Free will and omniscience

[Bill Thompson 75]

When I refer to your dishonest and false comments, I mean the comments you've made which are not true. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in describing those comments as lies. The alternative is you simply don't know what you're writing.
Your ignorance and lack of honesty have been often noted because of their relevance.

When you continue to call disagreement dishonesty and lies, it becomes apparent that you have no analytical response to make.

No. It follows exactly from my prior statements and from the entire premise of the hypothetical concept under discussion. The analysis has been provided many, many times, not only by me, but by Tricky, not_so_new, tsig, Belz, Dave Rogers, Roboramma, and others in this thread. The reason you're not getting it and mistakenly believe there's a jump, is because you continue to willfully ignore the temporal aspect of the chooser. The knowledge is that of the omniscient being. The time constraint is on the chooser. No jump required. Try to keep up.

There is no relevant time aspect to the chooser . As always, I have said the chooser exists only in his own time-frame. Disagree to that with specifics.

There has been one basic argument presented, which is:
Argument: If the OB knows the choice made, then that choice will occur.
My rebuttal consists of an exception to that argument:
Rebuttal: That argument doesn't show that the knowledge of the choice doesn't come from the choice,
The valid conclusion is that the choice forms the OB's knowledge and the choice is not constrained to a single option.

One counter to my rebuttal is something about causality applying to the OB and the chooser in completely different ways.
This is a non sequitur and not relevant to the debate.
Another counter is to give the OB other powers. Again, this is not relevant.

There were no options available to the chooser. When he woke up this morning the choice of spaghetti was already known. The list of choices consisted of a single item.

This does not address my exception and therefore is not analytically conclusive.

As Belz and Tricky have explained, several times and in quite plain language, causality requires a sequence related to time, a before and an after.

If you are going to debate omniscience in a theoretical setting (assuming you don't think its actually real) then explain how causality allows knowledge of a future event but disallows the future event from being the basis for the knowledge.

The omniscient being is atemporal, regardless of your persistent and dishonest attempts to ignore that aspect when it suits your whim.

It doesn't matter if the OB is atemporal or not. My argument is only concerned with the atemporality of knowledge.

And the chooser is not. It is time constrained, again regardless of your persistent and dishonest attempts to ignore that when you think you can get away with it.

This is not relevant. We only need to know about the atemporality of knowledge.

 

[GeeMack]

This is not relevant. We only need to know about the atemporality of knowledge.

Your persistent, dishonest, and willful ignorance of the temporal characteristic of the chooser is again noted. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are simply unwilling, and perhaps even unable, to engage in an honest dialog.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

And yet I just explained that you did.

Saying that I did something is not the same as saying what I did. Try again.

Sorry, wrong word by me. It's an endless loop, though.

Yes, that doesn't apply this debate.

No.
Oh, I see I see. But I didn't claim that at all, so you were simply fighting a misconception.

Obvious dodge.
Whatever it is that you claim, I claim that there is an exception wherein the OB knows the way an event happens because that is the way the event happens.

If his knowledge is atemporal, how can he not be ?

I am not concerned with that in this debate.
I don't know how big its brain is, how many eyes it has, or how much space it occupies either.

You're missing the actual quote that proves your point.

It was the humor you requested.

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding lies, then.

You claim that causality and Boolean logic are interdependent. Do you mean that one cannot exist without the other? Explain.

Here's the problem: if the OB is omniscient after the chooser made his choise, the timeline must follow its course to the future before that happens, and THAT creates a paradox.

The OB is omniscient at any time that it exists, which may be before, while, or after the chooser made his choice.
The timeline must follow its course to the future before what happens?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I've seen it avoided many times. Just like now.

OB knows>no choice

OB doesn't know>no OB.

If that is the extent of your analysis, your argument fails miserably.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Your persistent, dishonest, and willful ignorance of the temporal characteristic of the chooser is again noted. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are simply unwilling, and perhaps even unable, to engage in an honest dialog.

Instead of calling me dishonest for disagreeing with you and for not doing your analysis for you, why don't you get yourself a book on high school debate and review the chapters on ...everything.

 

[tsig]

If that is the extent of your analysis, your argument fails miserably.

Merely saying it fails is not the same as showing how it fails.

 

[GeeMack]

Instead of calling me dishonest for disagreeing with you and for not doing your analysis for you, why don't you get yourself a book on high school debate and review the chapters on ...everything.

I am not pointing out your dishonesty for disagreeing with me. I am pointing it out because it exists. It is evident in your continuing to change the criteria of the being, the chooser, the knowledge, and/or the choice. Your persistent use of dishonesty in defending what appears to be an otherwise indefensible position makes your argument irrational. Consequently, since it's actually asserting a different position from one post to the next to the next, it's not really an argument at all.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Merely saying it fails is not the same as showing how it fails.

