Free will and determinism

[junkshop]

I think the question is moot. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator then why assume that it couldn't create beings with free-will in the first place?

Since you brought up the idea of omnipotence^*:

Scenario:

Omnipotent Creator (God, for short): I can create anything, for I am omnipotent.

Human: create a puzzle that you can't solve.



Option 1.

God: OK [creates puzzle they can't solve]

Human: can you solve this puzzle?

God: well, no...

Human: then you are not omnipotent.



Option 2.

God: that would be impossible, for I am omnipotent and can solve every puzzle.

Human: so you can't do it?

God: no, I just said it's impossible.

Human: then you are not omnipotent.



It's not an original argument, but....


_{*it may have been mentioned before, I skimmed several pages of reheated old arguments, much like this one.}

 

[GDon]

Option 2.

God: that would be impossible, for I am omnipotent and can solve every puzzle.

Human: so you can't do it?

God: no, I just said it's impossible.

Human: then you are not omnipotent.

The conclusion doesn't follow, I'm afraid. There is not enough information to conclude that the being is not omnipotent.

For example, this is valid:

1. An omnipotent being should be able to do X
2. Can the omnipotent being do X? No.
3. Therefore that being is not omnipotent.

In your example, X = "make a puzzle the being can't solve."

So my question to you is: can an omnipotent being make a puzzle it can't solve? If your answer is "yes", explain how. If your answer is "no", explain how.

If you can't answer either "yes" or "no" (which I assume is the case), then point 1 above fails. You haven't shown what an omnipotent being should or should not be able to do, so you can't draw conclusions from it.

It's similar to the "are you still beating your wife" question, in that an assumed premise is not established, i.e. that an omnipotent being should or should not be able to make a puzzle it can't solve. Without that premise established, the conclusion "therefore the being is not omnipotent" can't be reached.

 

[theprestige]

Option 3.

God: OK [creates puzzle they can't solve]

Human: can you solve this puzzle?

God: Of course! [solves puzzle]

Human: ...

God creates a rock so big he cannot lift it. Lifts it anyway.

Or, if you prefer something more scripturally sound, God cannot abide sinners. Abides sinners anyway. God cannot die. Dies anyway. Also lives on anyway.

 

[Aridas]

_{*it may have been mentioned before, I skimmed several pages of reheated old arguments, much like this one.}

In what GDon quoted in that post, for example. I'll take responsibility.

With that said, I find the general thrust of what you brought up to be somewhat pointless except as a gotcha based solely in semantics. While such can be amusing, I'm generally no more impressed with that as an actual argument than I am with defining things into or out of existence.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

George Carlin addresses this... (along with other "Heavy Mysteries")

 

[Leumas]

That is what Wikipedia says:

"Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty."

Why is it that you have not quoted the passage in full???

Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. Indeed the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer

See if you read the whole of a text you might get a different understanding than if you just skim read bits of it.

Let me see if I can explain this more....

"The uncertainty principle has been confused with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect. Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty."​

Notice the "" around the word explanation... that means that Heisenberg used the ANALOGY of the RELATED physical observer effect to more readily EXPLAIN in a simpler manner to lay people using an analogy of the RELATED phenomenon which they may have understood a little more easily.

"However... the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects.

Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology."​

Notice that the statement is that uncertainty is a fundamental principle of physics and NOTHING TO DO with measuring or observers or accuracy of measuring equipment.

"Indeed the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer."​

Ok???

Nevertheless... since as you already said.... uncertainty is an inherent property of Quantum Physics... then you now can see that the universe is indeed indeterministic since Quantum Physics is a process in the universe and if it has uncertainty then the universe is indeterministic...

And what Darat said was correct and your reply to him was wrong....

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

And of course do not forget all the topics listed below too which are more things that render the universe indeterministic.

... Chaos theory... and Quantum Physics... and fusion... and fission... and the sun.... and turbulent fluid mechanics... and electrical storms and weather.... and ... Galaxies and their collisions etc.

 

[Leumas]

...

It's similar to the "are you still beating your wife" question, in that an assumed premise is not established, i.e. that an omnipotent being should or should not be able to make a puzzle it can't solve. Without that premise established, the conclusion "therefore the being is not omnipotent" can't be reached.

Yes... because before concluding what an "omnipotent being" can or cannot do... it has to be concluded first that such a concept is not just an impossible figment of the human imagination much like this one...

