Free will and omniscience

[Last of the Fraggles]

I know this is absolutely arguing over angels on a pinhead but here's another way to think of it.

Perhaps an omniscient being could be aware not of what will happen but rather the probabilities associated with every action or decision and the all of the resulting future branches that would occur given decision X over decision not X. Would that still be omniscience?

Knowledge of not only what did happen but every variation of what could have happened too?

 

[H'ethetheth]

I know this is absolutely arguing over angels on a pinhead but here's another way to think of it.

Perhaps an omniscient being could be aware not of what will happen but rather the probabilities associated with every action or decision and the all of the resulting future branches that would occur given decision X over decision not X. Would that still be omniscience?

Knowledge of not only what did happen but every variation of what could have happened too?

I don't see why that wouldn't be omniscience. This will however require some sort of multiverse, as someone already proposed upthread. If there is one unique "timeline" for this universe, I don't see how you get away from either determinism or the impossibility of omniscience.

 

[dafydd]

You can pick any color you want as long as its black.

So this god operates by using the conjurer's choice.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I don't see why that wouldn't be omniscience. This will however require some sort of multiverse, as someone already proposed upthread. If there is one unique "timeline" for this universe, I don't see how you get away from either determinism or the impossibility of omniscience.

Does it require a multiverse or just that the entity can envisage a multiverse?

It wouldn't actually have to happen, or would it?

Prior to decision X Entity G is aware of the probabilities of choosing option A,B,C and can see how each option plays out. You freely select B and the universe plays out a single time line. However entity G still knows what would have happened had you selected C or A - G might even hold it against you if you picked the one that has a sub-optimal outcome for them

 

[H'ethetheth]

Does it require a multiverse or just that the entity can envisage a multiverse?

That is a good question, though that would mean that God doesn't know what will happen, just what might happen.
It's like saying you know everyone's PIN numbers simply because you know every possible PIN number.

It wouldn't actually have to happen, or would it?

Prior to decision X Entity G is aware of the probabilities of choosing option A,B,C and can see how each option plays out. You freely select B and the universe plays out a single time line. However entity G still knows what would have happened had you selected C or A - G might even hold it against you if you picked the one that has a sub-optimal outcome for them

Sure, but again: That makes God uncertain of which universe will happen, i.e. I wouldn't call that the same kind of omniscient.

 

[Aridas]

The reason God can make accurate predictions is that He knows enough to be sure that these things will happen (with intervention if necessary).

I didn't adequately deal with this, before. I likely will, later, but sleep is happening first. For now, I'm just going to point back at Pharaoh. God forced him to "sin," if that could have been truly called sinful (or reflective of reality) and then punished him for it. All this, without Pharaoh knowing that God was forcing his hand.

Sure, but again: That makes God uncertain of which universe will happen, i.e. I wouldn't call that the same kind of omniscient.

As I said before, that type of model means that there are far, far too many "I don't knows" of direct relevance to the being in question, under all circumstances, to ever really allow it to be called Omniscience.

 

[edge]

Originally Posted by edge
Good analogy Pulvinar.
Predestination ended 2000 years-ago at the moment of Jesus' sacrifice and glory and then true freewill started.
Simply said by Jesus, I have come so that all can or have the opportunity to be saved through faith. Then comes the question, "But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?
This is why God is hiding and we have to have faith to preserve freewill.
He wants your choice from your heart. Anything else would be robotic and meaningless.
If you have faith then little bits are shown to believers to keep them in the Christian faith.
"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."-1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

So "good analogy" but you have no idea what his post meant.

My answer was in responce to everything I read in here.
But here lets look at this first part from Pulvinar.

Using your logic, a computer has free will. For example, it's free to choose to either jump to a new instruction or not, depending on conditions and its rules. The programmer will know just which way it will jump in any specific case. Does that make programmer s demigodsGod?

God = creator of the computer and programmer.
(Bill Gates)
Satan the haker.
Then enters the virus.
God then sends patches which works for a while but not for long, then God sends the viruse protection program which = Jesus.
Second part:

If you reexamine every statement about free will in this thread, you'll find that it's always free in the general case (where there's at least one unknown), but not free in the specific case. That's when you're not free to choose anything other than what you want at that moment.

It depends on how you look at that part highlighted, maybe you could expand on that and clarify. Maybe this is where morality comes into play?
I believe you would still have a choice.

