Omniscience, Foreknowledge, & Free Will

[Fern]

-snip-

I think the existence of a putative being with foreknowledge necessarily excludes the possibility of meaningful free will.

I don't find the two concepts necessarily mutually exclusive.

Imagine if time were no barrier, if one could move forwards and backwards at will, one could have (fore)knowledge of what everyone did without having any control over them. I.e., foreknowledge and free will easily coexisting.

The concept I can't wrap my head around is infinity. No beginning and no end, it just always 'was'? While I can imagine no ending, I cannot imagine something with no beginning, a something always being there.

Fern

 

[Fern]

In my opinion the existence of an infinite God with omniscience pretty much rules out the entire need for an external physical universe all together. Such a God would have infinite computing power. He'd be able to model the universe down to the subatomic level completely within his own mind. And since this model would include a model of every sentient being down to their neurons with accurate conscious decision outcomes modeled, it could be argued that the modeled beings were 100% conscious within the model.

Occam's Razor would imply that it'd be much more efficient use of "God Power" to just model the entire universe within his own mind. But, God would be able to model an infinite number of such universes: which leads to the question, if such a God asked himself "what if I created a universe, like this?", would it come into existence merely because God thought about it?

So, in this model, you could have an omniscient God, with deterministic rules, yet that God could (perhaps inevitably) model all possible futures within his own mind. You as an individual would only exist in one "strand" of God's thought, but there would be alternate-"yous" or "yous" that God split off to model possible choices.

I like this post.

At times I imagine that this is reality; just dream of God. I suppose it be called the quantum view.

Fern

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't find the two concepts necessarily mutually exclusive.

Ok.

Imagine if time were no barrier, if one could move forwards and backwards at will, one could have (fore)knowledge of what everyone did without having any control over them. I.e., foreknowledge and free will easily coexisting.

Up to this point I have made no claim about any individual or parties having "control" of other persons. The question at hand is really whether individuals have meaningful control of themselves. Your example doesn't make it clear to me how one could have meaningful control of their future if their future actions are as finished or complete as their past actions.

The concept I can't wrap my head around is infinity. No beginning and no end, it just always 'was'? While I can imagine no ending, I cannot imagine something with no beginning, a something always being there.

It is a counter-intuitive idea, to be sure, and perhaps a good subject for another thread. I really mean that,too -- I'm not trying to be dismissive. I just don't see where it is immediately relevant here.

 

[ThinClient]

hahahhaa...yeah right...I see for some reason you have decided not to participate in this discussion.....rofl....tired of getting bit in the ass huh???

Angry atheist is a very appropriate term in reference to some of you...especially those of you whose intentions are to troll and not discuss...
Others honestly want a dialogue and honestly try to understand.....I didn`t say they tried to understand as in are looking for answer, I said as in not being a troll....


Jesus Loves you!!

No, I'm busy with a few other things lately. Yes, some of us like me want an honest dialogue and are let down when religious people scream irrational close-minded easily-refuted arguments.

 

[soulcougher73]

No such thing as free will. I cant just decide I am rich and poof a giant pile of money appears. Good luck with that. Maybe try logical reasoning.

Not sure if serious.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by piasabird
No such thing as free will. I cant just decide I am rich and poof a giant pile of money appears. Good luck with that. Maybe try logical reasoning.

If your serious free will has nothing to do with willing yourself to be rich or jump over the highest tree....

Free will has to do with choices....such as....

You are free to believe or not believe in God.

 

[Mursilis]

I join SMOGZINN with his comments.

In addition, let's revisit some questions I asked earlier in the thread about what knowledge is, or more particularly what knowing is.

To say that a person knows a fact is typically meant to indicate that a person has reasonably direct experience of a particular state of affairs in reality. I know that my car is grey because I have observed it directly. I know that it is daytime because I can see the sunlight outside my window. We even typically grant eachother certain implicit assumptions when making knowledge claims -- for example, I knew that Obama won the presidency because I read in the newspaper, or I saw it on TV (and thus I have assumed that the papers and television reports were truthful with regard to that state of affairs, and I expect you to stipulate that assumption).

In each case, there is an object of the knowledge which exists in reality. I do not "know" literally that Bilbo's sword glows blue when orcs are near. Bilbo and his sword don't exist. I know that there is a popular story where such is described of one of the characters, but that's all.

So when we consider a claim of "knowledge" of some future state of affairs, we must ask ourselves, "what is the object of that alleged knowledge?" Is the future behavior of your trained animal a state of affairs that actually exists? Surely we should say no, it is a state of affairs that is yet to exist. So it cannot be that this is real knowledge.

