Free will and omniscience

[Mycroft]

I understand, But I have said that X event it going to happen no matter what in the scenario

A better way of looking at it is to understand that whatever happens, the omniscient being knows. That's the quality of omniscience.

Fair Enough. But iirc is that not one of the numerous powers the magic sky daddy has? That nothing happens without his control?

The issue is if omniscience and free will can exist at the same time. If you want to discuss the attributes of God or "sky daddy", that's a different topic. On that topic I really don't have anything to say because I believe the answers are unknown, unknowable, and it doesn't really bother me if other people hold substantially different opinions from me.

Although I will point out that logically, if you don't believe in God, arguing about his attributes is silly. You might as well argue over the exact nature of Superman's invincibility. Is he really so invincible that a bullet hitting him in the eyeball doesn't even make him blink? Then how come in the old TV series Superman would just stand there as the bad guys would unload their gun at his chest, but then would duck when they threw the gun at him? It makes no sense, but since he's fiction it doesn't have to.

Emphasis mine

Again I'm trying to illustrate that if X event is going to happen because I have seen it happen; To clarify that I'm not saying I predicted it, I'm saying because in this scenario I'm playing god; I know it's going to happen for sure, 100% of X will happen.

X is going to happen because that's the choice that's going to be made. As an omniscient being, you know that, but you're not making it happen any more than the weatherman is making the weather happen. Knowing is not the same as doing.

If that is true then no freewill exists, It simply can't the outcome is already predetermined and all I'm left with is the illusion of choice.

As this is called "begging the question", which is asserting your premise as proof of your premise.

 

[tsig]

A better way of looking at it is to understand that whatever happens, the omniscient being knows. That's the quality of omniscience.


The issue is if omniscience and free will can exist at the same time. If you want to discuss the attributes of God or "sky daddy", that's a different topic. On that topic I really don't have anything to say because I believe the answers are unknown, unknowable, and it doesn't really bother me if other people hold substantially different opinions from me.

Although I will point out that logically, if you don't believe in God, arguing about his attributes is silly. You might as well argue over the exact nature of Superman's invincibility. Is he really so invincible that a bullet hitting him in the eyeball doesn't even make him blink? Then how come in the old TV series Superman would just stand there as the bad guys would unload their gun at his chest, but then would duck when they threw the gun at him? It makes no sense, but since he's fiction it doesn't have to.



X is going to happen because that's the choice that's going to be made. As an omniscient being, you know that, but you're not making it happen any more than the weatherman is making the weather happen. Knowing is not the same as doing.



As this is called "begging the question", which is asserting your premise as proof of your premise.

Then how is omniscience any different than reading the newspaper?

 

[Mycroft]

Now, thinking AvalonXQ is a betting man and knows a sure thing, I tell him that I will wager $10,000.00 at 100 to 1 odds that the paper I gave him has a list of all ten cards that he picked in order. If there is even one miss, I will pay him one million dollars.

Will he take the bet? After all, if he was free to take ANY cards that he chose, then it would be highly unlikely that there would be a list of the exact cards that he would pick written down before he picked them.

I think it's given that an omniscient being could clean up at a casino or bankrupt any betting person, but there is still no causal relationship between making the list and picking the cards.

And now the Oracle chimes in and says "If you want to really blow your mind, what happens if you show AvalonXQ the list before he picks the cards?"

That might be impossible due to the observer effect.

 

[Mycroft]

Then how is omniscience any different than reading the newspaper?

You're the one who suggested a magic book. You thought it was an apt analogy then, why isn't it now?

 

[Mycroft]

We do not control the movements of the moon; however, we can predict the movements of the moon with almost perfect precision by applying comprehensive knowledge of the forces that move it. This is strong evidence that the moon does not choose its own course, and it's also strong evidence that no sentient agency with free will chooses the moon's course, because those hypotheses do not account for such predictability.

Not necessarily. We put lots of satellites in orbits just as predictable as the Moons orbit, and so they can be said to have a course chosen by a sentient agent with free will.

 

[Brian-M]

Wait a minute... would an omniscient entity be able to resolve the halting problem, as well as other undecidable problems? (I don't see how it could be fully omniscient if it couldn't.)

