A Paradox of Omniscience and Free Will

[TrueCreation]

I posted this message in the proof that the Christian god cannot exist thread here, but decided to make a new thread instead: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182

I've only read some of the initial posts in this thread however my question is: Aren't predetermination and forknowledge different?

I think that the nature of our methods of "reasons to belief", being inductive, suggest that "free will" is consequential. Where deduction tends to yield logical consequences, the results of induction have no basis in reality but are the results of aesthetic (or filter) judgements. Perhaps chaos also plays a role in "free will".

I think that possible outcomes in the universe can be represented by a 'cone' of possibilities moving through time, where the vertex (at point 0) of the cone corresponds to a set of absolute "initial" conditions. I've attempted to illustrated this here:

The yellow cone represents all the posibilities from a set of absolute initial conditions at time=0. The red cone at time=1 illustrates the constriction of possible outcomes at times >1. When I had made these sketches I was also considering the theoretical influence of "supernatural interventions" on this model of universal outcomes. Thus the green cone represents an immediate shift in the possible outcomes resultant from a supernatural perturbation--rendering some originally impossible outcomes at some time now possible.

What do you think?

-Chris Grose

 

[water]

These things have been discussed at great and good length here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45896

 

[LightEagle]

I've only read some of the initial posts in this thread however my question is: Aren't predetermination and forknowledge different?

Indeed they are. Predetermination is the active intervention to determine a set outcome. Forknowledge implies no intervention or, rather, no set outcome.

I think that the nature of our methods of "reasons to belief", being inductive, suggest that "free will" is consequential. Where deduction tends to yield logical consequences, the results of induction have no basis in reality but are the results of aesthetic (or filter) judgements. Perhaps chaos also plays a role in "free will".

I don't think chaos necessarily has an influence on free will as such. It does have an influence on situations and moments in time, but these moments, although it has an influence on choices made, are not decisive.

I think that possible outcomes in the universe can be represented by a 'cone' of possibilities moving through time, where the vertex (at point 0) of the cone corresponds to a set of absolute "initial" conditions. I've attempted to illustrated this here:

The yellow cone represents all the posibilities from a set of absolute initial conditions at time=0. The red cone at time=1 illustrates the constriction of possible outcomes at times >1. When I had made these sketches I was also considering the theoretical influence of "supernatural interventions" on this model of universal outcomes. Thus the green cone represents an immediate shift in the possible outcomes resultant from a supernatural perturbation--rendering some originally impossible outcomes at some time now possible.

I think you could be right, but I also think that it would be a simplistic view. We have a 3D perspective and the universe is multi-dimensional. The cone view, although perhaps a good representation of the situation, would necessarily therefore be only a partial view.

 

[water]

We have a 3D perspective and the universe is multi-dimensional.

I hate to be pedantic, but: How do you know that the universe is multidimensional? Has it told you so, or are you merely conceiving it this way ...

If the universe were multidimensional, then everyone would agree, everyone would think it is so, it would be obvious. But there are many theories about the universe (and pretty much everyhting else) -- which one is right? Or are some people stupid and do not to see the obvious?

 

[LightEagle]

I hate to be pedantic, but: How do you know that the universe is multidimensional? Has it told you so, or are you merely conceiving it this way ...

"Has it told you so" can be asked for everything that is percieved to exist within the universe. The existence of an electron or the particle properties of light are all "known" to exist by inference from indirect means. Physics has shown us through similar indirect means that the universe is multi-dimensional. Take length, breadth and width. These are three dimensions. Then add a fourth dimension, Time. Many people have difficulty visualising three dimensions, never mind four. What the Earth looks like inside is another example from inferrence through indirect means.

I agree with you, one cannot know 100% whether the universe is multi-dimensional or not, but using an argument like "the majority cannot percieve it therefore it cannot exist" is not really satisfactory either. Science works by a process of elimination and the possibility that the universe is only three dimensional has been eliminated.

It's about perspective, not perception.

 

[duendy]

i actually think it is very much about perception. it doesn't matter how m-brane theorists may prove multidimensionality thru math and explaation, it is completetly different to actually experience it
the missing 'dimension' is conscousness.....space-time-consciousness

they are looking into it now--ie., cognitive science

 

[Adstar]

Forknowledge implies no intervention or, rather, no set outcome.