And again, that has been shown many times. You present nothing new.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I am not pointing out your dishonesty for disagreeing with me.
I am pointing it out because it exists. It is evident in your continuing to change the criteria of the being, the chooser, the knowledge, and/or the choice. Your persistent use of dishonesty in defending what appears to be an otherwise indefensible position makes your argument irrational. Consequently, since it's actually asserting a different position from one post to the next to the next, it's not really an argument at all.

First, it would be dishonest if I did not make you aware of the criteria I use, but since I have continually and consistently done that, your point fails.
Second, I have continually and consistently used the same criteria, so your point fails again.

 

[Belz...]

Saying that I did something is not the same as saying what I did. Try again.

I didn't say I said it, I said I explained it. Read again.

Yes, that doesn't apply this debate.

Agreed.

Obvious dodge.

How in the blue hell is it a dodge to point out that your counter to my argument doesn't count because I never made that argument ? Do you really want to attack things I never said ?

Whatever it is that you claim, I claim that there is an exception wherein the OB knows the way an event happens because that is the way the event happens.

That's not an exception. You are proposing a mechanism that avoids this problem. If you keep using the wrong terms, there is no chance of understanding.

I am not concerned with that in this debate.

You should, otherwise you'll continue to reach wrong conclusions.

It was the humor you requested.

I asked you to point out to me a fallacy when I said "humour me", and you failed to do so. Asking for the actual definition and reference was a separate request. I see you're having a lot of trouble following the conversation.

You claim that causality and Boolean logic are interdependent. Do you mean that one cannot exist without the other?

I already DID. Do you even read my posts ? Why should I repeat myself again and again just because you don't read ?

The OB is omniscient at any time that it exists, which may be before, while, or after the chooser made his choice.

That's not what we agreed to a few posts ago. Did you forget already ? The OB need not be omniscient always.

If he does, now, how does this "choice goes back in time to inform the OB" work ?

 

[Belz...]

Merely saying it fails is not the same as showing how it fails.

With Bill, you'll have to make due with mere claims, Tsig.

 

[SumDood]

My questions keep getting ignored, but being a hard-headed optimist, I'm going to keep asking:

Silly Hypothetical Example Number 3:
In your kitchen there is a security camera that is wired through a worm hole (yes, magic) that sends a signal back in time 24 hours to my smartphone. I can watch the video feed on my phone and know what you will have for breakfast tomorrow.

1) In this scenario, is your freewill limited?

2) If 'yes':

a)If no one watches the video feed on the phone, is your freewill restored?​

b)If the video feed is recorded to the phones memory, but no one watches it, is your freewill restored?​

c)If the video feed goes back 24 hours and there is no device at all to capture it, is your freewill restored?​

 

[Belz...]

1) In this scenario, is your freewill limited?

In this scenario, ALL free will is non-existent.

a)If no one watches the video feed on the phone, is your freewill restored?​

No.

b)If the video feed is recorded to the phones memory, but no one watches it, is your freewill restored?​

No.

c)If the video feed goes back 24 hours and there is no device at all to capture it, is your freewill restored?​

No.

 

[SumDood]

Thank you for your response.

In this scenario, ALL free will is non-existent.

That's interesting. How would foreknowledge of the events in your kitchen effect the free will of a rice farmer on the other side of the world?

I don't think this is important, and its probably been covered in the thread already, but in this scenario, you don't know your freewill is limited, correct?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume that in this scenario the two things necessary for your free will to be limited is the camera to be on and the wormhole transmitting the data back in time. If either of these are not true, your freewill is intact, correct?

Now say the camera records the events in your kitchen to a dvd, one disc for each morning. If today, June 20, I get a disc from June 13, send it through my wormhole to myself on June 12, your freewill on June 13 was limited, correct? If so, when did it become limited? Was it limited yesterday, the 19th, before I sent the disc back in time? Kinda getting into theoretical time travel and paradoxes here, but I'm just trying to understand your position and to clarify mine.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Silly Hypothetical Example Number 3:
In your kitchen there is a security camera that is wired through a worm hole (yes, magic) that sends a signal back in time 24 hours to my smartphone.

What Belz said, but with a proviso. Causality has been violated, so either we are in a completely deterministic universe or a temporal paradox has been created. If you can think of any other way to resolve that paradox, good luck, but none exists that I know of. Even the branching universe hypothesis doesn't really handle it, because the paradox still exists within a specific branch.

And this remains the problem with any attempt to reconcile omniscience with free will: chop logic however you like to define, not define, pretend to define while in fact not defining, or pretend not to define while in fact defining the nature of the omniscient being or of omniscience, you will still have the irreconcilable paradox, in a non-deterministic universe, that an event can have both happened and not happened; happened, because its occurrence was the source of the knowledge in advance that it must have happened, and not happened because it did not, in fact, happen. It has nothing to do with the fine details of omniscience. It's simply the case that causality violation must result in a temporal paradox in a non-deterministic universe, and omniscience requires a causality violation.

