Free will and omniscience

[GeeMack]

Correct, the clarification was intended to avoid faulty analysis, based on an incomplete definition, of the following:

You can place the omniscient being at only one place in time, without any movement through time whatsoever (no time travel), and the omniscient being still knows everything from all time.

In 1902, before you were born, the magical omniscient being knew you were going to have chicken soup for lunch tomorrow. When you wake up tomorrow morning you can hem and haw all you like, waver between grilled cheese sandwiches and chicken soup for hours, until it hurts your head, and you will still have chicken soup for lunch. Otherwise your magical omniscient being isn't omniscient. So your illusion of choice wasn't actually a choice, was it?

My argument still holds and you will now have to invent a new argument to counter it.

Your argument, if you can call that misuse of the English language and dishonest redefinition of terms an argument, still results in failure.

 

[jond]

"prior to the action the choice is unknown" is a false conclusion when referring to an omniscient being.

Which is precisely how we know the being isn't omniscient.

 

[tsig]

I overestimated your ability to follow the debate. After constantly using terms which described the atemporality of omniscient knowledge, I thought you may have figured out that there are language limits on presenting descriptions of atemporality.

When you see a sentence like
"Or the third obvious option, that god knows because that's the choice that was made.",
you can now intelligently assume that, wrt omniscience, it is making a claim on a sequencing which is not necessarily temporal (atemporal sequencing, logical sequencing, etc.). As I have pointed out before, time-indicative words ("before", "future") do not apply to omniscience.

Insulting those who disagree with you is dishonest. Why do you do it?

 

[not_so_new]

Coercion and restraint are not aspects of omniscience unless you want to present a new definition.

Scenario 1
The entity truthfully thinks, "You will turn left."
You think, "I am going to turn left" and then you turn left.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

Scenario 2
The entity truthfully says to you, "You will turn left."
Oops, we are no longer talking about omnisciencel.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

Okay so in scenario 1, what happens when you turn right instead?

You prove that the entity isn't all knowing (and then promptly it dissolves in a puff of logic)

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

It is clear to me that the OP is suggesting a discussion of whether free-will and omniscience can occur together and the implication is he means in reality, not "Can I create a fictional, magical scenario where free-will and omniscience can co-exist?" Writing fiction allows you to re-define words and posit non-existing circumstances to fit your fictional scenario. I might ask the question, "Can men really ride Dragons like in Pern?" but it would hardly be a question of religion or philosophy.

Duh.
Right, because magic beings do not have to follow logic. They can exist "out of time" so cause and effect mean nothing.

At least 99% of this thread has been about the concepts of omniscience and free will, not about their actuality in our universe. Even your posts have been primarily about the conceptual aspects of the ideas.

I note that you argued against the compatibility of the two concepts and treated them as reasonable topics of debate, but then you arbitrarily decided that some things are too "magical", like time travel or atemporality, and conveniently so, because those are the things that defeat your argument. Omniscience didn't seem to be the issue with reality, it was the magical stuff. That was an accurate strategy but completely ineffectual since it has nothing to do with the actual debate.

If your fundamental stance is that omniscience is impossible you could have saved a lot of debate time by just making that claim and foregoing further attention to this thread, and then the rest of us could have had an intellectual discussion on the merits of the concepts, akin to a thought experiment, much like intellectuals might do.

"Can men really ride Dragons like in Pern?" or "How far can a tarn fly non-stop on Gor?" or even "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" would certainly raise issues that those familiar with McCaffrey's or Norman's or Monty Python's stories would find interesting to explore, without claiming "we can't discuss this, it's too magical".

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In 1902, before you were born, the magical omniscient being knew you were going to have chicken soup for lunch tomorrow. When you wake up tomorrow morning you can hem and haw all you like, waver between grilled cheese sandwiches and chicken soup for hours, until it hurts your head, and you will still have chicken soup for lunch. Otherwise your magical omniscient being isn't omniscient. So your illusion of choice wasn't actually a choice, was it?

Your argument, if you can call that misuse of the English language and dishonest redefinition of terms an argument, still results in failure.