God has and does intervene. His foreknowledge is in relation to peoples reaction to His intervention and the action of the adversary satan. There is a set outcome that is known.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[KennyJC]

If God created the universe to use as a paperweight, it's difficult to imagine God and Satan fighting over it.

What if the universe is so small and insignificant to 'God' let alone each individual lifeform in the universe.

 

[water]

LightEagle,

I agree with you, one cannot know 100% whether the universe is multi-dimensional or not, but using an argument like "the majority cannot percieve it therefore it cannot exist" is not really satisfactory either.

Noone is making that argument here.

If something were obvious, if something indeed were what we conceive it to be -- then ALL people would think the same way about it. But they don't. How come that not all people think the same way about things? Who is right?

Science works by a process of elimination and the possibility that the universe is only three dimensional has been eliminated.

How convincingly has this possibility been eliminated?

It's about perspective, not perception.

What perspective? There are in roundabout as many perspectives as there are people in this universe.

What we have are conceptions, or world-views, or philosophies, or theories. We conceive ourselves and the world in certain ways. And then, according to these conceptions, our perceptions of the world and ourselves are bent. And then we act on these bent perceptions ...


On topic. The issue of free will and how people go about proving or disproving it, is a good example of how, if we subscribe to a particular conception of the universe and God, our perceptions of ourselves and the world are bent in accordance with that conception.

Long story short, you do not have to think that you have free will. But if you think that you don't have free will, you will continue acting as if you don't have it.

Trying to cenceive a theory where it will say "If God is so and so, then I have free will. If God is not so and so, then I don't have free will" is rather pointless, in my opinon, as this way, one is eventually asking another about one's existence in order to prove one's own existence.

That is, asking someone else "Tell me, do I exist?" or "Tell me, do I have free will?" is pointless, as accepting their answers (whatever they are) supposes that we already believe that we exist or have free will. So why ask them ...

I say the question of free will is truly about something other than free will. Maybe that question is just a convulted way of saying "I am, I exist, I want to prove it, but I cannot prove it!"

 

[Jenyar]

Even if the universe is only multi-dimensional at a purely mathematical level (as opposed to an experiential level), it has implications for our "freedom". If we were omniscient, we would not be "free" - we would think and act with perfect purpose and knowledge. It would not bother us that we're not "free", because we would already live and act optimally (freedom is only valuable because it allows us to optimize ourselves). But we're not, and I believe freedom may be a side-effect of our relative ignorance and limited perspective. Perception is limited by perspective, and our perspective is limited to the dimensions of our existence - our "freedom" is the difference between what there is to do or know, and what we do or know at the moment. In this sense it is possible to say that God is "limited" to being himself (for having identity), while every choice we have exists in the gap between what we know and what God knows (why we have the experience of "seeking identity").

God is omniscient. He endowed people with an awareness of that omniscience - of knowing the truth - so that we would make decisions. "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27). It's not an illusion, but a concrete consequence of being human. If God had endowed us with the same knowledge He had, we would not experience "freedom" or "limitation", as we understand these terms (subjectively) - we would simply be, experiencing everything in its intended fulness.

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.​

Tiassa said in that thread [post=43965]he believes that free will was a mistake - an accident[/post]. And maybe God did'nt intend for us to need freedom. But the mistake was ours, to think we needed more than God's word and sustenance, to think He kept us from something as if He feared it. What we now think of as childlike acceptance and unquestioning obedience (i.e. as negative and inhibitive) may simply have been living as we were intended to live (i.e. true freedom; Psalm 116:16)- within the fulness of our being and in a natural relationship with our Creator. Man's freedom consisted of having control over his thoughts and actions, and in having God as his Lord and master: a limitless resource in a limited world.

Or to put it in other words: as three-dimensional beings we would be trapped (fatally) in only two dimentions, experience freedom in four dimensions, and simply exist in three. This is why it makes sense to consider time a dimension.

(Regarding multi-dimensionality in physics: String Theory: Symmetry in Multiple Dimensions.)

 

[Jenyar]

Noone is making that argument here.

If something were obvious, if something indeed were what we conceive it to be -- then ALL people would think the same way about it. But they don't. How come that not all people think the same way about things? Who is right?

