Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 973 of 1444 (880377)
08-04-2020 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 957 by Sarah Bellum
07-31-2020 7:22 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
But "clockwork" and "free will" are a perfect example of opposites.
If you make the free choice to select pink lemonade over white lemonade, and I record it.... was your "free will" removed?
We can watch the recording over and over and over... it is a "clockwork" recreation of your free will - no?
If we can do it with a camera and some lemonade... why can't God do it with a universe and some people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-31-2020 7:22 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 9:43 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 975 of 1444 (880381)
08-04-2020 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by Sarah Bellum
08-04-2020 9:43 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
The idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator deity requires that the universe the deity is created is a clockwork, something where all the atoms, every neutron, proton and electron, every erg of energy, every photon and graviton behaves exactly as the deity set it to behave from the "creation" up to now and on into the future.
Exactly. Just like me recording your free-will choice about pink lemonade over white lemonade.
And, if God incorporates our free-willed choices while creating the universe instead of making his own - then our free-will is preserved within the recording.
Just like the lemonade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 9:43 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 10:02 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 977 of 1444 (880383)
08-04-2020 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 976 by Sarah Bellum
08-04-2020 10:02 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
If I build a cuckoo clock and watch it sound the hour at 1:00 and make a video of that action, have I "recorded" the bird's exercise of its free will?
Why would you think it would?
Recording something doesn't give it free will.
But, if you record something exercising it's free will - then it doesn't remove it's free will from the moment where the free-willed decision was made.
A cuckoo clock is a device built that is unable to make it's own decisions - it does exactly what the creator made it do.
Recording a cuckoo clock does not give it free will.
A human is a being that is (in this scenario) created by God with their own free will.
A human can decide, on their own, if they want pink lemonade or white lemonade.
Playing back the recording of a human deciding a flavour of lemonade does not remove the free will they exercised in the moment they made that decision.
Playing back the recording of a human deciding *anything* does not remove the free will they exercised in the moment they made that decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 10:02 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 12:30 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 990 of 1444 (880480)
08-06-2020 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 978 by PaulK
08-04-2020 12:00 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
You're making one really big mistake, and riding it out to make all the other mistakes you're confusing:
PaulK writes:
Stile writes:
But God did not make the choice of how the actual universe would go.
Sure he did. He knew how it would go before creating it.
That's like saying you made the choice to have a blue room if I picked the colour and you simply painted the room.
You did not make the choice of having a blue room.
You made the choice of bringing the blue-room-that-I-chose into physical reality.
Without me - there would be no paint as you wouldn't know which colour to choose.
You need us both. Therefore, we're both involved. You can't say the choice is yours if you require my input in order to know which way to choose.
So - if we make the choices of our free will, and therefore God does not choose how the actual universe will go...
And God merely creates the physical universe according to how our free wills decided how the actual universe will go...
How are you then saying God made the choice of how the actual universe would go?
It doesn't make any sense.
You're playing semantics with the words.
You're taking "God made the universe - therefore, God decides all things in the universe" and applying it to my statements of "God made the universe, however, within that universe God did not decide all things, we decided our own free-willed choices."
You're then saying that my statement is exactly the same as yours.
When, in fact, my statement directly contradicts what you're trying to force upon it.
Just because "God made the universe - therefore, God decides all things in the universe" is an easy and (perhaps) popular way to think of God creating universes does not mean that all universes must be created in this fashion.
Especially if we're making up that God creates universes in the first place, and how that works at all.
Just as Wile E Coyote can end a scene by falling off a 1000 ft cliff, he can also end a scene by having a stick of dynamite blow up in his face.
I'm simply describing another method for "God creating a universe" but you're claiming that the way "PaulK thinks universes are created" must apply.
Why would it? Especially if I'm specifically defining it otherwise?
You're still insisting that Wile E Coyote cannot survive having a stick of dynamite blow up in his face.
Clearly - you're wrong, and it's just your insistence of "what you know of reality" that is blocking your ability to imagine a God with powers such as the ones I'm describing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 978 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2020 12:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1326 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2020 8:23 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 991 of 1444 (880481)
08-06-2020 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 980 by Sarah Bellum
08-04-2020 12:30 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
What would you say if I claimed that the cuckoo in the clock, despite being built by its creator who controlled the arrangement of every tiny piece in its construction, still has free will?
Of course you would say that, because the creater of the cuckoo controlled every little piece of wood and metal, every wire and cogwheel in the mechanism, the cuckoo had no choice but to crow at the appointed time.