The omniscient being knew you would choose soup, you chose soup, the omniscient being was right about your choice. There is no illusion, that's the way omniscience and free will work together.

 

[Tricky]

I note that you argued against the compatibility of the two concepts and treated them as reasonable topics of debate, but then you arbitrarily decided that some things are too "magical", like time travel or atemporality, and conveniently so, because those are the things that defeat your argument.

By golly, you're right. I was discussing it and when you and Avalon got cornered by logic, you brought in atemporality, something that you fully agree does not exist in our universe. (And you call me arbitrary?) You did this because every time somebody said "before" or "advance knowledge", your arguments were smashed to tiny fragments. So you ran away to a realm of magic where words like "before" and "advance" have no meaning. You got called on it, and rightfully so. No, my argument wasn't defeated. When you invoked the requirment of physically impossible things, you lost. And you're still losing. Badly.

Can men really ride Dragons like in Pern?" or "How far can a tarn fly non-stop on Gor?" or even "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" would certainly raise issues that those familiar with McCaffrey's or Norman's or Monty Python's stories would find interesting to explore, without claiming "we can't discuss this, it's too magical.

At least in a Monty Python sketch, they would admit (and sometimes state) that they were just being silly.

 

[Tricky]

The omniscient being knew you would choose soup, you chose soup, the omniscient being was right about your choice. There is no illusion, that's the way omniscience and free will work together in realms where magic works.

ftfy.

 

[GeeMack]

The omniscient being knew you would choose soup, you chose soup, the omniscient being was right about your choice. There is no illusion, that's the way omniscience and free will work together.

In 1902 the magical omniscient being knew you would choose soup. Before you even existed. In 1902 you had not already chosen soup. It knew it before you chose it. You chose it after it knew it. It was already a given.

 

[Tricky]

In 1902 the magical omniscient being knew you would choose soup. Before you even existed. In 1902 you had not already chosen soup. It knew it before you chose it. You chose it after it knew it. It was already a given.

Here is the problem with your argument (ala Bill Thompson.) Look at all these "time" words you have used. Remember, the Omniscient Being doesn't follow rules of time, therefore anything you say that includes a time componant is disregarded. See? YOU LOSE! Ha ha ha ha.

 

[edge]

In 1902 the magical omniscient being knew you would choose soup. Before you even existed. In 1902 you had not already chosen soup. It knew it before you chose it. You chose it after it knew it. It was already a given.

Yes but only to him. Unless he wanted you to know ahead of time so Bills' statement is correct, does not interfere in most cases.

That's the way omniscience and free will work together.

 

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by not_so_new
Your missing the point. This god knows every detail of the universe from beginning to end (which is silly enough if you stop and think about it but I digress).
The fact that this god already knows the outcome means that the person this god created came with a predetermined set of choices from cradle to grave.

No, it does not mean that. It means that god is aware of the choice. If you are arguing determination that is another issue altogether and extends omniscience to include omnipotence.

So is your god all knowing and all powerful or not?

Originally Posted by not_so_new
This god already knows the outcome of the right or left decision so by default the person he creates will already come with a predetermined choice when approaching the intersection.

I can choose to plead ignorance to the speed limit but that doesn't mean the speed limit doesn't apply to me. If there is an omniscient god who knows the outcome of everything, even if I am ignorant of the outcome myself, that doesn't mean that outcome doesn't apply to me.

In this scenario your free will is only a mirage, you can THINK that you are free to do what you wish but your god created YOU with a predetermined chain of events you will accomplish in your life.

Your claim that "god created YOU with a predetermined chain of events you will accomplish in your life" describes omnipotence, not omniscience.

Again, does that mean your god is omnipotent but not omniscient?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes but only to him. Unless he wanted you to know ahead of time so Bills' statement is correct, does not interfere in most cases.

That's the way omniscience and free will work together.

It wouldn't matter if the outcome of the "choice" is known only to the magical omniscient being, it is still known. And since the outcome is known, with certainty, invariably, supposedly forever ahead of the alleged decision, all the "free will" you can muster can only result in that known outcome. It doesn't require any interference. It's known, so it just is. The fact that the result of the decision is already known, and will not change no matter how much you believe you're considering other options, makes it a mere illusion of free will.

