Free will and omniscience

[Tricky]

Why can't it be that the actions you take or the choices you make determine what is written in the book, and hence, your free will is intact?

If your actions determine what an omniscient being does or writes, then that being is not, by definition, omniscient.

The question is, does omniscience mean the ability to perfectly know the future? If yes, then the universe is deterministic and free will cannot exist if there is such a being. If it only means "knowing what's going on everywhere", but not including perfect prediction ability, then free will can exist.

 

[Tony]

You keep saying that, but you don't provide any evidence that it's true.

Nonsense. This is a dodge.

Again, I claim that you wrote it because I chose it. By what necessary fact do you negate this claim?

Because you didn't choose. It was pre-written before you existed.

 

[Tony]

Sure I do.

We're talking atemporal beings here.

I noticed you dishonestly omitted the section of my post that explained this part.

 

[GeeMack]

You analyze omniscience as if the omniscient being knows things in chronological order, but that is a direct contradiction of the commonly understood idea of omniscience.

The commonly understood idea of omniscience is all knowing. You may redefine all-knowing to mean not-quite-all-knowing, as AvalonXQ seems to want to do. But by making up your own definitions for words, you pretty much change the entire premise of the discussion.

You need to analyze from the correct definition that the omniscient being knows all things at all times.

Sure. The magical omniscient being knew 1000 years ago that tomorrow you would swipe a tenner from your father's wallet. Tomorrow you wake up, you need some money, you anguish over the morality of stealing a few bucks from Dad, and finally you settle on taking it. The magical being knew it 1000 years ago. You didn't get to change the results. And if you suggest you may have changed the results by deciding not to steal the money, the omniscient one knew that 1000 years ago, too. That would be how the scenario turns out. And if you're suggesting that the omniscient being didn't know the outcome of your decision process 1000 years ago, then it wasn't omniscient after all.

Only then will you understand that an omniscient being knows that a thing happens because the thing does happen, regardless of the time frame of its happening.
You will also see, then, that omniscience does not preclude free will.

I do see. Your argument is the same as AvalonXQ's. You're redefining omniscient to mean not-all-knowing. By redefining terms you can make up any old crap any way you like to support anything you want.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What difference does that make ? The script is written before you're even born.

You seem to be quite confused about the meaning of omniscience.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What actions? You don't exist to make any actions. You won't exist for 10 trillion years and I know everything you're going to do. So no, it isn't reasonable. It would only be reasonable if I was writing the script according to your actions after you've already made them.

You seem to be quite confused about the meaning of omniscience.

 

[Tony]

You seem to be quite confused about the meaning of omniscience.

You seem to suffer from a severe case of projection.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If your actions determine what an omniscient being does or writes, then that being is not, by definition, omniscient.

The question is, does omniscience mean the ability to perfectly know the future? If yes, then the universe is deterministic and free will cannot exist if there is such a being. If it only means "knowing what's going on everywhere", but not including perfect prediction ability, then free will can exist.

You seem to have an uncommon definition of omniscience, whatever it is.
What does "future" have to do with omniscience?
Omniscience means knowing everything without respect to time.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The commonly understood idea of omniscience is all knowing. You may redefine all-knowing to mean not-quite-all-knowing, as AvalonXQ seems to want to do. But by making up your own definitions for words, you pretty much change the entire premise of the discussion.

Sure. The magical omniscient being knew 1000 years ago that tomorrow you would swipe a tenner from your father's wallet. Tomorrow you wake up, you need some money, you anguish over the morality of stealing a few bucks from Dad, and finally you settle on taking it. The magical being knew it 1000 years ago. You didn't get to change the results. And if you suggest you may have changed the results by deciding not to steal the money, the omniscient one knew that 1000 years ago, too. That would be how the scenario turns out. And if you're suggesting that the omniscient being didn't know the outcome of your decision process 1000 years ago, then it wasn't omniscient after all.

I do see. Your argument is the same as AvalonXQ's. You're redefining omniscient to mean not-all-knowing. By redefining terms you can make up any old crap any way you like to support anything you want.

What I am doing is defining omniscience without a time relationship because that is what it means.

The simplest and most valid explanation is that whatever and whenever I do something, the omniscient being knows at all times of its existence what I do and it knows it because I do it.

 

[dafydd]

What I am doing is defining omniscience without a time relationship because that is what it means.

The simplest and most valid explanation is that whatever and whenever I do something, the omniscient being knows at all times of its existence what I do and it knows it because I do it.

What a boring life for the being. 7 billion of us. Does this being keep tabs on all the animals too? Bacteria?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If your actions determine what an omniscient being does or writes, then that being is not, by definition, omniscient.

Unpack that, please.

What property of omniscience is negated by its knowledge depending on what you choose to do?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sure. The magical omniscient being knew 1000 years ago that tomorrow you would swipe a tenner from your father's wallet. Tomorrow you wake up, you need some money, you anguish over the morality of stealing a few bucks from Dad, and finally you settle on taking it. The magical being knew it 1000 years ago. You didn't get to change the results. And if you suggest you may have changed the results by deciding not to steal the money, the omniscient one knew that 1000 years ago, too. That would be how the scenario turns out. And if you're suggesting that the omniscient being didn't know the outcome of your decision process 1000 years ago, then it wasn't omniscient after all.

