is no part of the description of omniscience that requires an entity to travel through time to acquire knowledge.

If you want to present your personal definition for an argument then do that in another thread, but let's proceed with this argument using the common definition.

 

[jond]

If you think I have not been presenting analysis to defend my argument then you have just not been paying attention. Go back and reread the thread so you can catch up.

Coercion and restraint are not aspects of omniscience unless you want to present a new definition.

Scenario 1
The entity truthfully thinks, "You will turn left."
You think, "I am going to turn left" and then you turn left.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

Scenario 2
The entity truthfully says to you, "You will turn left."
Oops, we are no longer talking about omnisciencel.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

If the entity merely thinks you will turn left, then there is the possibility that it could be wrong. And it is therefore not omniscient.

If it is certain, then the knowledge that you will turn left comes from somewhere. Therefore, while you think you have the choice of turning right or left, the omniscient entity is privvy to knowledge that you are in fact going to turn left, and don't really have the choice of turning right.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You said the omniscient being acquires its knowledge "because the choice was made"... past tense... meaning after the fact. Or are you dishonestly redefining "after" or "was" or some other common terms to support your otherwise unsupportable position?

​

You see, your persistent ingenuous and dishonest attempt to deny that is an empty argument.
We have all been following the discussion, even tsig. It seems you either don't remember what you've written, you're making up crap as you go along, or you're lying to support your position. Maybe some of each. Kind of like AvalonXQ's failed strategy. You might want to take note: You're failing with it, too.

I overestimated your ability to follow the debate. After constantly using terms which described the atemporality of omniscient knowledge, I thought you may have figured out that there are language limits on presenting descriptions of atemporality.

When you see a sentence like
"Or the third obvious option, that god knows because that's the choice that was made.",
you can now intelligently assume that, wrt omniscience, it is making a claim on a sequencing which is not necessarily temporal (atemporal sequencing, logical sequencing, etc.). As I have pointed out before, time-indicative words ("before", "future") do not apply to omniscience.

 

[GeeMack]

I overestimated your ability to follow the debate. After constantly using terms which described the atemporality of omniscient knowledge, I thought you may have figured out that there are language limits on presenting descriptions of atemporality.

When you see a sentence like
"Or the third obvious option, that god knows because that's the choice that was made.",
you can now intelligently assume that, wrt omniscience, it is making a claim on a sequencing which is not necessarily temporal (atemporal sequencing, logical sequencing, etc.). As I have pointed out before, time-indicative words ("before", "future") do not apply to omniscience.

And as others have pointed out, when you use past tense verbs, you are talking about something that did happen, in the past. Apparently your failure to effectively describe the properties of your made up magical being starts with your improper use of the English language. That failure belongs to you. Have the honesty and integrity to take responsibility for it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Wow, seriously. That's not part of the definition, Bill. It's a conclusion based on the definition. Please pay attention.

No, its not part of the definition. It's merely an assumption that I have constantly analyzed as unwarranted.

Irrelevant.
Non sequitur.

I present and identify the fundamental points of my argument and your analysis consists of dodges.

Of course they do. Either that, or you are using a very weird definition of "knowledge". If I KNOW you will eat a tuna sandwitch tonight, then you will. You can't eat anything else. Otherwise I don't know it. If I know everything, ever, you can't choose anything but what I know you will choose, which makes the concept of free will meaningless.

And that is your fundamental analysis which I have constantly pointed out an exception to and you have not countered.

Your fundamental argument: If something is known, a different choice cannot be made.
My fundamental argument: If the knowledge is based upon the choice, then the choice is not constrained.
Your counter: Let's use another definition.
My counter: Let's use common sense and reason.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It's been pounded on before, but I'll recap.

1) To have 100%, inerrant knowledge of the outcome of a free-will choice, the omniscient being must know in advance what decision will be made.

2) If that choice is truly free-will, then for the OB to "know" in advance, the OB must exist atemporally, i.e. able to be anywhen in time. (Which amounts to time travel.)

You seem to want to forget that this thread is about the possible conflict between omniscience and free will and we debate based upon the common definition of omniscience, which is: knowing everything, and which is not: knowing in advance. You can place the omniscient being at only one place in time, without any movement through time whatsoever (no time travel), and the omniscient being still knows everything from all time. My argument still holds and you will now have to invent a new argument to counter it.

3) If that choice is 100%, inerrant knowledge without atemporality, then that choice is not a free-will choice. It is predestined, i.e. the chooser cannot make any other choice without proving the OB to be not omniscient.

And both Avalon and Bill have agreed that this atemporality must exist in order to make free-will and omniscience compatible. Avalon has even accepted the term "magic" to describe it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well, maybe it doesn't "solve" it, but by introducing a magical concept like "atemporality", which isn't even clearly described, one could say, "oh yeah, travel through time and know the answer AFTER the free will decision is made and they are compatible.

Basically, it's still gobbledygook, but if one of your premises is "with magic you can do anything, regardless of physical impossibility", then really, all bets are off.

