Free will vs Omniscience

So you're saying that perfect prognostication can work if the future isn't set in stone - as long as it isn't perfect. There's a bit of a problem with the logic of that argument.

Yup, and nobody knows who is right. To the incompatibilist, nobody is because there isn't a choice being made at all. You're just a rock rolling down the hill thinking that you can make choices when you can't (thus the illusion). Are you saying that you've already had the thoughts/feelings/experiences that are going to happen in the future?Why aren't they in the past, then? I'm not sure it is. The future hasn't been already made though, it hasn't happened yet. You realize that's determinism, right? That's confusing...And if you have non-determinism, then there is no compatibility issue with free will.The difference to the compatibilist is that even if the universe does the initial deciding, since you go through the thoughts/feelings/experiences involved in making the "choice", then is still counts as your choice. I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how you can consider it non-determinism. Actually, more to the OP: an omniscient god.I think the more interesting question is not whether or not that can coexist with free will, but if it makes the god morally culpable for our actions.

No, that's not what I'm saying.I think there's a problem with the phrase "set in stone". It's unclear and ambiguous. Can you please explain/define what you mean by the phrase? (E.g. If my own internal preferences and desires influence or determine my free decision, is my decision "set in stone"? Or does "set in stone" always imply an external forcing of my decisions?)

quote:

---

No, that's not what I'm saying.

---

You certainly disagreed with the claim that perfect prognostication requires that the futures is set in stone, and you certainly appealed to imperfect prognostication to justify that disagreement.

quote:

---

I think there's a problem with the phrase "set in stone". It's unclear and ambiguous. Can you please explain/define what you mean by the phrase? (E.g. If my own internal preferences and desires influence or determine my free decision, is my decision "set in stone"? Or does "set in stone" always imply an external forcing of my decisions?)

---

I think that it simply means that the future is absolutely fixed, without any further implications, other than those inherent in that. And I would agree with that(I would classify conditional perfect prognostication, where the prognosticator may change the future through his own choices as imperfect - only slightly so in the case where a single individual has the capability. However, if more than one person possessed the capability it would clearly be imperfect since the prognosticators could interfere with each other's prognostications)

I'm saying that our standard understanding of past/present/future may not apply for such a logical construct.Standard understanding of past/present/future:Think of a shoelace, fraying at one end.
Shoelace not frayed = past
Point of fraying = present
Fraying ends = future (all possible outcomes)When I'm 10 years old, the not-frayed part will be shorter, and the frayed parts will be longer.
When I'm 90 years old, the not-frayed part will be longer, and the frayed parts will be shorter.
When I'm dead, there's only 1 line... all the decision I made in my life.
...if we use our current level of understanding of how the "present" works, anyway.But what if the "present" isn't the point when all decisions are made?
What if the "present" is simply a rolling along the line of our lives?
What if our lives were already lived, choices made by us (not the universe) and we only experience them by what we see as the "present" moving along?That would be us making the decisions, however, the way we generally think of past/present/future would be different.If we make that shift in how we understand the preset, we end up with this model:
New understanding of past/present/future:Our life isn't frayed at all, the fraying has already been decided (by us). Our one line was created (by us) when the universe was created. There is only 1 line that we're "experiencing" now.
In this sense, someone could read the future and they would be reading our decisions that we make in the future.The "future" is more akin to the "past." Like mirror images in functionality.
No one seems to care that the past has already been decided.. they're very concerned about the future.
But what if our conceptually held ideas on how that all works is just wrong?
What if the future is very much like the past... time is just another dimension. There is no "past" and "future" as there is no "left" and "right" to the length of a board. It just depends on which side you're standing on when you look at it.There is a 0-to-100 length of a board.
As there is a 0-to-100 length of a timeline.But perhaps our generally-accepted ideas of the future being so different from the past is simply a product of the way we experience time.
Perhaps those ideas are wrong, and "time" is just another dimension that we experience strangely.
Perhaps we've already "lived" our entire lives (making our own decisions) at the creation of the universe and we're simply experiencing them as we run down our time-line that we all individually created ourselves. Perhaps not, but I don't see how (yet, anyway).
As far as I can tell, it is a logical way to think of time. It's just not socially acceptable.
I'm also not saying I subscribe to it, I just don't see how it's logically *impossible* is all. How do you know this?
Perhaps you're mistaken and the correct way to say this is that they future simply hasn't been *experienced* by us in the way we observe time in this universe. Why is it impossible for "time" to simply be another dimension, and all our decisions have "already" been decided... by us (not the universe)... and we're simply experiencing time in a way that makes it only *feel* like things are the way you're talking about. I thought determinism was when the universe (not us) made the decisions?
I'm talking about us making the decisions, not the universe. I thought that was the opposite of determinism?
I do get confused by standard terminology (determinism, compatibilist, incompatibilist...) they are new terms to me as this is not something I've studied in depth or professionally or anything. Yes. I agree.
But confusing or "not obvious" doesn't mean it's wrong. And such a thing can be cured with education.
The universe has no obligation to be easy or simple for us to understand.
As well, if there was an actual test that we could do to know for sure... we wouldn't be having this disagreement anyway. There would be only one way that matched the evidence. Simple. When you consider it determinism... you are defining that the universe is making the decisions.
When I'm considering it non-determinism... I'm defining that we are making the decisions and not the universe.Which of our definitions reflect actual reality?That's the test without a (current) answer. I can tell you that if I even have imperfect knowledge of what something I create is going to do (but I have a good idea)... and I create it... and it does it... then I'm very morally culpable for "it's" actions (fully or how-much-partial... that can be quibbled about).
I don't see why it would be different for a God, especially if that God is supposed to have perfect knowledge...

