Free will and omniscience

[Multivac]

Does God have free will if he is aware of every choice before it is made?

Didn't you see the news? The missing page from the bible has been found. The author dedicated the book to his wife and kids and states that all the characters are ficticious and shouldn't be confused with any person, living or dead.

There is no god.

 

[mutile]

Didn't you see the news? The missing page from the bible has been found. The author dedicated the book to his wife and kids and states that all the characters are ficticious and shouldn't be confused with any person, living or dead.

There is no god.

Just because God does not exist does not mean we cannot discuss the fictional character and whether possible characteristics are logically consistent.

 

[tsig]

Just because God does not exist does not mean we cannot discuss the fictional character and whether possible characteristics are logically consistent.

Whatever spins your beanie.

 

[mutile]

It is strange way to spend your time posting in this thread as much as you have if it does not spin your beanie.

 

[Multivac]

Just because God does not exist does not mean we cannot discuss the fictional character and whether possible characteristics are logically consistent.

True, but it's like asking whether or not Harry Potter enjoys sprinkling chocolate buttons on his cornflakes. I'm not aware of anything in the HP series that contradicts this possibility, but it seems a bit pointless to argue about it.

 

[mutile]

why is it pointless in a thread about God to ask whether omniscience contradicting free will only applies to humans but God as well, how did this thread get so long if discussing fiction is pointless?

 

[LSSBB]

Excuse me if I didn't read this entire steaming pile of resurrected thread, however I wonder if the very premise that God, should she or he exist, is and must be omniscient, was ever challenged.

 

[Aridas]

Excuse me if I didn't read this entire steaming pile of resurrected thread, however I wonder if the very premise that God, should she or he exist, is and must be omniscient, was ever challenged.

Pretty sure it was. That said, if I remember correctly, it's not particularly relevant. What was relevant was whether Free Will and Omniscience even could coexist, not so much whether they do or whether they are necessary traits of any particular god concept.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Reality is one system. Even if you believe in an omniscient God, that god is also a part of the system.

There is free will of the automatic (deterministic) kind in the sense of computational irreducibility:

"While many computations admit shortcuts that allow them to be performed more rapidly, others cannot be sped up. Computations that cannot be sped up by means of any shortcut are called computationally irreducible." -- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComputationalIrreducibility.html

For example, to know the n:th decimal of Pi=3.14159254... for sufficiently large number of n, it has to be calculated. So nobody, not even a god, can know the future fully.

Reality as a single system means that no change is possible. What we call time is merely the unfolding of a single static and timeless constant. Not even randomness is possible, because that is change. Neither non-deterministic free will nor randomness is possible, because that would require some outside agent operating on the system, and since reality is a single system that agent would be a part of it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Reality is one system. Even if you believe in an omniscient God, that god is also a part of the system.

There is free will of the automatic (deterministic) kind in the sense of computational irreducibility:

"While many computations admit shortcuts that allow them to be performed more rapidly, others cannot be sped up. Computations that cannot be sped up by means of any shortcut are called computationally irreducible." -- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComputationalIrreducibility.html

For example, to know the n:th decimal of Pi=3.14159254... for sufficiently large number of n, it has to be calculated. So nobody, not even a god, can know the future fully.

Reality as a single system means that no change is possible. What we call time is merely the unfolding of a single static and timeless constant. Not even randomness is possible, because that is change. Neither non-deterministic free will nor randomness is possible, because that would require some outside agent operating on the system, and since reality is a single system that agent would be a part of it.

That seems to be some kind of a hodge-podge of ideas.

1) You post that an omniscient god must still be a part of reality and then claim that omniscience is not possible.
2) That argument depends upon a god whose calculations take time, and then you argue that time does not exist.
3) You present a deterministic definition of free will and then claim that non-deterministic free will is not possible.
4) You claim that time is static but unfolding, without explaining how the unfolding process is non-temporal.
5) You call time a timeless constant. Time is not time?
6) You claim randomness is change. What does that mean?
7) You claim that an agent operating on the system would be a part of the system. How does the idea of operating fit into your timeless reality?

 

[Anders Lindman]

That seems to be some kind of a hodge-podge of ideas.

1) You post that an omniscient god must still be a part of reality and then claim that omniscience is not possible.
2) That argument depends upon a god whose calculations take time, and then you argue that time does not exist.
3) You present a deterministic definition of free will and then claim that non-deterministic free will is not possible.
4) You claim that time is static but unfolding, without explaining how the unfolding process is non-temporal.
5) You call time a timeless constant. Time is not time?
6) You claim randomness is change. What does that mean?
7) You claim that an agent operating on the system would be a part of the system. How does the idea of operating fit into your timeless reality?