Again, I refer to the time-travel sequence in the Harry Potter novel, The Prisoner of Azkaban.

***
The first time Harry tried to cast a Patronus charm to drive off the dementors, it was weak and didn't work. But he was saved by someone else casting a powerful Patronus charm.

Then Harry and Hermione go back in time, using the time turner, and they come upon the "earlier" Harry, and this time, Harry casts the spell, which "early" Harry saw. Harry says to Hermione, "I knew I could do it, because I'd already done it."
***

This is the sort of magical time travel thing that makes Omniscience/Free-will at least sound reasonable. To some people.

So I'm willing to accept that atemporality (or any kind of magic) resolves the internal contradiction and makes the whole point moot. With magic, you can do anything. No logic need be used.

I think what you are saying is that omniscience and free will are compatible only if we disregard the physics of our universe.
My only response to that is "Duh!".
Oh, and, "What does a violation of the physical laws of our universe have to do with this debate?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the entity merely thinks you will turn left, then there is the possibility that it could be wrong. And it is therefore not omniscient.

Thinking about something means having thoughts about it. What an omniscience being thinks and has thoughts about is true by definition.

If it is certain, then the knowledge that you will turn left comes from somewhere. Therefore, while you think you have the choice of turning right or left, the omniscient entity is privvy to knowledge that you are in fact going to turn left, and don't really have the choice of turning right.

The knowledge comes from the choice that is made, therefore, the knowledge does not constrain the choice.

 

[jond]

Thinking about something means having thoughts about it. What an omniscience being thinks and has thoughts about is true by definition.


The knowledge comes from the choice that is made, therefore, the knowledge does not constrain the choice.

It is true that an omniscient being's thoughts about the upcoming turn decision are true by definition. Which means that you cannot make a turn other than the one one the omniscient being thinks (or knows) that you are going to make.

If the knowledge comes *from the made decision* then what it thinks before before the turn could be wrong. Therefore the entity is not omniscient.

 

[GeeMack]

You seem to want to forget that this thread is about the possible conflict between omniscience and free will and we debate based upon the common definition of omniscience, which is: knowing everything, and which is not: knowing in advance.

Advance knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. Your insistence on misusing common English words and phrases seems to be contributing to your failure here.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

And as others have pointed out, when you use past tense verbs, you are talking about something that did happen, in the past. Apparently your failure to effectively describe the properties of your made up magical being starts with your improper use of the English language. That failure belongs to you. Have the honesty and integrity to take responsibility for it.

I explicitly pointed out that those words, which may indicate a time tense, can be used for different types of sequencing.
Your response indicates that you intentionally ignored my post so that you could gripe about improper use of the English language.

The following questions show why you fail at debate.

What comes before 1?
0 comes before 1.

If A > B and
If B > C
Then A > C
Which line is listed prior to "If B > C "
"If A > B and" is listed prior to "If B > C ".

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It is true that an omniscient being's thoughts about the upcoming turn decision are true by definition. Which means that you cannot make a turn other than the one one the omniscient being thinks (or knows) that you are going to make.

If the knowledge comes *from the made decision* then what it thinks before before the turn could be wrong. Therefore the entity is not omniscient.

What is the analysis that disallows knowledge to come from an action or allows omniscience to be wrong?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Advance knowledge is a subset of all knowledge. Your insistence on misusing common English words and phrases seems to be contributing to your failure here.

Correct, the clarification was intended to avoid faulty analysis, based on an incomplete definition, of the following:

You can place the omniscient being at only one place in time, without any movement through time whatsoever (no time travel), and the omniscient being still knows everything from all time. My argument still holds and you will now have to invent a new argument to counter it.

 

[jond]

What is the analysis that disallows knowledge to come from an action or allows omniscience to be wrong?

If the knowledge comes from an action, then prior to the action the choice is unknown. If the choice is unknown, then the entity is not omniscient. (since we had previously agreed that an omniscient entity by definition knows what the choice will be.)

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the knowledge comes from an action, then prior to the action the choice is unknown. If the choice is unknown, then the entity is not omniscient. (since we had previously agreed that an omniscient entity by definition knows what the choice will be.)

"prior to the action the choice is unknown" is a false conclusion when referring to an omniscient being.

 

[Tricky]

I think what you are saying is that omniscience and free will are compatible only if we disregard the physics of our universe.
My only response to that is "Duh!".
Oh, and, "What does a violation of the physical laws of our universe have to do with this debate?

It is clear to me that the OP is suggesting a discussion of whether free-will and omniscience can occur together and the implication is he means in reality, not "Can I create a fictional, magical scenario where free-will and omniscience can co-exist?" Writing fiction allows you to re-define words and posit non-existing circumstances to fit your fictional scenario. I might ask the question, "Can men really ride Dragons like in Pern?" but it would hardly be a question of religion or philosophy.

Duh.

"prior to the action the choice is unknown" is a false conclusion when referring to an omniscient being.

Right, because magic beings do not have to follow logic. They can exist "out of time" so cause and effect mean nothing.