Dave

 

[SumDood]

What Belz said, but with a proviso. Causality has been violated, so either we are in a completely deterministic universe or a temporal paradox has been created. If you can think of any other way to resolve that paradox, good luck, but none exists that I know of. Even the branching universe hypothesis doesn't really handle it, because the paradox still exists within a specific branch.

And this remains the problem with any attempt to reconcile omniscience with free will: chop logic however you like to define, not define, pretend to define while in fact not defining, or pretend not to define while in fact defining the nature of the omniscient being or of omniscience, you will still have the irreconcilable paradox, in a non-deterministic universe, that an event can have both happened and not happened; happened, because its occurrence was the source of the knowledge in advance that it must have happened, and not happened because it did not, in fact, happen. It has nothing to do with the fine details of omniscience. It's simply the case that causality violation must result in a temporal paradox in a non-deterministic universe, and omniscience requires a causality violation.

Dave

I'm just a simple man, so can you dumb it down a little? When I think of 'temporal paradox', I think of myself traveling back in time and killing my mother so I'm never born. Which means I wouldn't exist to go back in time to kill my mother so I will be(was) born. Which means I do(did) exist so I can go back in time to prevent my birth. Which means... etc. forever. What paradox is created by an Omniscience Being who doesn't do anything, only knows everything? What would be the effect of such a paradox?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm just a simple man, so can you dumb it down a little? When I think of 'temporal paradox', I think of myself traveling back in time and killing my mother so I'm never born. Which means I wouldn't exist to go back in time to kill my mother so I will be(was) born. Which means I do(did) exist so I can go back in time to prevent my birth. Which means... etc. forever.

Or, in the case of the video feed to the smartphone, I see myself eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow, so tomorrow morning I have rice krispies just to be different, which means I couldn't have seen myself eat the cornflakes even though I did. The implications are much smaller, but it's no less of a paradox. And even if I didn't see myself eat the cornflakes, the information still existed, so if the smartphone shows me eating the cornflakes and I eat the rice krispies then my eating the cornflakes both did and didn't happen.

What paradox is created by an Omniscience Being who doesn't do anything, only knows everything? What would be the effect of such a paradox?

No paradox is created if the OB knew I was going to eat the cornflakes and I did eat the cornflakes. However, if the OB knew I was going to eat the cornflakes and I actually ate the rice krispies, then the OB wouldn't be omniscient. Therefore, if the OB knew I was going to eat the cornflakes, then I had no choice but to eat them, which means I didn't have free will.

It's just about possible, I suppose, to resolve the paradox if it's impossible for the knowledge to get from the OB to me by any conceivable means; in that case, the OB's knowledge could be taken to be outside time and causality, and so would be logically no different to knowing everything after it happened. But that's not an acceptable solution if you also require that your omniscient being be capable of intervening in the world, even in a limited way. Once the OB is able to interact with the temporal world, free will is impossible.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

There has been one basic argument presented, which is:
Argument: If the OB knows the choice made, then that choice will occur.
My rebuttal consists of an exception to that argument:
Rebuttal: That argument doesn't show that the knowledge of the choice doesn't come from the choice,

That isn't a rebuttal. It's simply a trivial claim that a statement unrelated to causality violation doesn't demonstrate that causality violation is impossible. It's a complete non sequitur.

The valid conclusion is that the choice forms the OB's knowledge and the choice is not constrained to a single option.

That conclusion is self-contradictory. If the choice forms the OB's knowledge, and that knowledge is available at a time before the choice, then only the choice taken is possible, negating free will.

Unless, of course, your hypothetical OB exists completely outside causality, and cannot be said therefore to possess the knowledge of the choice "before" the choice. If you wish to postulate a God who cannot, by definition, interact with causality in any way, I have no issues with your postulate other than that it is by definition unnecessary. Any definition of an omniscient God capable of interacting with causlity, however, is clearly incompatible with free will.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

That's interesting. How would foreknowledge of the events in your kitchen effect the free will of a rice farmer on the other side of the world?

Because the mere fact that it is POSSIBLE to know the outcome of events in advance with 100% certainty means that there the universe is entirely deterministic. In such a universe, free will is impossible.

I don't think this is important, and its probably been covered in the thread already, but in this scenario, you don't know your freewill is limited, correct?

Of course. Even if the universe is deterministic it doesn't change a thing about the subjective value of life or choice.

 

[Belz...]

It's just about possible, I suppose, to resolve the paradox if it's impossible for the knowledge to get from the OB to me by any conceivable means; in that case, the OB's knowledge could be taken to be outside time and causality, and so would be logically no different to knowing everything after it happened. But that's not an acceptable solution if you also require that your omniscient being be capable of intervening in the world, even in a limited way. Once the OB is able to interact with the temporal world, free will is impossible.

I'd like to add that if the OB is omniscient, he can't be outside of time and causality and unable to interact with the universe, because if he is then there is no way for him to acquire any knowledge of that universe.