Free will and omniscience

[Aridas]

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

Good luck. May you have had few regrets and many satisfactions.

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.

The knowledge aspect has always been irrelevant, except in what it says about the nature of reality. Predictive power is only necessarily relevant if one adds that the Omniscience can affect things, as well, namely, the ability to predict what, exactly, will change if the Omniscience interacts with the reality in any particular way.

I do agree that if the "Omniscient Being" doesn't know something before a choice is made, though, that being is not Omniscient.

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.

I will not speak on whether he has an aversion to such, however, I thought that it was pretty clear that edge was referring to the Bible.

 

[tsig]

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.

If the OB doesn't know something then it isn't an OB.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe nothing maybe everything, no one can know for sure.

In other words you just posted random nonsense.

 

[Mycroft]

These two statements are mutually contradictory. If it is certain that you will pick X, then you cannot pick not-X. Because if you could, then God would not be omniscient.

It is simple logic. Here are two statements.

1) Someone knows with 100% certainty what you will do.
2) You can do something other that what that someone knows.

If statement 1 is true, then you cannot do something other that what that someone knows with 100% certainty.
If statement 2 is true, then that someone did not have 100% certainty.

There is no possible way both statements can be true.

But you still make the decision to pick X. How does someone/something else knowing about it change that?

I don't see the conflict between free will and omniscience.
But then, I think of free will as a deterministic process.

So if some entity can calculate what decision I will arrive at before I arrive at that decision, without actually influencing my decision-making process in any way, then my free will has not being impinged upon.

Exactly.

 

[Tony]

Exactly.

No. Not exactly. An omniscient being doesn't "calculate" what is going to happen. It absolutely knows what will happen. And by an omniscient being knowing what will happen with absolute certainty, a person has no choice, no free will, to do anything other than what the omniscient being already knows.

But you still make the decision to pick X. How does someone/something else knowing about it change that?

The point is that you didn't make the decision.

 

[Mycroft]

According ot the premise of the entire discussion that led to the claim

"free will is not compatible with omniscience."

You can have one, but not the other, at the same time.

That's called "begging the question". You're asserting that my daughters choice was not free will because that's the premise you're arguing to begin with. I don't see any reason why her choice is any less a product of her will just because I was able to anticipate it.

Do you think the usual definition is ambiguous or leaves wriggle room somewhere, somehow?

Basically I see two distinct reasons to disagree with the assertion that free will is incompatible with omniscience. The first is the absence of any causal relationship between foreknowledge and decision making. The second is that the people who first advanced the argument 500 years ago operated on a set of assumptions that they had no choice but to accept, but there is no reason for we in modern times not to question their assumptions.

 

[Mycroft]

No. Not exactly. An omniscient being doesn't "calculate" what is going to happen. It absolutely knows what will happen. And an omniscient being knowing what will happen with absolute certainty, a person has no choice, no free will, to do anything other than what the omniscient being already knows.



The point is that you didn't make the decision.

So if you make a decision and something else knew of your decision before you made it, are you saying you haven't really made a decision?

 

[Tony]

So if you make a decision and something else knew of your decision before you made it, are you saying you haven't really made a decision?

To keep you honest, let me reiterate that this isn't merely "something else". We are talking about an omniscient being who knows what will happen with absolute certainty. That you have to downplay the magnitude of the being we're talking about calls into question your honesty. That said, YES. If "my" decision has already been made for me, which is the case when an omniscient who knows what will happen with absolute certainty, I have not made a decision.

 

[tsig]

So if you make a decision and something else knew of your decision before you made it, are you saying you haven't really made a decision?

If that 'something else' is omniscient then your decision was carved in stone before the universe began.

 

[H'ethetheth]

So if you make a decision and something else knew of your decision before you made it, are you saying you haven't really made a decision?

Would you say it's still a decision if you couldn't possibly have decided differently?
Actually, I would, but then I don't believe in a kind of free will that's both non-deterministic and non-random.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no choice.

You're only doing what you were sent to do. According to the plan. And there is no deviating or getting away from the plan.

If you're destined for hell from even before you're born, there is no way for you not to go.

You're basically describing Calvinism here, but few Christians subscribes to that today.

If you're part of a plan you can't deviate from, you have no freedom. You're a pawn.

And yet you still make the choice. Just because the choice is known ahead of time doesn't make it less a choice. Even if a hypothetical omniscient being knows what your choice will be, you don't know until the choice is made.

Think of Schrodinger's Cat. Just because someone else could peek in the box doesn't make any difference to you if you don't have access to his knowledge.

And your god is responsible for sending people to hell under this model.

This is called "argument from negative consequences" and is a fallacy.

 

[Mycroft]

When you have to posit impossible conditions you might want to rethink your argument.

Huh?

