A Paradox of Omniscience and Free Will

[LightEagle]

In your example of a computer program, if the programmer writes a random outcome for one of the variables, the programmer has just implemented a crude form of free will. You could still say the programmer is omniscient--the programmer still has knowledge of all variables, possible outcomes, strengths, weaknesses, how the program works, and so on.

I would like to build on this by linking the above to Jenyar's last post in this thread. If the Programmer built a random component into His program for one of the variables and knew the outcome, there would be free will as well as omniscience. The programmer did not decide the outcome, or path, the random component would take, He only foreknew the outcome.

An omniscient designer is in the same position. It controls and defines all the variables and hence must know every outcome before they occur. In such a scenario we can have no say in the matter - i.e. free will cannot exist.

How do you come to this conclusion? What is your reference frame? You are using assumptions such as "It controls and defines all variables", but what do you base this assumption on? Foreknowledge and predeterminism are two completely different concepts which do not necessarily have to coincide, as illustrated by the above hypothetical example.

 

[Cris]

Phoenix,

In your example of a computer program, if the programmer writes a random outcome for one of the variables, the programmer has just implemented a crude form of free will. You could still say the programmer is omniscient--the programmer still has knowledge of all variables, possible outcomes, strengths, weaknesses, how the program works, and so on.

Any analogy taken too far and especially when not within the spirit of the context will break down. However, true randomness within a computer doesn’t exist. What might appear random is better known as pseudo random, an algorithm that generates a sequence which repeats. If one knows the algorithm and the starting seed then the sequence is knowable. Again an omnipotent and omniscient creator would know all variables and everything would therefore be predetermined.

It seems as though the paradox exists because of an overreaching definition of omniscience is being used. Aren't knowledge and foreknowledge seperate and distinct terms? Isn't an omniscient being one who has a knowledge (not foreknowledge) of all things?

The two terms are separate to us because we exist within a chronological sequence and where knowledge and foreknowledge are separated by a point in time. To an omniscient being that is simultaneously aware of every point in time there can be no distinction between knowledge and foreknowledge, everything will be knowledge.

 

[Cris]

Lighteagle,

First see my response to Pheonix.

Secondly - by definition if you are omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything then every detail of every variable will be known to you.

 

[Jenyar]

Secondly - by definition if you are omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything then every detail of every variable will be known to you.

Which is exactly what I said. God knows all the variables, but He doesn't also decide which ones we choose. It is left for you to explain why you don't think there's a difference between a creation (or "seed") generating variables and carrying them out, and God generating them for us, just because He knows the algorithm and we don't.

 

[KennyJC]

In your example of a computer program, if the programmer writes a random outcome for one of the variables, the programmer has just implemented a crude form of free will. You could still say the programmer is omniscient--the programmer still has knowledge of all variables, possible outcomes, strengths, weaknesses, how the program works, and so on.

Pacman. The ghosts in pacman follow all the rules that the programmer (God) set it, but yet the programmer still doesn't know if it's going to go right or left will he? Therefor the programmer does not have omniscience because he simply does not know.

If God does not know what I'm about to type before I type it, then he does not have omniscience. It is as simple as that, I feel.

 

[Jenyar]

Pacman. The ghosts in pacman follow all the rules that the programmer (God) set it, but yet the programmer still doesn't know if it's going to go right or left will he? Therefor the programmer does not have omniscience because he simply does not know.

If God does not know what I'm about to type before I type it, then he does not have omniscience. It is as simple as that, I feel.

There's nothing to know until you have decided; the programmer knows the effects of every decision you can and do make.

 

[KennyJC]

Yet he does not know what the Ghost will choose. So the Ghost has some basic form of free will (as much as is possible in the game/creation) but the creator does not have omniscience because he does not know everything.

I have further thoughts on this but I will have to wait till I get home to explain...