But... I wouldn't say that.
If the cuckoo clock bird really does have free will... then it is not crowing at the appointed time because it's forced to, it's doing so because it chooses to.
Then, it's just like a person.
Why wouldn't it be?
But you would not say the bird has free will, because the creator designed the mechanism. You would not say, "Even though we predicted the crowing of the bird, it still has free will to do so or not."
It's a simply test:
If the cuckoo bird is crowing because the cuckoo bird is deciding to do so on it's own accord without outside influence - then the cuckoo bird is exercising free will.
Just like people.
You're the one that suddenly gave an unconscious, "does not have a brain" object free will by definition.
Therefore - you're the one introducing all the confusion into this example.
If the cuckoo is choosing to crow, from free will, on each and every hour and acts exactly the same as a non-free-willed-normal-cuckoo-clock... it would still have free will. We just might not be able to test/know/verify it.
Why wouldn't it?
It is the same with an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of an entire universe. You seem to think of the creator as a farmer raising chickens, with a rooster that may crow whenever it decides to. But that farmer isn't all-knowing or all-powerful.
Your track record for identifying what I think isn't very good.
I don't think you know what I'm trying to say at all - your example doesn't seem to display anything.
Perhaps you should try reading my posts again and coming at it from another angle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-04-2020 12:30 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-06-2020 2:38 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 992 of 1444 (880483)
08-06-2020 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by Tangle
08-04-2020 12:31 PM


Tangle writes:
All you people who think they have this thing you call freewill, can you tell me whether you feel capable of shooting a child in the head tomorrow?
Yes, I do.
Forgetting whether our secular society and your god's justice systems would frown on it, could you do it?
Yes, I could.
A robot could do it - the very thing that you claim we would be if we had no free will. A psychopath could do it - they actually do possess free will; they are not hampered by any sense of inborn and learnt empathy, so if they wanted to, they could.
I am not a robot or a psychopath, and I would fee terrible about it.
But, I could do it.
Say, if the baby had a terminal illness and was going to live in pain for the next 30 days... and if I shot it in the head right now, my wife would be able to survive for another 40 years (otherwise... she dies tomorrow.)
A strange situation... but if it happened, I would be capable and could do as you suggest.
Personally my free will to do many of the things that are morally wrong - stealing, raping, pillaging etc - I am incapable of.
I have not found a situation in reality where I can identify the difference of "being incapable of" doing something vs. "choosing not to do it" scientifically.
Have you?
If not - this poses a problem for your line-of-thought.
Free will is a religious fiction.
Maybe it is.
But maybe it's not.
We don't really (scientifically) know yet. No one does.
And just as a fun aside, why would a being that knows everything - past, present and future - even bother to create anything?
Yeah - I certainly agree with the sillyness of this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2020 12:31 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2020 3:13 PM Stile has replied
 Message 997 by Phat, posted 08-07-2020 3:59 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1020 by Phat, posted 08-12-2020 2:35 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 994 of 1444 (880486)
08-06-2020 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by Sarah Bellum
08-06-2020 2:38 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Ah - I think it was I that was confused.
Here, this is what I thought. Your question:
Sarah Bellum writes:
What would you say if I claimed that the cuckoo in the clock, despite being built by its creator who controlled the arrangement of every tiny piece in its construction, still has free will?
I thought you meant this in the sense that your were "claiming this as a definitional idea and wanted to make a point about it..."
That is, you were claiming that the cuckoo does, indeed, have free because it's an imaginary idea of one that you've made up and you're chosen to define it as specifically having free will.
I thought you were doing this because it's what I'm doing... I'm specifically claiming God can create a universe in a certain way so as to keep us having our free will because I'm imagining (defining...) a way God could do this.
Then I thought you were going to apply this idea to mine somehow.
In this context - yes, I was seriously suggesting that the wood and springs contraption might have free will because, according to this context, you specifically defined it to have such.
However... this isn't what you meant by the phrase.
You meant "if I claim that the cuckoo has free will - then how do you know it doesn't?"
My answer to that, is: What do you mean by "free will" and why do you think something without consciousness/a-brain would be able to have it?
Once we have an answer to that... then we can answer your question.
The fundamental, common answer would be "if it isn't conscious - it's not making decisions, and therefore cannot have free will"
To then answer your original question in the context you intended it (I hope?):
Sarah Bellum writes:
It is the same with an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of an entire universe. You seem to think of the creator as a farmer raising chickens, with a rooster that may crow whenever it decides to. But that farmer isn't all-knowing or all-powerful.
