Free will and omniscience

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

The fallacy you indulge in is called begging the question.
You assume every event must have a cause and therefore an agent and therefore nothing random and therefore a cause.
Try again.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

Pi is mathematics. The universe cares nothing about mathematics.
Quantum mechanics is only a model with multiple interpretations.
Qbism is the interpretation (SA, June 2013) that the 'collapse' is only in the mind.
The cat is either dead or alive, but not both.
Pi has one value, in decimal or otherwise, whether we know what it is or not.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Pi has one value, in decimal or otherwise, whether we know what it is or not.

My point is that the universe can also be modeled as a single timeless value.

For example, a single number between 0 and 1 can represent all possible sets of information, such as 0.0110101101111110001010110101111...

So the universe can be modeled as a single number unfolding, since a digital model with enough precision can model any natural process.

A smaller (and finite) example is that the latest Batman movie can be represented by a single number which in turn represents all digital information on a Blu-ray disc.

Why do you believe in supernatural things like the universe being created from nothing, and time starting from no time, and time being a dimension? It's irrational.

 

[rcfieldz]

Who Knows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Sorry if this link has been posted before. But if the knowledge exists it doesn't mean it is all there is. New knowledge is what is manifest naturally.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

My point is that the universe can also be modeled as a single timeless value.

For example, a single number between 0 and 1 can represent all possible sets of information, such as 0.0110101101111110001010110101111...

So the universe can be modeled as a single number unfolding, since a digital model with enough precision can model any natural process.

A smaller (and finite) example is that the latest Batman movie can be represented by a single number which in turn represents all digital information on a Blu-ray disc.

Why do you believe in supernatural things like the universe being created from nothing, and time starting from no time, and time being a dimension? It's irrational.

You say there is no time, but "unfolding" sounds a lot like a process.

Why do you call those things supernatural, which refers to things within our universe but act in violation of the natural laws within our universe?

 

[mutile]

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.

What was the consensus, can they coexist?

 

[Aepervius]

Free will as defined by many require that an element of uncertainty be there. Otherwise an entirely predictable will is not free anymore. Omniscience in its restricted form means you know everything there is to know, past , present, and future, and therefore the existence of 1 contradict the other. Either you aren't really omniscient as you cannot know what action will be taken by the free will, or your will aren't free as your action are predicted.

Most religious folk I know go around that by either stating omniscience is only for the past/present - not the future, in other word restrictive, or simply pretend god shut off his own omniscience.

 

[Aridas]

What was the consensus, can they coexist?

It's been a fair while, so I don't recall specifics about this thread's discussion and I don't feel like rereading the thread much. Whether they can coexist depends entirely on how one defines Free Will, though. As Aepervius noted, versions of Free Will that include intrinsic uncertainty in what the outcome will be cannot co-exist with Omniscience. Many of those here have run into the Christian claim that Adam and Eve's Free Will was the cause of the fall from grace described in the story of Adam and Eve, thus, YHWH bears no responsibility, which, morally speaking, is nonsensical if YHWH is an omniscient Creator, as tends to also be claimed, because it's claiming that multiple mutually exclusive things are both the case. The possibility of Omniscience existing in the first place is irrelevant to more legally useful definitions of Free Will, though, which only take into account things like direct coercion or other means of forcing a person to do something... which, incidentally, the Bible states that YHWH is fine with interfering with Free Will even when those much more lenient definitions of Free Will are employed.

In short, accurately define what you mean by Free Will first, preferably with what purpose you want to use that version of Free Will for, and you can get a direct answer.

 

[mutile]

Is compatibilism the rational position and does the alternative position actually have a coherent definition of free will?

 

[Aepervius]

Is compatibilism the rational position and does the alternative position actually have a coherent definition of free will?

I would not be called compatibilism as much as "adaptationism" , in other word, the definition of free will sometimes depend on what the person want to reach with their definition .

 

[Aridas]

Is compatibilism the rational position and does the alternative position actually have a coherent definition of free will?

Again, first, define which version of Free Will you want to discuss and in what context. Discussion before that frequently gets bogged down by people using slightly and significantly different definitions.

 

[mutile]

I have no definition, or insight, was merely curious if a consensus had been reached.

 

[Aridas]

I have no definition, or insight, was merely curious if a consensus had been reached.

Arbitrarily, I'll say yes, but what definition of Free Will is actually in question needs to be defined, first. There are lots of quite different ones that have been forwarded, which is why there's no general consensus that tends to be reached when it's kept in the fairly vague terms that you're using. Saying that an apple and an orange are both citrusy because the orange is citrusy is a fairly sure way to cause disagreements. Throw in bananas, kiwi, grapefruit, and tangerines into the mix and you're a bit closer to what Free Will is used to mean. Some of those are citrusy, yes. Others are very much not.