How can our choice be separate from the universe or vice versa, if we are intrinsically a part of it.

Determinism - in this context - would say that, our choices do not involve a random element. Our own nature certainly can be the dominating factor in the choices we make.Determinism is about cause and effect but there is no reason to think that the same external factors even if identical in every respect would always produce the same response in every human. Or even the same human, at different points in life.Determinism doesn't say that our choices are forced by external forces independent of our nature, it says that our nature forces us to respond to external forces in our own individual ways.

I was more referring to this understanding of determinism: ...that is, here, "determinism" basically means "following the physical process that came from the initial conditions" as opposed to "free will" meaning "decided by a person, using their thoughts/feelings/experiences."Saying "from the universe" was just a short form at that point.

Right, that's how I'm using the term."Our nature forces us to respond to external forces in our own individual ways" = "the universe unfolding it's physical conditions"
They would just be "our" physical conditions, is all.As opposed to "free will" which is more something along the lines of "making the decision process individually based on our own thoughts/ideas/feelings/experiences of the situation."The point, I think, is to differentiate between a person actually deciding to make a choice (free will) vs. never actually making an individual "choice," and we're just doing whatever it is we must do because of the actual conditions at that specific instance (determinism).That's how I was using the word "determinism," anyway.

quote:

---

Determinism doesn't say that our choices are forced by external forces independent of our nature, it says that our nature forces us to respond to external forces in our own individual ways.
Right, that's how I'm using the term.

​

"Our nature forces us to respond to external forces in our own individual ways" = "the universe unfolding it's physical conditions"
They would just be "our" physical conditions, is all.

​

As opposed to "free will" which is more something along the lines of "making the decision process individually based on our own thoughts/ideas/feelings/experiences of the situation."

---

But there is no opposition, simply different descriptions of the same thing.

quote:

---

The point, I think, is to differentiate between a person actually deciding to make a choice (free will) vs. never actually making an individual "choice," and we're just doing whatever it is we must do because of the actual conditions at that specific instance (determinism).

---

But in the deterministic view you do actually decide to make a choice. It's the indeterministic views that call that into question.

Hi Stile,Cause and effect are, on a macro level, deterministic.
We can make choices and those choices are real and the choice we make in turn affect the world around us. I believe everyone agrees with that.Now:If a omnipotent God exist then he must exist outside of influencing our choices otherwise there can be no free will in the face of all knowing all powerful. I realize people will come up with a plethora of apologist reason why both omnipresent and omnipotent can give rise to freewill,
but the bottom line is they are essentially diametrically opposed.
I wont pretend to understand how it can be otherwise.My take on freewill is that the future has not already occurred.
Time is according to some a one way street from the past -> present -> future. The arrow of time is asymmetrical and it seems Entropy goes in one direction as well as the cosmological arrow moving from quantum fluctuation to infinitely expanding flat universe. **This could be wrong but at present looks right**Each moment is not a continuum though but a separate point in time like a snap shot. It is only our continuous flux through these points that give the illusion of fluid movement of time. This vexes me to no end. Mathematically and in Physics time can move in either direction.
We know through Einsteins theories that Time does not exist at the speed of light so God if God exist must dwell at that speed. God also would have infinite mass to sustain that speed.If that is what God is doing.Then God could in theory transcend time and space and if so could know all things at all time in stasis without interfering with our freewill. God could according to this thought experiment have access to all the snapshot stitches in time while we on Earth would experience time relative to our speed having our coffee and cakes none the wiser.

Understood, so, is that not choices that are pre-determined (from the perspective of knowing it from the present)?That is, if you are looking at a choice of your's that you have already made in the future, then are you capable of choosing something different or not?If so, when do you experience the opportunity of making that choice?'Cause as far as a I can tell (and that's really the only thing that is important), I only get that opportunity in the present, where I'm capable of immediately and accurately deciding what actually happens.The past is forever locked in place, and the future is open to any of the possible opportunities.One of the things that makes me realize that decision making process happens when I'm playing the piano or guitar. Sometime I'll be deciding on where my fingers will go next, and it just doesn't happen that way. Something goes wrong with my fingers and they don't cooperate with what I told them to do.Don't get me wrong, I make lots of mistakes. But it's a strange experience when you don't fuck up in your mind, and instead your body just doesn't work like it should.I lost track of where I was going with that, sorry for rambling. Maybe I'll re-stumble upon the point I was trying to make.Anyways, I was talking about things being pre-determined, which stemmed from this: Which you've clarified further with this:

quote:

---

1.61803 writes:

​

Stile writes:

​

I thought determinism was when the universe (not us) made the decisions?