How does omniscience imply that about the choices and outcomes?

His statement about choices and outcomes having being unalterably set since the beginning of time is implied by [infallible] prescience, which is generally regarded as being a subset of omniscience.

 

[tsig]

Predicting isn't omniscience.

Omniscience (play /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/;[1] omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

The difference is a matter of degree, like the difference between believing and knowing. It doesn't change the underlying principles.

If you want to discuss definitions then please demonstrate how your definition differs from mine, then if they are different, why we should prefer yours to mine. Resorting to name calling just because someone disagrees with you is immature.

I've underlined just where we lost the chance for a discussion.


I gave you a definition and instead of discussing it you dismissed it.

 

[sadhatter]

But the decision wasn't "determined", only known. The omniscient entity doesn't force you to pick anything, it only knows enough about you and your circumstances to know what choice you will make.

If I go to a restaurant with my wife. After the meal we are presented with a dessert menu that features a warm bread pudding with butterscotch sauce. I know my wife will pick this dessert even though there are lots of other tempting desserts and even though she will usually forego dessert altogether.

How do I know? Because I know her. I know there used to be this other restaurant that was our favorite, closed for years now, that featured a similar dessert. I know that when she first tried bread pudding she had no idea what it was, but it soon became one of her favorites. I know of the times she tried various recipes of the dessert to see if she could make it like this restaurant we used to enjoy. I know that particular the inclusion of butterscotch topping will make this irresistible to her.

So I make the prediction. I do nothing to influence the decision, I don't even tell her that the bread pudding is on the menu. She's free to pick any item from the menu, or none at all.

Sure enough, she picks the bread pudding. "I knew you would", I say.

How is that not free will?

Because it is an oversimplification of the situation. If your trying to make the analogy, you going with your wife to the restaurant is not fully appropriate.

A better one would be you and your wife go to a restaurant you own. Before you arrive you tell the chefs to not make bread pudding with butterscotch sauce, you tell them to make a decent chocolate cake, and 2 things your wife is allergic to. Sure it appears that she has the choice between 3 desserts, but do to your knowledge of your wife, and the control you have over the situation, you have made the choice for her, sans her knowledge.

 

[PiedPiper]

Following this thread is a little confusing, but to add what I can to the discussion....

If (for the sake of argument) we accept that there is a God and he is omniscient, then whether or not that interferes with free will depends on how you define free will. If God is truly omniscient and knows all things that have happened / are happening / will happen, then yes, he already knows how you're going to act.

In my mind (using my definition of free will) that doesn't mean you don't have free will when you act. You can do whatever you want, within human limits. I can take a sip of soda from the can on my desk in five minutes time, or I can choose not to. It's a choice that I actively make. The fact that some entity / being / God somewhere knows the future and therefore knows whether or not I will choose to drink some soda doesn't change the fact that I made a choice.

I think some people get hung up on this issue because they believe that God is controlling them and forcing them to make choice A or B, and that rankles them. There's no controlling. It's just that God already knows how I will choose. It doesn't mean that God had a plan laid out where I would not drink the soda, and so five minutes from now, I'll "choose" not to. Most religions believe we have free will. The fact that someone can glimpse the future (and choose not to act on it) doesn't change the fact that in the present, I exercise free will when choosing whether or not to drink.

I think God does have a plan, for me and for this world and for the universe(s). I don't think my drinking Sprite in five minutes is a huge part of his plan, or even in his plan. He knows how I'm going to choose, by definition - because he's omniscient - but that doesn't mean I'm a robot, following a program with no free will. It's just that God has already seen me making my choice. He's all-knowing; past, present, and future.

I fail to see how these issues are self-contradictory. There are plenty of outcries that can be made about bad outcomes of choices and why doesn't God intervene, etc, but that's a different issue. If we accept that there is an omniscient diety then everything we choose to do in the future is already known by that diety, for good or for bad. We have choice, but God knows everything, and knows how I will choose. I can choose X or I can choose Y; free will at the time that the decision is made. God just happens to know how I will choose, because he's all-knowing, and knows the future.