All of that is true.

What's missing is any argument that leads to the idea that I didn't make a choice after all. I did; it's right there in your hypothetical. Nothing else you said negated that.

 

[Tony]

Unpack that, please.

What property of omniscience is negated by its knowledge depending on what you choose to do?

The property of the omniscience/absolute knowledge existing before the action. If an "omniscient" being only knows what you're going to do after you do it, the being isn't omniscient.

 

[Tony]

What's missing is any argument that leads to the idea that I didn't make a choice after all...

There are multiple pages of that argument. You've been dodging it and misunderstanding it the whole time.

 

[Tricky]

Unpack that, please.

What property of omniscience is negated by its knowledge depending on what you choose to do?

The property of knowing everything, including future events.

 

[Tricky]

You seem to have an uncommon definition of omniscience, whatever it is.
What does "future" have to do with omniscience?
Omniscience means knowing everything without respect to time.

I'm a little unclear on this "without respect to time" business. Can you give me a few examples of things that happen "without respect to time"? Oops. You can't. The word "happen" implies time. In fact, there is nothing in this universe that is "without respect to time". It is a dimension of the universe.

In fact, to say something "is" implies a time componant, meaning "right now". Or are you talking about magic?

 

[dlorde]

You analyze omniscience as if the omniscient being knows things in chronological order, but that is a direct contradiction of the commonly understood idea of omniscience. You need to analyze from the correct definition that the omniscient being knows all things at all times.

So let's imagine that the omniscient being takes human form and joins you in the passenger seat of your car as you approach a junction. There appears to be nothing to stop you going left or right - you may not have even made up your mind yet, but your passenger knows which way you will turn. He writes it down on a piece of paper. After you make the turn, he shows you the paper - it is correct. You repeat the experiment 1000 times. He's always right - he even starts writing down what you'll do several turns ahead. He only shows you what he wrote after you've made the relevant turn. To you, they're free choices; to him, no choices at all. You ask him how he knows: "Oh, I just know how your mind works," he says, "exactly how your mind works - every tiniest detail of it."

You realise that free will is what it feels like when you don't know all the tiny details and influences that affect the outcome of your deliberations. If you did know all the tiny details and influences that affect the outcome of your deliberations, you'd realise that each of your selections was inevitable; you'd realise that the appearance of choice is only for those with limited knowledge.

Which is how it really is, although there isn't really any omniscient being

You will also see, then, that omniscience does not preclude free will.

If free will is subjective, as described above.

Now, the really interesting situation comes when you ask the omniscient being (who, incidentally, never lies) which way you're going to turn next time, and he tells you before you get there...

Do you turn the way he says you will?

 

[Tricky]

One of the silly things about the whole omniscience thing in Christianity is the presumption is that God knows all, but he can't tell us because it would mess up our free will. Well, what's that whole Bible business about then? Isn't that supposed to have something to do with Him telling us what's going to happen? I envision a conversation with God:
***
Me: So you know absolutely everything that will happen, right?

God: Yeppers

Me: Well I could use some help here. Can you tell me what will happen if I choose to take a certain course of action?

God: Negatory. That would interfere with your free will.

Me: But don't you want me to do the right thing?

God: Absolutely, but it has to be your choice. No telling.

Me: How about a hint?

God: I already gave you a whole book of hints.

Me: You mean The Bible? But that is a chaotic mix of old stories, bizarre laws, glurgy poetry and weird dreams.

God: I know. But you have to make sense of it if you want to be on my good side.

Me: I've tried to make sense of it, but it keeps contradicting itself.

God: I know. I didn't want it to be easy. But there are some guys down there called priests and ministers who can help you figure it out.

Me: So if I ask them, they'll know what it means?

God: Not necessarily. Most of them don't understand it either. That's why there's so many different kinds.

Me: Then how will I know when I've made the right decision?

God: You could try praying. I sometimes talk to people when they pray to me.

Me: And then you tell me in my prayers what's going to happen?

God: Probably not. My prayer hints are just as chaotic and unfathomable as the Bible. That's why there's so many failed end-of-times prophecies. I like messin' with their heads.

Me: So you know everything, but you are only going to tell me enough to confuse me.

God: Now you've got it. Read the bible, pray, go to church and maybe you'll get some hints.

Me: Why won't you just tell me?

God: That's no fun. I like puzzle games.

Me: Is it bigger than a bread box?...

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What a boring life for the being. 7 billion of us. Does this being keep tabs on all the animals too? Bacteria?

Please pay attention. The post is about omniscience and that means knowing everything and that has been clarified over and over.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The property of the omniscience/absolute knowledge existing before the action. If an "omniscient" being only knows what you're going to do after you do it, the being isn't omniscient.

The omniscient being knows all without respect to time. That's why when you say "before" or "after" you are not talking about an omniscient being, you are talking about the way people know things.