How can our choice be separate from the universe or vice versa, if we are intrinsically a part of it.

​

I was more referring to this understanding of determinism:

​

Cat Sci writes:

​

When I say determinism, I'm talking about being put in motion at the big bang and not just that something was determined by somebody.

​

Message 410

---

Sorry about the bad phraseologizing; I actually agree with Phi that even "something that was determined by somebody" can still be "about being put in motion at the big bang" when I am talking about determinism. I was trying to say that it was not just that.And that gets into the whole compatibilist vs. incompatibilist thing: they are both responses to determinism.You were taking a compatibilist position, but have since steared away from determinism. Now you are getting into a whole new realm of compatibilism, which is where it's not even deterministic in the first place.If it isn't deterministic, then there is no problem with Free Will. They could still be incompatible. Determinism kinda has an incompatibilist element to it that I think you are missing. Whether or not it is determinism doesn't really have a lot to do with whether or not it is you or the universe that is making the decision.It is more about whether the future is changeable or not.You keep acting like our decisions could be pre-determined, and that's determinism whether it is us or the universe making the determination beforehand. If it is before the present, then how are we who are stuck here the ones who are actually making it? Even if it is me in the future doing it, that isn't me from my perspective.Edited by Cat Sci, : missed [quote]'s

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "influencing" our choices.I mean, my wife influences my choices, but I still have free will.
Couldn't God as well influence my choices, but I still have free will?I agree if by "influence" you mean something along the lines of playing with my mind without my permission. This is how I see it:If God created the universe with full knowledge of everything that was going to happen... then we don't have free will.However, if God created the universe without full knowledge of everything that was going to happen (on purpose, even)... then we can have free will even though God (at this point in time) can know the future.Both cases seem plausible by an "omnipresent, omnipotent" God to me. I think this is the most likely description of our reality.
I'm just defending that the option of God knowing the future doesn't have to mean we have no free will. That is, if God didn't-know-the-future for at least some time between the creation of the universe and now.

Yes. In fact, this is imperative to my defense of the argument.
If it wasn't predetermined... then the one "seeing the future" wouldn't be able to see it.The point is simply that the "predetermination" is because of a personal, individual choice. Not because we're simply following some cause-and-affect flow of events that are pre-determined without our input. Yes, you would be able to choose something different (I would think, anyway). When do you experience it? In the present, where we experience all things.
When did the choice take place? At the creation of the universe. Why can't that opportunity actually happen at the creation of the universe and you're only experiencing it in the present? In my idea, the future would be locked in place as well (from the beginning of the universe, after all choices for all time are created.) I don't see how this is impossible if the events were created when the universe was created and you're simply experiencing the mistake as we travel through the present. Okay, if you think this describes my position I have no problem with it.
However, I was never "taking a compatibilist position" purposefully because I didn't even know the word existed when I started explaining my position.
Also, I haven't "steared away from determinism" on purpose either.
In fact, my position hasn't changed at all, perhaps my explanation is becoming clearer and clearer to you... I just want you to understand that I'm still explaining the exact same position, and it seems to be your understanding of that position using these terms that is changing. Not that it really matters, but perhaps that could help the understanding a bit more.That is... I'm attempting to defend how I think it's possible that God could know the future while free will is preserved.I understand that "determinism, compatibilist and incompatibilist" are terms associated with these sorts of discussion, but I am not concerned with having this idea I'm describing fit into any or all of them. That's all I'm saying That it's possible to have God know the future and we also have free will.I don't care if anyone else calls that deterministic or compatibilist or parts are this and others are that... I attempted to use the terms as they were brought up, but I don't think I understand them well enough to use them effectively in attempting to describe the idea I wanted to get across. Fair enough. I think in my attempts to use the terms as they came up, I used them incorrectly and caused confusion as to the idea I was actually trying to convey. In hindsight... I should have stayed away from those terms completely even after they were introduced. Because, in what I'm trying to explain, that's how the universe works. You simply *feel* like you're making the choice in the present. However, you're actually only *experiencing* the choice in the present. It was actually made, by you, with the entire universe (and all of time) when the universe was created. Correct. It isn't you *from your perspective*.
But the way the universe works doesn't depend upon your perspective.
I'm explaining how my idea could actually be possible. I'm not attempting to explain how you're forced to understand it how you want to from your perspective.From a certain perspective, a 2D square can appear as a line. This doesn't make the square a line.
From *your perspective* you're making the choices now (as you experience them). The doesn't change the fact ("fact" according to my idea, anyway) that you actually made the choice when time was created during the creation of the universe.

The issue is that if the future is knowable, then we are powerless to change it and therefore do not have free will. If you can change it, then it can't be knowable already. So can we change it or not? Well I didn't exist at the creation of the universe so I don't see how I could have made the choice then. Okay, so if someone that in only the loosest sense is "me" is making a decision, such that I cannot even recognize that I have made the decision, then is it right to have me be culpable for that decision?