There's a lot of outcries that can be made about different aspects of God and why does he allow me to make bad choices etc etc but I don't see any contradiction / clash between my making a choice, and someone who knows everything already knowing how I will choose.

I'd welcome comments / PMs on this viewpoint, but I fail to see any paradox. Is it an "illusion" of free will? No, it's not an illusion, I actually am making a choice. Someone already knows how I will choose. That has no bearing on which choice I choose to make; they just happen to already know the result.

 

[Mycroft]

Because it is an oversimplification of the situation. If your trying to make the analogy, you going with your wife to the restaurant is not fully appropriate.

A better one would be you and your wife go to a restaurant you own. Before you arrive you tell the chefs to not make bread pudding with butterscotch sauce, you tell them to make a decent chocolate cake, and 2 things your wife is allergic to. Sure it appears that she has the choice between 3 desserts, but do to your knowledge of your wife, and the control you have over the situation, you have made the choice for her, sans her knowledge.

You're introducing the God element again. The issue is only if omniscience is incomparable with free will.

If you force a choice then sure you take away free will, but that has nothing to do with omniscience, it's just being manipulative. That may well be your problem with the existence of God, but that's not the discussion.

 

[Mycroft]

In my mind (using my definition of free will) that doesn't mean you don't have free will when you act. You can do whatever you want, within human limits. I can take a sip of soda from the can on my desk in five minutes time, or I can choose not to. It's a choice that I actively make. The fact that some entity / being / God somewhere knows the future and therefore knows whether or not I will choose to drink some soda doesn't change the fact that I made a choice.

Exactly!

 

[mutile]

Following this thread is a little confusing, but to add what I can to the discussion....

If (for the sake of argument) we accept that there is a God and he is omniscient, then whether or not that interferes with free will depends on how you define free will. If God is truly omniscient and knows all things that have happened / are happening / will happen, then yes, he already knows how you're going to act.

In my mind (using my definition of free will) that doesn't mean you don't have free will when you act. You can do whatever you want, within human limits. I can take a sip of soda from the can on my desk in five minutes time, or I can choose not to. It's a choice that I actively make. The fact that some entity / being / God somewhere knows the future and therefore knows whether or not I will choose to drink some soda doesn't change the fact that I made a choice.

You are not considering the fact that God knew you would take a sip of soda before he created you and he specifically created you to take a sip of soda at that precise moment.

This same definition of free will, could be used to argue that computer programs have free will, as you don't think it is relevant that humans are only doing what they are programmed to do.

 

[GeeMack]

You're introducing the God element again. The issue is only if omniscience is incomparable with free will.

This discussion grew from another which was about the lack of respectability of Christians. The omniscience issue wasn't just a generic what-if. It was about the omniscience of some god. So your persistence in trying to shove gods out of the discussion is dishonest.

But I do get your point. You're saying if we change the terms of the discussion in such a way that omniscience doesn't eliminate free will, then free will can exist even if whatever not-god being you're talking about is omniscient. But really, how about if we set aside the unnecessary tautology and say, for the sake of the discussion, that free will simply exists even when someone/thing is omniscient... just because... period. There. You win and you don't have to be dishonest about it!

 

[Mycroft]

This discussion grew from another which was about the lack of respectability of Christians. The omniscience issue wasn't just a generic what-if. It was about the omniscience of some god. So your persistence in trying to shove gods out of the discussion is dishonest.

It's moving the goalposts, period. There is nothing dishonest about pointing it out. If you want to continue that other discussion and say there is no free will because God controls everything, fine. But it's God controlling everything that destroys free will, not omniscience.

But I do get your point. You're saying if we change the terms of the discussion in such a way that omniscience doesn't eliminate free will, then free will can exist even if whatever not-god being you're talking about is omniscient. But really, how about if we set aside the unnecessary tautology and say, for the sake of the discussion, that free will simply exists even when someone/thing is omniscient... just because... period. There. You win and you don't have to be dishonest about it!

You can do that. Or you can just declare that free will doesn't exist in the presence of omniscience... just because... it doesn't. Period.