Exactly.
That farmer isn't all-knowing.
Just like the God I'm defining.
I'll say it, again:
This God is not all-knowing.
There is a moment where this God does not know the choices we'll make.
God allows this so that we can have free will.
Then, once we make our choices, God can then see the results of those choices.
Then, God can create a physical universe reflecting our choices (not God's - He didn't know what the answers would be.)
Within the physical universe - God is then all-knowing.
All knowing about non-free-willed-things because He decided how to create rocks and water and things.
All knowing about free-willed-things because He let us decide, but He then sees what that decision would be (like watching a recording.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-06-2020 2:38 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-08-2020 6:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1014 of 1444 (880835)
08-12-2020 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 995 by Tangle
08-06-2020 3:13 PM


Can you do it just like putting out the trash?
Of course not. But this doesn't mean I don't have free will.
I have free will to drink pink lemonade over white lemonade.
But I don't drink lemonade just like putting out the trash.
I like lemonade.
I don't like putting out the trash.
I don't mind putting out the trash, it's something that needs to be done.
I would very much mind killing a baby cold-blooded, it's something that doesn't need to be done - but I could do it.
If you could you have free will and you're a psychopath.
A psychopath is someone who does not have feelings.
If I tell you I could do it, but I would feel incredibly bad about it - this is the opposite of being a psychopath.
Your definitions are not working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2020 3:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1019 by Tangle, posted 08-12-2020 1:17 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1015 of 1444 (880836)
08-12-2020 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 998 by Juvenissun
08-07-2020 7:03 PM


Re: Being Incapable vs Choosing
Juvenissun writes:
Stile writes:
I have not found a situation in reality where I can identify the difference of "being incapable of" doing something vs. "choosing not to do it" scientifically.
It depends on how much you (scientifically) understand the person. If you do, then it is quite easy to tell.
What if you just think it is easy, but actually it is not?
I know that sometimes I smile and nod, and even my close family thinks everything is just fine... but I'm not doing fine.
People cannot read minds (yet).
We certainly cannot confirm thoughts scientifically.
In certain situations - we may be highly-likely to be correct about what we think another is thinking.
But, still - there's no way to confirm this scientifically, and we could be wrong.
It's not like measuring the length of a 2x4... where it's impossible to be scientifically incorrect.
Of course, if you really think you can know as well as you can know the length of a 2x4... please provide more details or an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by Juvenissun, posted 08-07-2020 7:03 PM Juvenissun has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1016 of 1444 (880837)
08-12-2020 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 999 by Sarah Bellum
08-08-2020 6:43 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
Interesting! A god of the classical sort, a powerful being but not the decider of destiny.
Yes.
Perhaps I should have made my intentions clearer in the beginning.
I was not attempting to think of any sort of "acceptably Christian God."
I was only attempting to think of "a God" that was capable of the conditions put forth (creating the universe, allowing free-will to exist and also knowing all past and future within the universe.)
I had no intentions of having this God, specifically, be "all powerful" or "all benevolent" or any other condition normally placed upon a Christian God.
"Powerful enough to fulfill these conditions..." was my only limit.
I have no problems even speaking of this God hypothetically:
"If a God can think of a universe, incorporating our real free-willed decisions into that thought-experiment-universe - allowing our decisions to drive the universe where they will and therefore this God would not know what we would choose beforehand - and then this God creates that universe... THEN, this God would be capable of creating a universe where free will exists and this God would also know all past-present-future within that universe."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-08-2020 6:43 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1018 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-12-2020 1:12 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1048 of 1444 (880928)
08-14-2020 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by Sarah Bellum
08-12-2020 1:12 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
"Looking at everything in this universe, I can see the trajectories of all the matter and energy in it and all the changes that will happen. To me, this young universe is as deterministic as a cuckoo clock. Eventually intelligent beings will develop in this universe. Those beings will say they have free will, but I can see, from the initial conditions, what will happen every time one is faced with a choice."
Why do you need to invoke another "sufficiently powerful intellect" for this example?
Isn't this the exact same thing as watching a recording of something that happened yesterday?
If, yesterday, you decided out of your own free will to choose pink lemonade over white lemonade... and I record it.
And I view that recording a few times.
And I play it a few times.