 

[dafydd]

My answer was in responce to everything I read in here.
But here lets look at this first part from Pulvinar.
God = creator of the computer and programmer.
(Bill Gates)
Satan the haker.
Then enters the virus.
God then sends patches which works for a while but not for long, then God sends the viruse protection program which = Jesus.
Second part:

It depends on how you look at that part highlighted, maybe you could expand on that and clarify. Maybe this is where morality comes into play?
I believe you would still have a choice.

What is a ''haker''? And a ''viruse''?

 

[arthwollipot]

What is a ''haker''? And a ''viruse''?

Don't be picky. You know exactly what he means. "Hacker" and "virus".

 

[Good Lt]

I believe you would still have a choice.

The choice has already been made for you since time began. It's been assigned to you already. You will choose X, which is part of the plan. Choosing Y is not part of the plan.

The illusion of choice is just that.

 

[Belz...]

God = creator of the computer and programmer.
(Bill Gates)
Satan the haker.
Then enters the virus.
God then sends patches which works for a while but not for long, then God sends the viruse protection program which = Jesus.

What the **** does this have to do with the thread ?

 

[edge]

Don't be picky. You know exactly what he means. "Hacker" and "virus".

Thanks I'm going blind.

 

[edge]

The choice has already been made for you since time began. It's been assigned to you already. You will choose X, which is part of the plan. Choosing Y is not part of the plan.

The illusion of choice is just that.

I think that is one of the contradictions in the bible.
If that is right then nothing we do matters.
But unfortunately its main theme is that everything we do matters.

 

[dafydd]

Don't be picky. You know exactly what he means. "Hacker" and "virus".

His inability to spell them speaks volumes to me.

 

[edge]

What the **** does this have to do with the thread ?

Maybe nothing maybe everything, no one can know for sure.I'm about to butt out forever. I will find out before you.

 

[dafydd]

What the **** does this have to do with the thread ?

Nothing that edge posts has anything to do with any thread that edge is involved in.

 

[dafydd]

Maybe nothing maybe everything, no one can know for sure.I'm about to butt out forever. I will find out before you.

Find out what?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I think the typical problem people have in reconciling these two concepts is that they have an idea in their head of how omniscience works and there's no reason to believe it actually works that way.

Omniscience isn't conceptually any different than considering the past from the viewpoint of the present. Our current knowledge of past decisions don't constrain their freedom; neither does the knowledge of an atemporal being do so.

Here is why omniscience does not preclude free will.

Imagine three events A,B, and C: A occurs before B and B occurs before C.
An omniscient being (OB) knows A and B and C, not A then B then C.
As soon as you say before, after, timeline, already, when, now, then, past, future, etc., you are no longer talking about omniscience, you are talking about the way mortals know things.
There is no linear temporal aspect to omniscience.

OB knows every choice made, but not before the choice is made because as soon as you say "before" you are not talking about omniscience.
(Using "made" here is not an indicator of a past time, it is a convention of our grammar.)
If I make a choice, no matter what it is or when it is, then OB knows the choice I make and OB doesn't make the choice for me.
If the choice were different, then OB would know that instead.

 

[Good Lt]

I think that is one of the contradictions in the bible.
If that is right then nothing we do matters.
But unfortunately its main theme is that everything we do matters.

Why do you have such an aversion to exploring the notion that nothing you do as a speck in this massive universe matters on a cosmic scale?

There doesn't "have to be" a plan. And based on what we have observed about the physical universe in which we exist, it appears highly unlikely that there is one.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Here is why omniscience does not preclude free will.

Imagine three events A,B, and C: A occurs before B and B occurs before C.
An omniscient being (OB) knows A and B and C, not A then B then C.
As soon as you say before, after, timeline, already, when, now, then, past, future, etc., you are no longer talking about omniscience, you are talking about the way mortals know things.
There is no linear temporal aspect to omniscience.

OB knows every choice made, but not before the choice is made because as soon as you say "before" you are not talking about omniscience.
(Using "made" here is not an indicator of a past time, it is a convention of our grammar.)
If I make a choice, no matter what it is or when it is, then OB knows the choice I make and OB doesn't make the choice for me.
If the choice were different, then OB would know that instead.

This changes nothing about the fact that "OB" knows that (not A),(not B), and (not C) do not ever occur, and can therefore not be caused by anything, even though this being may believe it has the power to cause these things.