Free will and omniscience

[Itztli]

The human may feel that he has free will but this is just an illusion.

What would real free will look like ? For example, I know my daughter isn't really fond of peanuts. So, when I offer her a choice between a plain ice cream, and one with peanuts, I'm going to be pretty confident she'll pick the plain one. Does that mean her choice was an illusion of free will ? Now, imagine my daughter goes over to a friend, and the friend offers her the same choice, not knowing what she thinks about peanuts. Is the free will now any less of an illusion ?

 

[punshhh]

The following is an example of the atemporality of omniscient knowledge.

On Wednesday the 6th I choose to drink a root beer.
On Monday the 4th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.
On Friday the 8th the omniscient being knows I choose to drink a root beer on the 6th because, in fact, I do choose to drink a root beer on the 6th.

This example shows a choice and knowledge of that choice in an atemporal sequence.
Nothing in this example is contrary to the common definition of omniscience.
Nothing in this example indicates that free will is precluded by omniscience.
Therefore, there is no incompatibility between omniscience and free will.

Nicely put.

An omniscient being can only be privy to events which occur independent of it, essentially this being is a viewer. The events which it is viewing (knowing) occur as a result of actions in a system controlled by physical laws. The fact that the being knows some information about the event is irrelevant to the events and choices made in that system.

This does present a paradox of sorts, but any "omni" does anyway, like infinity. The omniscient being is by nature a nonsense.

All we can say is that a choice is made and a being knows it and they somehow coincide seamlessly.

 

[Belz...]

It's a conclusion. It's a definition.
I think you can't make up your mind because you haven't got a clue about logic.

Huh ? You're the one who called the conclusion an assumption, after calling it part of the definition.

You didn't point out any fallacies; you pointed out the names of fallacies and hoped they were relevant. They aren't.

Er... naming fallacies while quoting text is a very standard way to POINT THEM OUT. This is a SKEPTICS forum, Bill, something you're not. It's no surprise you think logical fallacies are unimportant. This is especially funny after telling me I have no clue about logic.

 

[Belz...]

Dodging the simple request for analysis is a clear indication that none will be forthcoming.

You just made up a definition of omniscience that no one else holds and you think someone else will make the analysis ?

 

[GeeMack]

Nicely put.

An omniscient being can only be privy to events which occur independent of it, essentially this being is a viewer. [...]

You're wrong from the first sentence. An omniscient being knows everything. Your ignorance of that parallels Bill Thompson's and AvalonXQ's, and is equally invalid, because you're limiting what the all-knowing being knows to a subset of everything. And although that might be a fun way to play the thought experiment, it isn't honest. It's just as dishonest when you do it as it is when Bill Thompson, edge, and AvalonXQ do it.

 

[Tricky]

I think atemporality makes sense in the scenario where an omniscient being knows things outside of their chronological order.
Are you still having trouble with that?

Demonstrate (as apart from just saying the words) how one can do anything, even "know", outside of chronological order and I'll have no problem with it.

Think you'll have any problem with that?

 

[Brian-M]

I've started a thread on a related topic if anyone is interested...

What is the underlying mechanism of free will?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Hardly... it goes hand in hand... but nice try on the deflection there Bill.

The god who created the human already knows what the human is going to do which is the point I am making. The god made the human knowing full well that the human was going to take the left at the crossing (and knowing every other action this and all other humans will take throughout history).

The human may feel that he has free will but this is just an illusion. There is no free will if the all knowing god knows the destiny of the creature that the same all powerful god creates. This god's creation is the realization of the future action the same god has already foreseen.

If you are using omnipotence as part of the basis for your argument then your argument is irrelevant to this discussion.
If you only talking about omniscience then the exception to your claim that knowledge constrains action has been presented many times.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Huh ? You're the one who called the conclusion an assumption, after calling it part of the definition.

You have used your claim that knowledge constrains choice as an assumption, a conclusion, and a definition. Reread your posts.

Er... naming fallacies while quoting text is a very standard way to POINT THEM OUT. This is a SKEPTICS forum, Bill, something you're not. It's no surprise you think logical fallacies are unimportant. This is especially funny after telling me I have no clue about logic.

The New Logic
1) Quote a post
2) Name a fallacy
3) Skip analysis
4) Claim it's logical
5) Fail

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You just made up a definition of omniscience that no one else holds and you think someone else will make the analysis ?

The definition I have presented multiple times is: knowing everything.
If you disagree with this then your arguments are irrelevant to this debate.

I have presented the analysis multiple times in multiple variations to give you a chance to comprehend and refute.
You have declined to refute; choosing to dodge my requests for direct rebuttal.

Here's another chance:
Your claim: Omniscient knowledge constrains the action of choice.
My rebuttal: There is an exception to this claim, which is, if the action of the choice is the generating source of the knowledge then the choice is not constrained.
You have constantly dodged directly answering this rebuttal with irrelevance and side shows.
Your turn.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Demonstrate (as apart from just saying the words) how one can do anything, even "know", outside of chronological order and I'll have no problem with it.

Think you'll have any problem with that?

It's called omniscience.

 

[Belz...]

You have used your claim that knowledge constrains choice as an assumption, a conclusion, and a definition. Reread your posts.

I did. Here's what I said:

Those definitions are equivalent, Bill. You said omniscience is knowing everything. I say omniscience is knowing everything. And yes, that include things that have yet to transpire since they are "things". How can an omniscient being not know that ? And if he knows, how can you choose otherwise ?