You are making the argument right here: "then ALL people would think the same way about it" is an argument from majority (by asking whether people who don't see "the obvious" are stupid, you implicitly left open the alternative - that it doesn't exist - as the more reasonable one). Either way, it's an assumption that isn't supported by observation.

Are all things obvious to all people from the beginning on. Why didn't people believe the earth was round from day one? Like LightEagle said: perspective, not perception. Perspective is the big picture, perception is the individual one. And a majority of people might not have the perspective of a small number of people.

What perspective? There are in roundabout as many perspectives as there are people in this universe.

What we have are conceptions, or world-views, or philosophies, or theories. We conceive ourselves and the world in certain ways. And then, according to these conceptions, our perceptions of the world and ourselves are bent. And then we act on these bent perceptions ...

The question of "what perspective?" or "who is to say" is the beginning of enquiry, not the end of it.

Are these perspectives and conceptions purely arbitrary? Someone who believes in God and a structured (created) universe holds that all perspectives converge at the same point. The proximity and path to that point is called "truth". Scientists believe in this point implicitly.

While we bend to our perceptions, our perceptions also bend to perspectives, and perspectives can be modified by experience and study. Many people do have many perspectives, but just as many people share certain perspectives. One may either believe that nature and reality itself guides us, or that all is illusion (averse to empirical observation and reason, which implies that the observer himself has the only truth to be found).

 

[Adstar]

If God created the universe to use as a paperweight, it's difficult to imagine God and Satan fighting over it.

What if the universe is so small and insignificant to 'God' let alone each individual lifeform in the universe.

They are not contending over the universe. God is using the universe to demonstrate satan as unworthy of a position equal of God. satan is doing his best to use the universe to demonstrate that Gods exclusive position as God is unjustified.

Of course God before he made the universe knew He had won the argument.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[KennyJC]

They are not contending over the universe. God is using the universe to demonstrate satan as unworthy of a position equal of God. satan is doing his best to use the universe to demonstrate that Gods exclusive position as God is unjustified.

Of course God before he made the universe knew He had won the argument.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

All that over a paperweight? Wow.

I will never look at office fights over use of the company stapler again...

 

[LightEagle]

I would like to start by thanking Jenyar for putting into words which I have struggled to do.

God has and does intervene. His foreknowledge is in relation to peoples reaction to His intervention and the action of the adversary satan. There is a set outcome that is known.

God does intervene, I agree, but He does not determine outcomes, otherwise Adam would have remained sinless, although He could if He should so choose.

Long story short, you do not have to think that you have free will. But if you think that you don't have free will, you will continue acting as if you don't have it.

Precisely! In other words one has the power to choose whether one wants to take possesssion of one's free will or not.

Trying to cenceive a theory where it will say "If God is so and so, then I have free will. If God is not so and so, then I don't have free will" is rather pointless, in my opinon, as this way, one is eventually asking another about one's existence in order to prove one's own existence.

I agree with you, however, although free will is subject to our view of God it still exists independently from that view. It's once again the perspective -perception thing. For example, someone may have been abused by their parents. He/she gets into a relationship and they get into an argument. The person who was abused may percieve that the other person does not love them, but that is not true, it is his/her perception. If, on the other hand he/she goes for councelling and is healed from the pain and the couple gets into an argument again, he/she will know that the other person does not hate them, but loves them and just differs on the point of discussion. This is because he/she has gained perspective. The truth exists independently of our perceptions and concieved theories, but it is our perceptions that are real to us almost independently of the truth. Its got nothing to do with proving or disproving our existence. The sun shines on the other side of the rainclouds whether we percieve it or not.

That is, asking someone else "Tell me, do I exist?" or "Tell me, do I have free will?" is pointless, as accepting their answers (whatever they are) supposes that we already believe that we exist or have free will. So why ask them ...

The question is only relevant if no free will and no absolute truth exists, because then one will never find it. Others can only act as advisors, but the truth can be discovered if you are honest with yourself.

 

[Cris]

Lighteagle,

Aren't predetermination and forknowledge different?

Indeed they are. Predetermination is the active intervention to determine a set outcome. Forknowledge implies no intervention or, rather, no set outcome.

Unless you are the creator of the universe where the two unavoidably coincide.