 

[edge]

It wouldn't matter if the outcome of the "choice" is known only to the magical omniscient being, it is still known. And since the outcome is known, with certainty, invariably, supposedly forever ahead of the alleged decision, all the "free will" you can muster can only result in that known outcome. It doesn't require any interference. It's known, so it just is. The fact that the result of the decision is already known, and will not change no matter how much you believe you're considering other options, makes it a mere illusion of free will.

Good point too, I'll have to sleep on it and get back in the A.M. it's getting late here

 

[AdMan]

Good point too, I'll have to sleep on it and get back in the A.M. it's getting late here

Yes, you do that, and get back to us if you want to.

Though given God knows what you're going to do, you actually have no choice.

 

[Brian-M]

Scenario 1
The entity truthfully thinks, "You will turn left."
You think, "I am going to turn left" and then you turn left.
Conclusion: No incompatibility between omniscience and free will has been demonstrated.

Scenario 2
The entity truthfully says to you, "You will turn left."

And you say: "Yes, I know. You don't need to tell me which way I'm heading." And then you tern left.

Scenario 3
The entity falsely says to you, "You will turn left."
You say to him, "Screw you, buddy. If you're going to be a smartarse, I'm turning right." And then you turn right.
But it knew you were going to do that before it spoke.

If the entity merely thinks you will turn left, then there is the possibility that it could be wrong. And it is therefore not omniscient.

In this context the word thinks is being used to mean an internal monologue, not to mean an unconfirmed belief.

Oh, and, "What does a violation of the physical laws of our universe have to do with this debate?

I can answer this better than he did. It's omniscience. How does an omniscient entity come to exist without some violation of the physical laws of our universe?

 

[dlorde]

I don't think that omniscience is the constraint on the omniscient passenger's free will in this case, but rather the stipulation that the passenger isn't going to knowingly give a wrong prediction (ie, lie), which has nothing to do with omniscience.

If you remove this stipulation and allow him to say whatever he wants, the passenger is free to tell you what you would have done with complete certainty, knowing that a different outcome will now occur. (And of course, being omniscient, he knows every detail of how the universe will be different because of this.)

I'm afraid I'm going to insist that the simplicity of the original scenario is respected. The passenger knows what you will do, and tells you that in advance. This must surely be possible if the passenger is omnisciently prescient and able to exercise his free will (i.e. he is not coerced or constrained).

That we cannot find a way to allow this without denying the driver free will, tells me that there is a logical contradiction in that scenario; prescient omnipotence is not compatible with free will.

Of course, this applies to any actions of the omniscient entity too - he knows all his actions in advance, which means he will inevitably take those actions, he can't take an alternative path or make alternative choices - i.e. he has no free will and he knows it...

 

[Belz...]

No, its not part of the definition. It's merely an assumption that I have constantly analyzed as unwarranted.

A conclusion, I said. It's not a priori.

I present and identify the fundamental points of my argument and your analysis consists of dodges.

Pointing out the fallacies in your posts is not a dodge. Your comments are irrelevant or do not follow from their premises.

Your fundamental argument: If something is known, a different choice cannot be made.

Indeed, by definition.

My fundamental argument: If the knowledge is based upon the choice, then the choice is not constrained.

But that makes little sense. At the beginning of the universe, God would not know the future. How is that omniscient ? And how does it work ?

Your counter: Let's use another definition.

That is a lie. I've been consistent in my definition of omniscience.

 

[Brian-M]

I'm afraid I'm going to insist that the simplicity of the original scenario is respected. The passenger knows what you will do, and tells you that in advance. This must surely be possible if the passenger is omnisciently prescient and able to exercise his free will (i.e. he is not coerced or constrained).

But the passenger's action is the variable in the equation. He knows what direction the driver would choose to go if he says nothing, and he also knows that if he tell the driver which direction that is, the driver will go the opposite direction to spite him. This makes it logically impossible for him to tell the driver correctly which direction he's going to turn, not because the omniscient entity's behavior is constrained (which it may be), but because telling the driver changes the outcome.