It is true, however, that probabilities are actual states of affairs that exist in the present. That is to say, we can compute the probabilities of certain future states of affairs and know those in the present, so I'm willing to accept that when you say "I know my dog will chase this ball when I throw it," you are using a casual shorthand instead of saying "I know that the probability my dog will chase this ball is incredibly high with respect to the likelihood that he will not." We must acknowledge that this is not actual knowledge of the future, however.

That just seems to be splitting too fine a hair. Sure, there's some infinitely small probability that gravity will somehow cease to bind us one day, but the vast majority of time, I can know the ball will hit the floor if I drop it. You could equally say about current observable facts there's some small chance they're not true either - maybe one day we all wake up from some collective slumber, and Romney is really president?

 

[Mursilis]

Up to this point I have made no claim about any individual or parties having "control" of other persons. The question at hand is really whether individuals have meaningful control of themselves. Your example doesn't make it clear to me how one could have meaningful control of their future if their future actions are as finished or complete as their past actions.

What's meaningful control anyway? Let's say you won a contest, and the contest creators say you get first pick from the prize pool. The prize pool is $1,000,000, $1,000, or $1. Sure, you get to pick without any coercion whatsoever, but assuming you're rational (and you seem to be) and not taking vows against material possessions, etc., would your choice ever not be the $1M?

Earlier you wrote:

To me, a choice can only be truly free if there exist legitimately possible alternative universes in the future representing all the possible outcomes of an occasion of choice. Given a choice between A or B, the universe where I choose A and the universe where I choose B must both be legitimately possible, or I do not have a meaningful choice despite the appearance of it.

That's a fine definition as far as it goes and I'd say roughly the same, but it's hardly anything proveable. You simply can't rewind reality and remake a choice. As far as we know, there aren't parallel universes, so choosing A forever prevents you from discovering if you could've ever choosen B. In this way, choice is just an illusion anyway. Still, as long as we believe B is a viable option based on all available evidence, we have free will.

 

[moonbogg]

That's a fine definition as far as it goes and I'd say roughly the same, but it's hardly anything proveable. You simply can't rewind reality and remake a choice. As far as we know, there aren't parallel universes, so choosing A forever prevents you from discovering if you could've ever choosen B. In this way, choice is just an illusion anyway. Still, as long as we believe B is a viable option based on all available evidence, we have free will.

There is no "could've". That is a concept. Our brains process memories and rearrange them into alternate scenarios that never happened. We call this process "could've", but this "could've" isn't real and has no meaning. Only one thing happens. There is one path we will find ourselves on. It doesn't matter if there are a million universes with a million of you doing slightly different things either, because all of that is a set condition that unfolds and will only unfold one way.
To say we have free will is to say that reality isn't what it is. As if there is some magical place that you can form a decision that is isolated from causation. It doesn't exist and can't. Its like a square circle.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That just seems to be splitting too fine a hair.

It seems like you agree that there is a real distinction, but that you want to hand-wave it away without any compelling rationale.

Sure, there's some infinitely small probability that gravity will somehow cease to bind us one day, but the vast majority of time, I can know the ball will hit the floor if I drop it.

But what is it that you allegedly know? To know something, it must exist. One cannot know what does not exist. Do you think that the future already exists?

You could equally say about current observable facts there's some small chance they're not true either - maybe one day we all wake up from some collective slumber, and Romney is really president?

Rational discussion depends on the shared presupposition that solipsism is false. You don't get to suspend that presupposition when it is convenient for your argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What's meaningful control anyway?

I mean what you quoted me saying in the latter half of your reply.

Let's say you won a contest, and the contest creators say you get first pick from the prize pool. The prize pool is $1,000,000, $1,000, or $1. Sure, you get to pick without any coercion whatsoever, but assuming you're rational (and you seem to be) and not taking vows against material possessions, etc., would your choice ever not be the $1M?

It doesn't matter what it would be; it matters what it could be.

That's a fine definition as far as it goes and I'd say roughly the same, but it's hardly anything proveable.

Why do you think definitions are "provable"?

You simply can't rewind reality and remake a choice.

Irrelevant.

As far as we know, there aren't parallel universes, so choosing A forever prevents you from discovering if you could've ever choosen B.

Irrelevant. We're talking about possible universes, not actual parallel ones.

In this way, choice is just an illusion anyway.

I think you have confused the metaphysics for physics. I'm not talking about empirically verifying the existence of multiple probable universes. I'm talking about possible universes as metaphysical objects.

Still, as long as we believe B is a viable option based on all available evidence, we have free will.

Not if the universe where B is chosen was never possible.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not if the universe where B is chosen was never possible.

Let me get this straight...a viable discussion is one where you twist and turn and have no real intention of discussion other than to turn people words or misstate things in such a manner as to be again a contrarian.......ummm ok!