Edit: Even in the pacman analogy, the game when running has to obey the laws of time, so even the programmer can not foresee what the Ghost will do. Since 'God' created time, I would imagine he has complete control over it and time does not tick past for him in the same way it does for us. So things should have already happened. No? The moment of creation (if time is not relevant to God) would also be the end of time (if there is an end).

 

[Jenyar]

Yet he does not know what the Ghost will choose. So the Ghost has some basic form of free will (as much as is possible in the game/creation) but the creator does not have omniscience because he does not know everything.

I have further thoughts on this but I will have to wait till I get home to explain...

Omniscience doesn't apply to something that doesn't exist to be known. Complete lack of information is nothingness; Omniscience only says that whatever there is to know, God knows - not that He knows the contents of a vacuum. You'd like believers to defend a philosophical construct that makes no logical sense (a vacuum that isn't a vacuum; lack of information is information), and on the basis of that wish to show that God makes no logical sense. You project the weakness of your philosophical construct as the weakness of God. This subtle substitution of a working definition (like of omniscience) with an illogical definition is called "equivocation". It feels quite satisfying on the surface, but it actually means nothing.

I look forward to your thoughts. Here are some of mine in the meantime:

Before the Ghost has worked through the process that allows it to turn left or right, there is nothing to be known except the process itself. There is no outcome until an outcome has been determined, either by the programmer himself, or by the Ghost's own limited logarithms. The programmer knows all the alternatives and all he variables that influences the Ghost, and it only knows what it has been given and is able to process. The programmer knows where the walls are, and where the maze leads, so whether the Ghost turns left or right makes little difference to him; the Ghost's freedom does not prevent the programmer from knowing the consequence and inner workings of either decision. It has been programmed with the ability to make limited decisions within its own world, not with the actual decisions themselves.

But until a decision has become a reality - even at subatomic level - there is simply nothing to know, and God's omniscience isn't challenged by the apparent "gap" between what is known and what is theoretically possible. Such a "gap" does not exist in reality, it exists only in theory; in our imaginations, like the flying purple Ghost and Pacman. If you ask me what God knows about the original Pacman, the answer must be: only what Toru Iwatani knows about him - because Iwatani invented him.

We can't observe potential and actuality simultaneously (Schrödinger's quantum indeterminacy) or understand the system we live in using the variables inherent in it (Gödel's incompleteness), but God can. The moment God has observed something, that line of events or "thread" is real, and can be followed through to its natural end. But such threads might still not add up to completed decisions, although as a "potential decision" they might become fulfilled if God applies some force to it (like He did with Pharoah's heart, and it "hardened"). I imagine something like the "psychohistory" Asimov described in the Foundation series. This might be where Cris gets stuck. There would have been no choice if God did not allow us any, if He fixed all variables once He observed them, and didn't tell us about them or provide diversions from them. One day God will pull all the loose threads together and finalize all options, forever. For some, this lack of options will be hell, and for others, heaven. But until then, we have the ability to interact with His knowledge, to learn from Him, and make choices that the system allows and God provides for, knowing that God knows our hearts: the seed of every algorithm there is.

 

[Nisus]

Which is exactly what I said. God knows all the variables, but He doesn't also decide which ones we choose.

For real, why can't Kenny / Cris grasp this?

Finite minds unraveling the mysteries of the Infinite God.

Omniscience nullifies your free will only because you've been telling yourself that for the last 29384723987 times you've talked about this. Congratulations on seering your mind closed to possibility.

Since there is no proof for your guys' BS idea, and only proof that we're free, and plenty of knowledge resides in this sphere without nullifying our agency-- it's safe to deduce on all hands that you're wrong.

 

[Jenyar]

Edit: Even in the pacman analogy, the game when running has to obey the laws of time, so even the programmer can not foresee what the Ghost will do. Since 'God' created time, I would imagine he has complete control over it and time does not tick past for him in the same way it does for us. So things should have already happened. No? The moment of creation (if time is not relevant to God) would also be the end of time (if there is an end).