If you argue that the creator didn’t intend the outcome, then you must explain how something allegedly perfect and can make no mistakes created something it didn’t want? You cannot, it is a paradox. Your only conclusion is that at the instant of creation with full omniscient power, i.e. knowledge of everything that was about to happen, was indeed exactly what it intended to happen – and that means everything was pre-determined.

The other problem comes from the concept of foreknowledge. Even if the holder of the foreknowledge didn’t cause the predetermination then who did? This doesn’t alter the issue that predetermination must be present if knowledge exists before the event occurs. If knowledge exists before the event then the event has no choice but to occur. The players can have no say in the matter, i.e. free will cannot exist.

 

[Cris]

Adstar,

God has and does intervene. His foreknowledge is in relation to peoples reaction to His intervention and the action of the adversary satan. There is a set outcome that is known.

If there is such a set outcome then you are agreeing that everything is indeed pre-determined, correct?

 

[Jenyar]

Cris,

Do you think that a set outcome necessitates a specific path towards that outcome? Do you suppose God can know only one probable path, and not all probabilities?

I think what we are experiencing as freedom is one probability. The other probability is that we aren't free, but it's not the one we find ourselves in. We find ourselves making decisions, and not knowing the eventual outcome. We find ourselves without knowledge of a fate that was predetermined, even though we can imagine such knowledge.

The problem we have is imagining God's "choices". At best we can project our current situation onto God - a process otherwise known as blame-fixing. "He should have known" is another way of saying "I shouldn't have to decide". But God gave us responsibility, whether we like it or not, and a life to exercize it in. With Him, the consequences are fixed, and without Him the consequences are fixed: He knows both outcomes. What's more: He tells us what the outcomes will be.

But in the meantime, it is obvious that someone can reject the notion that God knows, and even that God exists, and he is then left with all options and no options - relativitism; all an equal "chance" - which he may call freedom. Even though the outcome is determined. Even if you don't believe in God, death is a determined outcome. Does it inhibit your freedom? Some find the thought stifling, others find security in it. Like water said, "free will" isn't the real problem: what we believe about freedom matters less than our ability to come to terms with limitation.

 

[LightEagle]

If you argue that the creator didn’t intend the outcome, then you must explain how something allegedly perfect and can make no mistakes created something it didn’t want? You cannot, it is a paradox. Your only conclusion is that at the instant of creation with full omniscient power, i.e. knowledge of everything that was about to happen, was indeed exactly what it intended to happen – and that means everything was pre-determined.

Your logic can follow a different path if you bring free will into the picture. In the begining all was good. It is stated many times in the first chapter of Genesis. The first humans, however, had a choice because God loved them. Choice cannot exist alongside predeterminism even if the outcome is/was foreknew.

The other problem comes from the concept of foreknowledge. Even if the holder of the foreknowledge didn’t cause the predetermination then who did?

Why does something HAVE to be predetermined? Predetermination is not a Divine prerequisite even with the possession omniscience and omnipotence. The choosers who made bad choices caused the Fall in Genesis.

If knowledge exists before the event then the event has no choice but to occur. The players can have no say in the matter, i.e. free will cannot exist.

What if the choice is not known, but the all the possibilities? Then the SPECIFIC outcome is not known, but all the possibilities the chooser has at his/her disposal is.

 

[Jenyar]

I think that the nature of our methods of "reasons to belief", being inductive, suggest that "free will" is consequential. Where deduction tends to yield logical consequences, the results of induction have no basis in reality but are the results of aesthetic (or filter) judgements. Perhaps chaos also plays a role in "free will".

You may find this article interesting: Quantum-Based Proposals on Divine Action (and Criticisms of Quantum-Based Proposals on Divine Action.) An interesting question that emerges from a quantum-based perspective is whether God collapses the wave function (indeterminacy). When God finally measures (judges) our lives, all indeterminacy disappears.

 

[Adstar]

Originally Posted by Adstar
God has and does intervene. His foreknowledge is in relation to peoples reaction to His intervention and the action of the adversary satan. There is a set outcome that is known.


God does intervene, I agree, but He does not determine outcomes, otherwise Adam would have remained sinless, although He could if He should so choose.

I did not say God determines our reaction to Him, we have free will. What I said was God already knows from His foreknowledge what our reaction is going to be. There is a big difference.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days