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Up to this point I have made no claim about any individual or parties having "control" of other persons. The question at hand is really whether individuals have meaningful control of themselves. Your example doesn't make it clear to me how one could have meaningful control of their future if their future actions are as finished or complete as their past actions.

Your question that I addressed was:

Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt View Post
-snip-

I think the existence of a putative being with foreknowledge necessarily excludes the possibility of meaningful free will.

While I addressed that (foreknowledge + free will) squarely, I think your real question is "Can there be free will when the creator is omnipotent and omniscient?"

That is a different question and I think a more difficult one. I also think it difficult for science types to accept free will given such a creator.

Not being a scientist I may not be able to express this adequately, but here's what I think the difficulty is for science types:

1. Belief in cause and effect.

2. Preservation of information (or whatever it's called), or something along those lines.

I saw a TV show on this, I had never heard of it before. It seemed an extension of conservation of mass. Anyhoo, it went something like this: There was a beaker of water. The water in the beaker was vigorously stirred and a drop of ink was put into it. In a moment the ink had completely dispersed into the water. It was said that in the future, given enough info such as the speed and movement of the molecules etc, that the info regarding the drop of ink (when, where and how much etc.) could be known. The information is retained forever if you know enough and how to decipher it.

Well, it seems to me, a non-scientist, that if we can tell what accurately happened in the past based on today's info we should be able to tell what will happen in the future using the same principals (cause and effect?).

Accordingly, given a creator who is omnipotent and omniscient, and when they create something understanding it to down to minutest level (subatomic or whatever) with full knowledge of how it will play out in great detail over vast amounts of time, isn't all that is to come preordained or predetermined? If so, then there is no free will as we understand the term.

Hopefully the above isn't too unintelligible.

It is a counter-intuitive idea, to be sure, and perhaps a good subject for another thread. I really mean that,too -- I'm not trying to be dismissive. I just don't see where it is immediately relevant here.

Well I often hear people say they have a problem wrapping their head around free will and foreknowledge. For me it's the concept of infinity. So, outside of that similarity, no, it probably isn't relevant here.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

This is just semantics since we don't have a vocabulary for dealing with causal events with out a temporal element, if such a thing even exists.

Lack of common nomenclature does not imply that my ideas are incorrect, nor does your apparent inability to understand the simple concept.

You do not know the outcome of the event you know that the event is statistically probable. This is not the same as foreknowledge of the event. The day may come when the cat is not feeling well and does not run to that bowl. In that case your prediction of the even will have been wrong. Knowledge of the probably probable is not the same as absolute knowledge of the outcome.

In that case I know that the cat is dead. Here, all you've done is assume that what I said is false, then state that under your paradigm (which you assume is correct), your statements must be true. Maybe next time you can address my actual statements rather than a strawman.

 

[Rebel_L]

Cerpin, I really dont understand the point of this discussion. From what we know about our universe it follows a rigid set of rules, so long as you understand the process being examined and the all the relevant inputs you can do the math for the outputs. None of the scientific fields would be possible without such a principle, we are simply trying to figure out what the processes and relevant inputs are.

We do not use probabilities to express a chance for randomness, but rather to express our lack of understanding of the processes and inputs involved in events. If you give me enough relevant information about a coin toss the outcome can be calculated because the event is not actually random, as the observer we simply lack the information and as such it appears as a random event.

In our universe there is no free will (if we follow your definition of free will). The relevant processes and inputs always dictate the outcome. So I dont see what the point of bringing God into the discussion adds to it unless you either redefine your definition of free will or change your position to something like "the existence of a God that does not have to follow the laws of the universe is the only thing that could actually make it possible for anything to be truly random from the point of view of the universe making free will possible"

 

[Mursilis]

But what is it that you allegedly know? To know something, it must exist.

What do you mean by "exist"? Mythical beasts don't exist as actual physical beings, but we can know of them in stories.

 

[Mursilis]

Cerpin, I really dont understand the point of this discussion. From what we know about our universe it follows a rigid set of rules, so long as you understand the process being examined and the all the relevant inputs you can do the math for the outputs. None of the scientific fields would be possible without such a principle, we are simply trying to figure out what the processes and relevant inputs are.

We do not use probabilities to express a chance for randomness, but rather to express our lack of understanding of the processes and inputs involved in events. If you give me enough relevant information about a coin toss the outcome can be calculated because the event is not actually random, as the observer we simply lack the information and as such it appears as a random event.

In our universe there is no free will (if we follow your definition of free will). The relevant processes and inputs always dictate the outcome. So I dont see what the point of bringing God into the discussion adds to it unless you either redefine your definition of free will or change your position to something like "the existence of a God that does not have to follow the laws of the universe is the only thing that could actually make it possible for anything to be truly random from the point of view of the universe making free will possible"

Well said.