I don't think asserting straw-men in place of the other person's argument is productive. Instead I suggest we could continue the discussion we've been having. I say that free will is perfectly compatible with omniscience because:

1) Nobody can demonstrate a causal relationship between knowing the decision in advance and making the decision.

2) I've given several mundane examples where knowing the decision a person will make doesn't change the fact that they're still free to make whatever decision they want. One person did claim the person wouldn't really have free will, but failed to follow up with an explanation of why.

3) So far the only counter-arguments to my proposition have revolved around the logical fallacy of begging the question, asserting that I don't understand what's being said because I don't agree with it, or confusing omniscience with omnipotence.

 

[baron]

In my mind (using my definition of free will) that doesn't mean you don't have free will when you act. You can do whatever you want, within human limits. I can take a sip of soda from the can on my desk in five minutes time, or I can choose not to.

What makes you think that (and forgive the irony inherent in my question)?

 

[GeeMack]

It's moving the goalposts, period. There is nothing dishonest about pointing it out.

The discussion is about the omniscience of some god which is typically endowed with omnipotence. Your persistent effort to move the goalposts is noted.

If you want to continue that other discussion and say there is no free will because God controls everything, fine. But it's God controlling everything that destroys free will, not omniscience.

That other discussion, the one about the omniscience of some omnipotent being, has been continued in this thread. The omniscience and omnipotence are only unrelated if we choose to dishonestly re-frame the discussion (read: move the goalposts), or if willfully ignoring the fact that gods were part of the discussion from the beginning.

You're introducing the God element again.

The god element was introduced before this thread sprang from the other one.

 

[Aridas]

It's moving the goalposts, period. There is nothing dishonest about pointing it out. If you want to continue that other discussion and say there is no free will because God controls everything, fine. But it's God controlling everything that destroys free will, not omniscience.

That rather does depend on what version of "Free Will" that you're using. The form that you're using appears to be along the general lines of "Freedom from Outside Coercion." In that case, Omniscience, whatever its form, is indeed not all that relevant. Those who are debating, however badly, seem to be using a version that is more along the lines of "Freedom to influence the outcome." In that case, the mere possibility of Omniscience tends to be enough to negate that line of "Free Will." By the looks of it, this thread was started with the latter being the relevant version, much as both are certainly worth considering. However, the issues that they relevantly address don't overlap particularly much.

I don't think asserting straw-men in place of the other person's argument is productive. Instead I suggest we could continue the discussion we've been having. I say that free will is perfectly compatible with omniscience because:

1) Nobody can demonstrate a causal relationship between knowing the decision in advance and making the decision.

Quite true for the former version of Free Will that I pointed out, irrelevant to the latter.

As for the other two, they're not really relevant to the matter at hand, just the thread.

 

[Mycroft]

The discussion is about the omniscience of some god which is typically endowed with omnipotence. Your persistent effort to move the goalposts is noted.




That other discussion, the one about the omniscience of some omnipotent being, has been continued in this thread. The omniscience and omnipotence are only unrelated if we choose to dishonestly re-frame the discussion (read: move the goalposts), or if willfully ignoring the fact that gods were part of the discussion from the beginning.

​

The god element was introduced before this thread sprang from the other one.

So you and I are discussing two different topics. If you take the position that if an omnipotent God who also happens to be omniscient has a "plan" for you and doesn't allow deviation from the plan then you don't have free will, then I agree with you. Since we agree, I don't see that we have anything further to discuss on that topic.

On a separate topic, I don't see anything inherently contradictory in the simultaneous existence of an omniscient being and free will. My reasons for believing this have already been stated, if you would like to discuss/argue that topic I'll be happy to indulge you so long as it remains fun. Agree or not, I promise not to be insulting.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I wrote the OP and explicitly gave my own definition a few posts in, matching the former definition rather than the latter.

I also wrote the OP to explicitly divorce this discussion from the Christian-based discussion on the other thread, and have attempted to keep the issue firmly on omniscience and not any other property ever since. To claim dishonesty is... well... par for the course for GeeMack, but incorrect as usual.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The discussion is about the omniscience of some god which is typically endowed with omnipotence.

No, it's not. But if you're willing to concede that omnipotence and intentional meddling are necessary for the negation of free will, great!