 

[psionl0]

Notice the "" around the word explanation... that means that Heisenberg used the ANALOGY of the RELATED physical observer effect to more readily EXPLAIN in a simpler manner to lay people using an analogy of the RELATED phenomenon which they may have understood a little more easily.

You are just making that up. There is no suggestion that Heisenberg knew at the time about quantum uncertainty and that he was just making a false explanation for the sake of lay people. Even if he did, he is not going to "dumb it down" for his peers.

"However... the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects.

That is the current theory. But the ability to successfully use statistical theory to explain quantum process doesn't probe that QM is just a statistical process.

That would be like claiming that a coin toss is purely random because you can use probability to predict the outcome of a toss.

 

[Leumas]

You are just making that up. There is no suggestion that Heisenberg knew at the time about quantum uncertainty and that he was just making a false explanation for the sake of lay people. Even if he did, he is not going to "dumb it down" for his peers.


That is the current theory. But the ability to successfully use statistical theory to explain quantum process doesn't probe that QM is just a statistical process.

That would be like claiming that a coin toss is purely random because you can use probability to predict the outcome of a toss.

Nope... every statement in the above is wrong!!!

You would know that had you read the rest of the stuff in that Wikipedia page... instead of skimming for the bits you want.

I suggest you scroll down a little and read the rest of it.

 

[psionl0]

 

[Leumas]

Are you going to admit that Darat was right and you were wrong?

You already admitted that uncertainty is an inherent property of Quantum Physics... and now you can see that the universe is indeed indeterministic since Quantum Physics is a process in the universe and if it has uncertainty then the universe is indeterministic...

And what Darat said was correct and your reply to him was wrong....

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

And of course do not forget all the topics listed below too which are more things that render the universe indeterministic.

... Chaos theory... and Quantum Physics... and fusion... and fission... and the sun.... and turbulent fluid mechanics... and electrical storms and weather.... and ... Galaxies and their collisions etc.

 

[junkshop]

The conclusion doesn't follow, I'm afraid. There is not enough information to conclude that the being is not omnipotent.

For example, this is valid:

1. An omnipotent being should be able to do X
2. Can the omnipotent being do X? No.
3. Therefore that being is not omnipotent.

In your example, X = "make a puzzle the being can't solve."

So my question to you is: can an omnipotent being make a puzzle it can't solve? If your answer is "yes", explain how. If your answer is "no", explain how.

If you can't answer either "yes" or "no" (which I assume is the case), then point 1 above fails. You haven't shown what an omnipotent being should or should not be able to do, so you can't draw conclusions from it.

It's similar to the "are you still beating your wife" question, in that an assumed premise is not established, i.e. that an omnipotent being should or should not be able to make a puzzle it can't solve. Without that premise established, the conclusion "therefore the being is not omnipotent" can't be reached.

Option 3.

God: OK [creates puzzle they can't solve]

Human: can you solve this puzzle?

God: Of course! [solves puzzle]

Human: ...

God creates a rock so big he cannot lift it. Lifts it anyway.

Or, if you prefer something more scripturally sound, God cannot abide sinners. Abides sinners anyway. God cannot die. Dies anyway. Also lives on anyway.

In what GDon quoted in that post, for example. I'll take responsibility.

With that said, I find the general thrust of what you brought up to be somewhat pointless except as a gotcha based solely in semantics. While such can be amusing, I'm generally no more impressed with that as an actual argument than I am with defining things into or out of existence.

The point I was trying to make (snd clearly failed to) was that the concept of an omnipotent being (be they the originator of creation or not) is a logical impossibility. I don't accept any fudging, or attempts to redefine omnipotence within arbritary boundaries, or with caveats of being omnipotent except when not, because that's not omnipotence.

I am being pedantic, and my argument is based on semantics, because omnipotence is a word with a meaning. If you are using it to mean something other than omnipotence, then you are using it inaccurately. Find another word or phrase that better describes the concept you have in mind.

Dragging this tangent back towards the topic, this is the same problem that has been noted by many posters here: namely that one of the big problems in this debate is the lack of consensus in what is meant by terms such as "free will", "predetermined" and, apparently, "omnipotent".

It is very hard to debate a named thing when everyone gives that name to a different thing.

 

[jrhowell]

Since you brought up the idea of omnipotence^*:

Scenario:

Omnipotent Creator (God, for short): I can create anything, for I am omnipotent.

Human: create a puzzle that you can't solve.

Option 4:

Omnipotent Creator (God, for short): I can create anything, for I am omnipotent.