 

[Paul98]

Cerpin, I really dont understand the point of this discussion. From what we know about our universe it follows a rigid set of rules, so long as you understand the process being examined and the all the relevant inputs you can do the math for the outputs. None of the scientific fields would be possible without such a principle, we are simply trying to figure out what the processes and relevant inputs are.

We do not use probabilities to express a chance for randomness, but rather to express our lack of understanding of the processes and inputs involved in events. If you give me enough relevant information about a coin toss the outcome can be calculated because the event is not actually random, as the observer we simply lack the information and as such it appears as a random event.

In our universe there is no free will (if we follow your definition of free will). The relevant processes and inputs always dictate the outcome. So I dont see what the point of bringing God into the discussion adds to it unless you either redefine your definition of free will or change your position to something like "the existence of a God that does not have to follow the laws of the universe is the only thing that could actually make it possible for anything to be truly random from the point of view of the universe making free will possible"

Except the universe doesn't work in a way that everything is knowable at the same time. In quantum physics there are many truly random processes and states.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Cerpin, I really dont understand the point of this discussion. From what we know about our universe it follows a rigid set of rules, so long as you understand the process being examined and the all the relevant inputs you can do the math for the outputs. None of the scientific fields would be possible without such a principle, we are simply trying to figure out what the processes and relevant inputs are.

We do not use probabilities to express a chance for randomness, but rather to express our lack of understanding of the processes and inputs involved in events. If you give me enough relevant information about a coin toss the outcome can be calculated because the event is not actually random, as the observer we simply lack the information and as such it appears as a random event.

The topic is actually far more complicated than that. As Paul98 said, there is strong evidence that there are truly random events in this universe that cannot be accounted for by any hidden variable theory. Probability, then, represents an actual state of being, at least as far as we are able to understand.

In our universe there is no free will (if we follow your definition of free will). The relevant processes and inputs always dictate the outcome. So I dont see what the point of bringing God into the discussion adds to it unless you either redefine your definition of free will or change your position to something like "the existence of a God that does not have to follow the laws of the universe is the only thing that could actually make it possible for anything to be truly random from the point of view of the universe making free will possible"

As I said above, claims to a deterministic universe are not well supported, which makes considerations of free will far more complex.

You do touch on an important issue, though: free will is still not possible by any natural system we know of. If our consciousness is nothing more than the chemistry in our brains, then we are simply very complicated biological machines. This is true even if you consider that some of the outputs of our brain are determined by truly random events. By definition, then, in order for free will to exist, there must be some part of our consciousness not bound by the physical limitations of our brain (what's often called a soul). This is not quite the same thing as claiming there is a God, but it is not that far off, either.

 

[moonbogg]

Except the universe doesn't work in a way that everything is knowable at the same time. In quantum physics there are many truly random processes and states.

None of which you have any control over. Randomness doesn't give you free will. It just gives you randomness.

 

[Braznor]

The essence of the theological outlook of foreknowledge is the supposed God's masterplan; the path or the journey of life towards the unknown goal set for us by the creator of this universe.

We do not know the end results of this masterplan as human beings ourselves, but theology assumes that the creator of this path knows the end results especially in the Abrahamical context. In Eastern theology and especially the Hindu Vedantic outlook, all the three phases of the universe aka creation, existence and destruction are assumed to happen at the same 'moment' as far as God's (the Brahman) outlook of the same is concerned. This would be similar to assuming the universe is in a superposition of all three states at the same time as far as we are concerned.

Any perfect plan turns it's planner into its own hostage and if such a master plan truly exists, I'm sure God's status has too been reduced to the same.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You do touch on an important issue, though: free will is still not possible by any natural system we know of. If our consciousness is nothing more than the chemistry in our brains, then we are simply very complicated biological machines. This is true even if you consider that some of the outputs of our brain are determined by truly random events. By definition, then, in order for free will to exist, there must be some part of our consciousness not bound by the physical limitations of our brain (what's often called a soul). This is not quite the same thing as claiming there is a God, but it is not that far off, either.

The mind <-> body relationship is one that deserves some exploration. However, with this thread I had wanted to focus particularly on whether or not foreknowledge was incompatible with the idea of free will, therefore implicitly stipulating that there could conceivably be some real circumstance wherein free will is possible. In other words, if your claims did obtain, free will would be impossible, whether or not some being was capable of foreknowledge. That doesn't help us decide whether or not a foreknowledgeable being might on its own preclude a reality where free will exists -- and that fact particularly interests me because in the first place I don't think your claims are true, and second I don't believe that most Abrahamic theists would think so either.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What do you mean by "exist"?

Have actual existence in reality.

Mythical beasts don't exist as actual physical beings, but we can know of them in stories.

No. You do not know any beasts. You know ideas about fictional beasts as described in a piece of literature.