Now, please point out where I assume that knowledge constrains choice ?

And also please explain how it can NOT constrain choice, not by a weird action at a distance through time, but as a feature of the omniscient being knowing what you're going to do anyway.

You're confused about what I'm saying. Your choice is not negated by that knowledge, free will is negated by omniscience; that is, the mere fact that someone can know what you will do means you cannot do anything else.

Your strange idea about your decision going back in time to inform the omniscient being doesn't work because it would mean that he was not omniscient to start with, in addition to creating causality problems that would probably unravel reality as we know it.

The New Logic
1) Quote a post
2) Name a fallacy
3) Skip analysis
4) Claim it's logical
5) Fail

1) Your statement was irrelevant to the point.
2) Your conclusion did not follow from your premises.

What more do you want ? YOU re-read your posts and correct your errors in logic.

 

[edge]

I* asked is life an illusion? GeeMAck states!

Well, no.

Everything else you stated after this fails if it is not an illusion. So is it or not? If not why not?

You're wrong from the first sentence. An omniscient being knows everything. Your ignorance of that parallels Bill Thompson's and AvalonXQ's, and is equally invalid, because you're limiting what the all-knowing being knows to a subset of everything. And although that might be a fun way to play the thought experiment, it isn't honest. It's just as dishonest when you do it as it is when Bill Thompson, edge, and AvalonXQ do it.

What does Scripture tell us?

Ask yourself: is there any physical location in this universe where we can hide from the presence of God? The answer, according to Scripture, is a resounding “No!” In fact, King David posed this question directly, asking: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).

http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm
First off he is all these things omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent And in a temporal mode if not then he wouldn't be God.1. Of, relating to, or limited by time: a temporal dimension; temporal and spatial boundaries.

I think you made a good point Itztli

 

[dafydd]

What does Scripture tell us?

Nothing useful. What does the Lord Of The Rings tell us?

 

[edge]

Nothing useful. What does the Lord Of The Rings tell us?

That you and Beavis have lots in common.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

And also please explain how it can NOT constrain choice, not by a weird action at a distance through time, but as a feature of the omniscient being knowing what you're going to do anyway.

You mean explain it again, and again, and again...because repetitively requesting the explanation instead of presenting a counter is your method of rebuttal.

You're confused about what I'm saying. Your choice is not negated by that knowledge, free will is negated by omniscience; that is, the mere fact that someone can know what you will do means you cannot do anything else.

You should refamiliarize yourself with the concept of "fact".
Presenting a new theory usually requires some analysis.

Your strange idea about your decision going back in time to inform the omniscient being doesn't work because it would mean that he was not omniscient to start with, in addition to creating causality problems that would probably unravel reality as we know it.

Let's say, for the purposes of going over it one more time, that an omniscient being knows everything from the first moment anything can be known by the omniscient being. Then a choice which occurs in the future may be the source of some of that knowledge.
Also, let's pretend we are talking about a universe where omniscience is a concept that can be discussed without resorting to "No, it's against the laws of physics!".

 

[GeeMack]

Let's say, for the purposes of going over it one more time, that an omniscient being knows everything from the first moment anything can be known by the omniscient being. Then a choice which occurs in the future may be the source of some of that knowledge.
Also, let's pretend we are talking about a universe where omniscience is a concept that can be discussed without resorting to "No, it's against the laws of physics!".

No. The omniscient being under discussion is atemporal. The phrase, "Then a choice which occurs in the future," cannot apply. There is no "then". It always was/is/will be. So to suggest something happens/happened "then" is a stupid argument. Oh, and it's dishonest to define a hypothetical being having certain characteristics, then to argue one way or another about that being by changing those characteristics. Didn't you learn anything by watching how badly AvalonXQ failed using dishonesty as a strategy?

 

[Belz...]

You mean explain it again, and again, and again...because repetitively requesting the explanation instead of presenting a counter is your method of rebuttal.

Oh, you mean, aside from the counter I've already offered ? Dodge noted.

You should refamiliarize yourself with the concept of "fact".

What ? Are you even reading my posts ? I said the mere fact that someone can know what you will do, which is implied by omniscience.

Presenting a new theory usually requires some analysis.

I have no idea what you're talking about but I suspect you're having trouble following the discussion again.

Let's say, for the purposes of going over it one more time, that an omniscient being knows everything from the first moment anything can be known by the omniscient being. Then a choice which occurs in the future may be the source of some of that knowledge.

How do you figure, unless causality can be violated ?

Your speculation flies in the face of science, logic, common sense and even religion. It takes a special kind of effort to pull off what you're doing, here.

Also, let's pretend we are talking about a universe where omniscience is a concept that can be discussed without resorting to "No, it's against the laws of physics!".

Oh, you mean fiction ?

 

[Tricky]

It's called omniscience.

I see nothing in any standard definition of omniscience that mantions anything about being "outside of time". That's your own personal add-on.

 

[dlorde]

This does present a paradox of sorts, but any "omni" does anyway, like infinity. The omniscient being is by nature a nonsense.

All we can say is that a choice is made and a being knows it and they somehow coincide seamlessly.

Yes, let's just hand-wave away any pesky paradoxes as if they were tiny midges, and pretend things 'somehow coincide seamlessly'...

The OP questions whether free will and omniscience can be reconciled; trying to do so results in paradoxes, which means they can't be. But you simply wish away the paradoxes so that they can be. How lovely - is this the secret of mysticism?