The argument is about impossible conditions. How can you possibly exclude them? Bringing in another impossible condition just as a thought-experiment shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Mycroft]

To keep you honest, let me reiterate that this isn't merely "something else". We are talking about an omniscient being who knows what will happen with absolute certainty. That you have to downplay the magnitude of the being we're talking about calls into question your honesty.

I don't see any reason for you to be insulting and question my honesty. Seriously, if you can't have a philosophical discussion without personalizing the issue, maybe it's time for you to back off.

The issue was first raised by religious people as a discussion about God, but I don't see why it should be confined to that. Science fiction offers examples. Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is essentially about a discovered science that creates the ability to predict the future, and guides humanity through a collapse and rise of civilization. A recent episode of "Fringe" also dealt with a mathematician who figured out ways to mathematically predict the course of people's lives with astonishing accuracy, so that he was able to "help" people who were doomed to die in horrible ways escape their fate.

That said, YES. If "my" decision has already been made for me, which is the case when an omniscient who knows what will happen with absolute certainty, I have not made a decision.

And yet day to day your life requires countless decisions. What time to wake up, what to wear, what to have for breakfast...? Who makes these decisions if not you?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Huh?

The argument is about impossible conditions. How can you possibly exclude them? Bringing in another impossible condition just as a thought-experiment shouldn't be a problem.

Indeed. It seems pretty arbitrary to begin contending things like that at such a point in the discussion.

 

[Mycroft]

Its worse than that, its like getting caught shooting someone and saying "Listen that bullet could have turned into a snickers half way there, it could have whizzed around his head shaving his beard, hell, it could have stopped in mid air and started telling jokes. There were many options it had, it just had to pick ' hitting him in the skull and killing him' you can't blame me for that. "

Okay, but if you go to that sort of extreme, don't you sort of wash out the moral implications of any action? If you believe in predetermination and ascribe God as the origin of all actions, that makes all of history the equivalent of playing out a movie.

 

[cyborg]

Choosing is an inadequately specified verb in this discussion.

 

[Good Lt]

Just because the choice is known ahead of time doesn't make it less a choice. Even if a hypothetical omniscient being knows what your choice will be, you don't know until the choice is made.

Yes, it does make it less of a choice.

If you are incapable - which you are - of choosing something other than what the invisible omniscient being has determined you are to choose, then the choice itself is an illusion.

The eternal invisible skybeing set it in motion knowing how it would turn out.

There is no 'choice' in that model. It's all 'part of the plan.' Everything - including every 'choice' - is predetermined.

If that sounds like Calvinism and predestination, then so be it. That's what you have to believe if you believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent invisible skybeing directing the plan.

 

[Tony]

I don't see any reason for you to be insulting and question my honesty. Seriously, if you can't have a philosophical discussion without personalizing the issue, maybe it's time for you to back off.

I'm just expressing my impression.

The issue was first raised by religious people as a discussion about God, but I don't see why it should be confined to that.

But that is what is being discussed.

Science fiction offers examples. Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is essentially about a discovered science that creates the ability to predict the future, and guides humanity through a collapse and rise of civilization. A recent episode of "Fringe" also dealt with a mathematician who figured out ways to mathematically predict the course of people's lives with astonishing accuracy, so that he was able to "help" people who were doomed to die in horrible ways escape their fate.

I haven't read that series nor seen the episode, but being able to predict probable events is not the same as knowing with absolute certainty what will happen in the future. In fact, it is the exact opposite. With omniscience, you wouldn't need to predict what will happen, you would already know.

And yet day to day your life requires countless decisions. What time to wake up, what to wear, what to have for breakfast...? Who makes these decisions if not you?

The whole point is that they are not decisions if an omniscient being knows that they will be made. I would be merely acting out a prescribed series of events with only the illusion of decision.

This is why I doubt your honesty. I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding this.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

OK, Avalon under one of these shells is a pea, Go ahead and guess which one.

Let’s assume you pick B and let’s assume it's the right choice. Seems like a fairly simple example of freewill; and it would be if I stopped there and assumed no god was involved.

Now let’s assume I am god (I'm not...maybe) I already know you’re going to pick B which is why I put the pea under that shell in the first place; So I ask, did you really even have a choice at all?

Remember I know what you’re going to do, I know it's going to pan out exactly how I want and so your decision is already made for you, Options A and C cease to exist.

One more question, let’s say under the wrong shells is a vile of battery acid set to explode when you pick up the shell, Let’s say I put that under shell B instead of the pea. Would I not be inherently evil for deliberately setting you up for failure and bodily harm knowing full well I have all the power to stop said event from occurring?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

"(not A),(not B), and (not C) do not ever occur, and can therefore not be caused" = A, B, and C occur and so are not caused.

I would refute that if it made sense or was relevant to an OB, instead of addressing another topic about a being that believes it's an OB.