Human: (drops dead before he can say anything)

 

[theprestige]

I mean... Imagine an entity that exists outside of spacetime. That violates causality simply by being a phenomenon. That knows the future not because of predeterminism, but because from outside the timeline all parts of the timeline are equally scrutable, without having to wait for cause and effect to go through their motions.

Such inane challenges as the immovable rock and the unsolvable puzzle are nothing, to such an entity. The reality of its existence is so far beyond the comprehension of time-bound creatures that there's no point in even trying to grasp it. Even when it deigns to be shackled by the limitations of our reality, it is still unshackled. How could it be otherwise?

It's positively Lovecraftian. There's a reason angels introduce themselves as, "be not afraid."

 

[GDon]

The point I was trying to make (snd clearly failed to) was that the concept of an omnipotent being (be they the originator of creation or not) is a logical impossibility. I don't accept any fudging, or attempts to redefine omnipotence within arbritary boundaries, or with caveats of being omnipotent except when not, because that's not omnipotence.

I think that is short-sighted. Thomas Aquinas wrote a thousand years ago that omnipotence meant the ability to do all possible things. The reasoning is simple: how much power does it take to do the logically impossible? Even all the power in the universe can't do that. You open up the introduction of logic into the definition of omnipotence as soon as you use "therefore" in your argument.

So all you can say is that your own version of God can't be omnipotent, based on a particular definition of omnipotence that most theists themselves don't hold. It's like when an atheist argues with liberal theists that they should be taking the Bible literally if they were 'true' Christians.

 

[psionl0]

Are you going to admit that Darat was right and you were wrong?

I didn't disagree with him. QM is mysterious but it isn't magic.

 

[Aridas]

The point I was trying to make (snd clearly failed to) was that the concept of an omnipotent being (be they the originator of creation or not) is a logical impossibility. I don't accept any fudging, or attempts to redefine omnipotence within arbritary boundaries, or with caveats of being omnipotent except when not, because that's not omnipotence.

To me, your attempt feels little different than trying to define the "supernatural" out of existence based on the fact that it could technically qualify under an expansive definition of natural. Whatever "supernatural" thing(s) in question may well not exist and there may well be excellent reason to believe that such doesn't exist, but that argument is not one of those because it cannot provide any valid insight towards that end, given that it's not actually addressing the issues in question.

An omniscient or omnipotent being could well be impossible. However, the argument that you chose to use would be fallacious to accept, in short.

It is very hard to debate a named thing when everyone gives that name to a different thing.

Sure. You trying to swoop in with something effectively irrelevant to what's actually being dealt with will not help your case, though.

 

[Leumas]

I didn't disagree with him. QM is mysterious but it isn't magic.

You did disagree with Darat who never said it is magic... you did above by saying it is mysterious... despite before saying it is not.

...
In an indeterministic universe, you could know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time but still not predict what happens next. Such a scenario allows for the possibility of "free will" behaviour of humans (and other animals)....

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

So do you now agree with Darat that you can never "know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time"... because uncertainty is an inherent property of the universe as the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Physics have shown?

And thus the universe is indeed indeterministic... you agree now... right?

Not to mention all the other fields of knowledge that are listed below... which also render it impossible to ever "know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time"... right???

... Chaos theory... and Quantum Physics... and fusion... and fission... and the sun.... and turbulent fluid mechanics... and electrical storms and weather.... and ... Galaxies and their collisions etc.

 

[Aridas]

Such inane challenges as the immovable rock and the unsolvable puzzle are nothing, to such an entity. The reality of its existence is so far beyond the comprehension of time-bound creatures that there's no point in even trying to grasp it. Even when it deigns to be shackled by the limitations of our reality, it is still unshackled. How could it be otherwise?

For a similar, more technological conception of what you seem to be describing, it's not too hard to invoke some advanced computer simulation in creative mode. We have a user in it that could literally create some rock as big as our universe with no effort at all. If it were real life, the user wouldn't be able to lift it or move it. It's a simulation, though, and the user was never actually manipulating it with its own power, so it can be manipulated freely using the system tools.

 

[psionl0]

You did disagree with Darat who never said it is magic... you did above by saying it is mysterious... despite before saying it is not.

Stop playing gotchas! You are constantly trying to obfuscate the debate.

Normal people reading what I posted would interpret it in the normal way: In an indeterministic universe, even if you could know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time but you could still not predict what happens next.