(Unless the driver would choose to go the same way regardless of what the entity predicts. If he doesn't care about the prediction enough to deliberately defy it.)

And now I've got myself thinking about Dr. Manhattan's view on this...

Jon: It is here on Mars that we debate Earth's destiny.
Laurie: Jon, please. I mean, this, just being here, it's giving me problems, okay? I can't take your predestination trip right now.
Jon: Why does my perception of time distress you?
Laurie: When I left you, when Nova Express attacked you, you were surprised. Why, if you knew it would happen?
Jon: Everything is preordained, even my responses.
Laurie: And you just go through the motions of acting them out? Is that what you are? The most powerful thing in the universe and you're just a puppet following a script?
Jon: We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. We shall go up to the balcony, you can see the Nodus Gordi mountains from there.
Laurie: Well, what if I don't? What happens if I just stay down here and screw all your predictions, huh? What happens then? Jon? (Goes up stairs looking for Jon.)
Jon: This is where we hold out conversation. It commences when you surprise me with the information that you and Dreiberg have been sleeping together.
Laurie: Y-you know about me and Dan?
Jon: No, not yet. But in a few moments you're going to tell me.
Laurie: Jon, what are you trying to do to me? When you're like this I can't even talk to you, let alone debate the what was it...
Jon: Destiny of the world.
Laurie: Destiny of the world. This is ridiculous. Why hold a debate when you already know the goddamned outcome?
Jon: Because...
Laurie: "Because that's how it happens!" I know, I know... Listen, Jon, okay, I'll play it your way... but you have to understand. I mean, I can't tell the future...
Jon: There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet.

From Watchmen, Volume 9, The Darkness of Mere Being.

 

[edge]

It wouldn't matter if the outcome of the "choice" is known only to the magical omniscient being, it is still known. And since the outcome is known, with certainty, invariably, supposedly forever ahead of the alleged decision, all the "free will" you can muster can only result in that known outcome. It doesn't require any interference. It's known, so it just is. The fact that the result of the decision is already known, and will not change no matter how much you believe you're considering other options, makes it a mere illusion of free will.

Then according to you, life is an illusion. If life is an illusion then nothing we do here will matter, but that can't be true because we influence others through our thoughts opinions and emotions, plus what we feel physically.

in Yellow: It doesn't if you don't believe in God and you continue the direction you have been going in but those that do are guided to make the right choices in their life. The result of asking makes God known to the person which is proof to those who have asked for a change in the direction their life is going in.
It is because you choose that known outcome. The unknown outcome is the one that you have asked God to fix. You can't see the change till you ask for it. At this point you are doing the will of God and not your own.
He would also know that outcome and then so would you which is proof of God to that person.
It boils down to what you are willing to accept, good or evil.
Jesus' sacrifice has ended predestination, freewill starts there because you can fall back to your old habits or continue on, faith establishes freewill, because none of us are for sure 100%, Radifan is an example, Sam Kinison also.
Even with some proof not all prayers are answered faith has to be there to allow for freewill for us to choose. God may know the outcome but we don't and it would depend on whether he wants you to know now or later.

After mentioning Sam here’s a part of him that made me laugh.

I'm like anyone else on this planet -- I'm very moved by world
hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed. I watch those kids and I go, “F***, I know the FILM crew could give this kid a sandwich!” There's a director five feet away going, “DON'T FEED HIM YET! GET THAT SANDWICH OUTTA HERE! IT DOESN'T WORK UNLESS HE LOOKS HUNGRY!!!” But I'm not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to help stop world hunger? Stop sending them food. Don't send them another bite, send them U-Hauls.
Send them a guy that says, "You know, we've been coming here giving you food for about 35 years now and we were driving through the desert, and we realized there wouldn't BE world hunger if you people would live where the FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!! UNDERSTAND THAT? YOU LIVE IN A F***ING DESERT!! NOTHING GROWS HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW HERE! Come here, you see this? This is sand. You know what it's gonna be 100 years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND!! YOU LIVE IN A F***ING DESERT! We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them, a**holes!"

Sam Kinison