And every time I play it - I can (accurately) predict what you will choose in the recording...
Does this mean that your initial decision was made without having free will?
That seems to be what you're implying.
But I don't see any reason to accept it.
Why does recording the occurrence of something, and looking back on that recording imply that free will is removed from the decision that was recorded?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-12-2020 1:12 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-15-2020 10:06 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1049 of 1444 (880929)
08-14-2020 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1019 by Tangle
08-12-2020 1:17 PM


Tangle writes:
Dinking or not drinking lemonade either pink or white does not involve moral choices; you do not feel morally constrained. Exercising trivial neutral preference is not normally considered a freewill issue.
You mentioned killing a baby isn't like taking out the trash - implying that one is easy and one is not - and further implying that a "not-easy one" is also impossible.
I bring up lemonade vs trash to show that even when a choice is difficult (taking out the trash is more difficult than drinking a cool glass of lemonade...) - it's still possible to do.
Killing a baby is not impossible because it's "morally difficult" to choose.
It's simply that - morally difficult to choose.
Such difficult adds in a consequence of extreme bad feelings and regret.
Some will be capable of handling these, some will not.
For some, like psychopaths, it's very easy to "handle these" because they don't have to handle them - they do not feel the bad feelings or regret.
But, again, this doesn't make it impossible for a non-psychopath to choose the morally difficult decision - and then deal with the very bad feelings and regret.
Tangle writes:
Stile writes:
A psychopath is someone who does not have feelings.
Nope, a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy.
That's the same thing - in the context of how we've been discussing "feelings" here, anyway.
It's the existence of empathy that proves that we lack free will.
Ha ha - you may as well say that the Bible being the most popular best selling book proves that God exists.
If you really believe this - feel free to back it up. If you can actually do so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.
Scientists have been studying free will for a very, very long time.
They are recently making some progress.
But such a conclusion is still (currently) out of our reach as of today.
Empathy can affect fee will in the same way that age can affect athletic performance.
If you have infinite age - you may very well have 0 athletic performance, as you'll be so old that you cannot move without breaking your bones.
If you have infinite empathy - you may very well have 0 free will, as you will not be able to "deal with" the feelings.
But, we don't have infinite age. We have finite age. And there are ways to deal with aging to allow for greater/longer athletic performance.
Some are capable of great athletic performance while also being very old.
Some are capable of greater athletic performance in their later years than they were in their younger years - depending on when they do their training.
We also don't have infinite empathy. We have finite empathy. Different for different people. And there are ways to deal with the feelings of empathy that allow for greater/longer decision making.
Some are capable of great decision making while also having lots of empathy.
To try and boil down empathy to a binary subject is just plain ignorant of what empathy is in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by Tangle, posted 08-12-2020 1:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1053 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2020 6:45 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1050 of 1444 (880930)
08-14-2020 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by Phat
08-12-2020 2:35 PM


Re: Adding Thomas Aquinas To The Mix...
Phat writes:
...but it is an attempt by humans to eloquently argue for belief over materialistic rationality.
I only think materialistic rationality should be used over belief in certain circumstances.
And I only think belief should be used over materialistic rationality in certain circumstances.
I think anyone who thinks either should be used all the time as "over the other" is out to lunch.
Trying to understand reality?
-our best known methods for this focus much more on materialistic rationality over belief
Trying to understand how to fully describe "love?"
-our best known methods for this focus much more on belief over materialistic rationality
They are two different methods.
They are both valid when used for applicable situations.
They are both invalid when used inappropriately.
Saying that a materialistic approach should be used over belief while attempting to understand the nature/truth about reality over and over doesn't imply that "belief" is a bad method.
It simply implies that "belief" is a bad method for determining the nature/truth about reality. Which history has proven (many, many times...) that it certainly is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by Phat, posted 08-12-2020 2:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1096 of 1444 (881063)
08-17-2020 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Tangle
08-14-2020 6:45 PM


Tangle writes:
My claim is that, for instance, you are incapable of killing a baby just because you feel like it today.
I can't think of any day I would feel like killing a baby.
If that is the case, you need to explain how you think you have free will.
I have free will, because I could choose to kill a baby despite not feeling like doing it.
In the same vein (but, much less seriously...) I can choose to take out the trash despite not feeling like doing it.
It's a matter of being able to deal with the feelings.
It's much harder to "deal with the feelings" of killing a baby than taking out the trash.
And it's quite possible that some people are not capable of doing it, even.