I was thinking of for example zooming in to all of the Mandelbrot set infinitely fast in one instant. That instant is the single now moment, without start, and without end since the Mandelbrot set is infinite. That's a changeless timeless system! Yet the motion of time is generated since the single instant never ends.

3D Mandelbrot zoom (HD) - Split Point II (fast) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0clz6WLfWaY

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I was thinking of for example zooming in to all of the Mandelbrot set infinitely fast in one instant. That instant is the single now moment, without start, and without end since the Mandelbrot set is infinite. That's a changeless timeless system! Yet the motion of time is generated since the single instant never ends.

3D Mandelbrot zoom (HD) - Split Point II (fast) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0clz6WLfWaY

Just you because you post a reply that doesn't mean that it answers any questions.
Just because you can form words into sentences that doesn't mean that they make sense.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Just you because you post a reply that doesn't mean that it answers any questions.
Just because you can form words into sentences that doesn't mean that they make sense.

I can answer the question about randomness being change. Every event has a cause. Can there be a random cause? I say no. Because that would be some separate agent being the source.

Also, what appears to be random can be generated by a non-random process.

I reject all claims about real randomness existing in reality.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I reject all claims about real randomness existing in reality.

That's nice. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics isn't going to go away. God does play dice with the universe.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's nice. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics isn't going to go away. God does play dice with the universe.

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is a result of computational irreducibility. It has nothing to do with any real randomness. Think of calculating the n:th decimal of Pi for large enough number n; then before the calculation is actually performed, the decimal n of Pi is unknown. And when the calculation is done then that's tantamount to the 'collapse' of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, and the actual value of n becomes known.

 

[Anders Lindman]

There is omniscience in the form of the Omega Point:

"Omega Point is a term coined by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) to describe a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving.

In this theory, developed by Teilhard in The Future of Man (1950), the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness, a theory of evolution that Teilhard called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. For Teilhard, the universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness.

Thus Teilhard postulates the Omega Point as this supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which in his view is the actual cause for the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. In other words, the Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, transcendent and independent of the evolving universe." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point

Except the Omega Point isn't separate from the universe. The universe IS the Omega Point unfolding.

Think of the crude example of Pi=3.14159265... again, and let that be a mini universe experienced in a single instant. That tiny universe will have a start (at 3.14...) but no end and will go on forever, even when the timeless information is experienced as an infinitely fast unfoldment. Notice here that in this example universe Pi does NOT unfold IN time, instead the unfoldment is the cause of the motion of time in the single now moment. So time here is not some additional dimension to Pi.

The real universe is of course much more complex than Pi or the Mandelbrot set, but it may be based on a similarly and equally simple set of timeless information.

This makes many beliefs today not only redundant but possibly supernatural: time as a dimension, time having a start from no time, random events, a God separate from the universe and free will.

With the Omega Point as a timeless (static) infinite set of information, the universe is not even a deterministic process; the universe just is. No creation from nothing or by a separate God is needed.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is a result of computational irreducibility. It has nothing to do with any real randomness. Think of calculating the n:th decimal of Pi for large enough number n; then before the calculation is actually performed, the decimal n of Pi is unknown. And when the calculation is done then that's tantamount to the 'collapse' of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, and the actual value of n becomes known.

Yeah, that point's been argued. By Einstein, no less.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yeah, that point's been argued. By Einstein, no less.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

Entanglement is simply a result of particles sharing fundamental sine waves. Everything is waves. Particles are wave packets. And by using the Fourier transform all local waves/particles can be broken down to nonlocal fundamental sine waves making up the whole universe.

So, there's nothing puzzling about quantum mechanics.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Entanglement is simply a result of particles sharing fundamental sine waves. Everything is waves. Particles are wave packets. And by using the Fourier transform all local waves/particles can be broken down to nonlocal fundamental sine waves making up the whole universe.

So, there's nothing puzzling about quantum mechanics.

Of course not. You either accept that it's as random as it appears to be, or try to take the Fourier transform of the universe to prove it wrong.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Of course not. You either accept that it's as random as it appears to be, or try to take the Fourier transform of the universe to prove it wrong.

Yes, it would be interesting to use the Fourier transform to define two entangled particles and compare it with Bell's theorem. I don't know how to do the calculation though.