But there are others that are capable. And not all of those others are psychopaths. Some will have great feelings about the matter, but they are able to deal with those feelings.
This is not about after the fact regret, I'm saying that you can't actually do it can you? It's not 'morally difficult to choose', you can not do it (without qualifiers). Or can you?
I can.
No matter how many times you ask the question - the answer will be the same.
Do you have a different question? Or do you intend to simply repeat the same one, that's already been answered, over and over and over hoping for a different result?
Tangle writes:
Stile writes:
Ha ha - you may as well say that the Bible being the most popular best selling book proves that God exists.
Bollox.
Of course it is.
Which is why you can't prove that we don't have free will.
Because if you could - you've have a Nobel Prize.
So our freedom to act varies by individual. Which is exactly what I say. Our free will is bounded and only the psychopath are able to operate entirely freely - if they so wish.
Why only psychopaths? Why not "anyone who is able to deal with the empathy that would normally prevent the behaviour?"
You're drawing a line that you cannot show actually exists.
There are some who cannot take out the trash - because they cannot deal with the feelings (lookup shut-ins who cannot leave their house because of anxiety.)
There are many who can take out the trash - but they are not necessarily psychopaths; they are just able to 'deal with the feelings.'
There are many who cannot kill babies because they cannot deal with the feelings as you suggest.
There are some who can kill babies - but they are not necessarily psychopaths; they are just able to 'deal with the feelings.'
Empathy constrains our freedom to do evil.
And intelligence allows us to override our empathy.
Too great of empathy, and too little intelligence - and you're right.
But many people have enough intelligence to deal with the empathy for any situation you've discussed so far, and they do not necessarily have to be psychopaths.
You're just wrong to insist that "only a psychopath" could kill a baby.
It's a very nice, emotional, feel-good line for a story. But not a part of factual reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2020 6:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1102 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2020 4:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1100 of 1444 (881076)
08-17-2020 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Sarah Bellum
08-15-2020 10:06 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:
But suppose the super-smart being makes the prediction before the events happen?
Then free will is removed - I agree.
If there is no moment where the super-smart being actually doesn't know the answer to the prediction - then there is no room for free will.
However, if there is a moment where the super-smart being does not know the answer to the prediction, and the "answer to the prediction" actually comes from the being-making-the-free-willed-decision - then free will is preserved.
The situation I'm imagining is just a bit strange on "when the event happens."
That is:
1. Super-smart being is going to create a universe.
2. Super-smart being wants free-willed creatures in this universe.
3. Super-smart being identifies a "thought-experiment" of the universe, that is... one that does not physically exist, but contains all the real properties of the universe-that-will-physically-exist - the super-smart being is just thinking about it.
4. The universe trundles along in this "thought-experiment" form until a free-willed decision point is hit. At that time, the super-smart being does not know what the prediction will be be. The super-smart being waits for the real, actual free-willed being (within the thought-experiment universe) to make it's real, actual free-willed decision. The super-smart being says "oh... interesting..." and then trundles along with the rest of the universe until the next free-willed decision needs to be made and this process repeats.
5. The super-smart being will eventually (possibly instantly, if the super-smart being is smart enough?) hold a fully completed "thought-experiment" universe within their mind - containing all the real, actual free-willed decisions of all the free-willed beings within that universe.
6. The super-smart being creates the universe into physical existence.
7. The physical existence is like a recording-play-back of all the real, actual free-willed decisions made by the free-willed inhabitants.
If the super-smart being could do this before the evolution of humans, then how could it be said the humans had free will and were not just following a mechanical trajectory like the planets in their orbits?
If the above is followed, then the super-smart being could know the trajectory of every atom in the universe and predict what was going to happen (based of the complete "thought-experiment.")
However, since all free-willed decisions within the "thought-experiment" are not from the super-smart being, but actually from the real free-willed inhabitants of that universe... the super-smart being is simply "watching a recording" and not actually "creating" the decision-answers (the free-willed inhabitants are creating the decision-answers.)
Therefore - the super-smart being could predict everything "before the evolution of humans" (before the physical creation of the universe, even...) while humans also have free will and were not just following a mechanical trajectory like planets in orbit.
The super-smart being just cannot predict everything "without even a single moment of not-knowing the free-willed decision answers" and also preserve free will.
That moment needs to exist.
It just doesn't have to exist "within this universe's time."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-15-2020 10:06 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1101 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-17-2020 2:08 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024