God created the laws of time, and is outside it, yes. God certainly knows and uses it (like when He created the universe with and within a certain timeframe, "six days"). Time is the little antfarm we live in, the dimension that allows us to distinguish one event from another, to turn left or right in time (pun intended). What we consider "foresee", God only "sees". God sees the whole creation from beginning to end (He is called the "alpha and omega", and the "I am" - eternal present tense - after all). God will put an end to time, which is why He warns us to be ready for "the last day". Our chance and ability to act in time is what we call "grace" (2 Pet. 3:9).

 

[Cris]

Jenyar, Nisus,

Which is exactly what I said. God knows all the variables, but He doesn't also decide which ones we choose.

Nope. You missed out a key component of my statement – “omnipotent, omniscient and the creator”. If it created everything then it created all the variables and set them in motion. Read back in the thread on the discussion of cause and effect. It knows what’s going to happen in perfect detail because it created and designed the initial conditions.

And since it can see the ultimate result at the end of time presumably that and everything in between was what it wanted, otherwise it would have done something else, right? I.e. everything was predetermined at the instant of creation.

It is left for you to explain why you don't think there's a difference between a creation (or "seed") generating variables and carrying them out, and God generating them for us, just because He knows the algorithm and we don't.

Cause and effect. See above.

And I’ll repeat again - From our perspective if the knowledge of what we are going to do existed at the beginning of time then our actions will necessarily be predetermined.

 

[water]

For real, why can't Kenny / Cris grasp this?

Because it is not that which is manifested in words that is truly being discussed, here.
Some people have beforehand decided what they will accept and what not. When one pursues an agenda different from what is verbally manifest, a constant clash is bound to happen.

Some atheists could simply say, "I don't believe in God, and no matter what, I will not believe in God" -- and then stick to this. This would make communication very easy, as there'd be no debate about God, no challenges that one be proven wrong or to prove someone else wrong.
Yet, something drives these men and women to argue, endlessly, while fully knowing they won't back away. It's a fist fight, a power struggle. I think they had done better using sticks and stones, rather than those endless, indirect arguments.

 

[water]

Nope. You missed out a key component of my statement – “omnipotent, omniscient and the creator”. If it created everything then it created all the variables and set them in motion. Read back in the thread on the discussion of cause and effect. It knows what’s going to happen in perfect detail because it created and designed the initial conditions.

And since it can see the ultimate result at the end of time presumably that and everything in between was what it wanted, otherwise it would have done something else, right? I.e. everything was predetermined at the instant of creation.

Cause and effect. See above.

And I’ll repeat again - From our perspective if the knowledge of what we are going to do existed at the beginning of time then our actions will necessarily be predetermined.

God, who is omnipotent, can create a free being.

This is the basic premise you must understand. It's an axiom. Accept it, or the whole discussion on omnipotence vs. free will is pointless.

 

[Cris]

Nisus,

Finite minds unraveling the mysteries of the Infinite God.

Not quite. It’s a discussion about a baseless fantasy that can change at your whim.

Congratulations on seering your mind closed to possibility.

It remains a fantasy. You haven’t demonstrated that omniscience is possible or that gods are possible.

Since there is no proof for your guys' BS idea,

You are talking to Christians right about their ideas on omniscience and gods, right, since your statement appears to apply precisely.

and only proof that we're free,

Well no there is no proof that we are truly free. Even without gods and a creator the concept of determinism still remains an issue. If everything is the result of cause and effect then our actions may still be the result of a long line of preceding events.

and plenty of knowledge resides in this sphere without nullifying our agency

I have no idea what that statement means.

-- it's safe to deduce on all hands that you're wrong.

Dream on – you have not moved the issue of the paradox along one iota.

 

[Cris]

water,

God, who is omnipotent, can create a free being.

This is the basic premise you must understand. It's an axiom. Accept it, or the whole discussion on omnipotence vs. free will is pointless.

But an omniscient creator cannot - hence the paradox. The issue was not about omnipotence.

 

[Cris]

water,

Yet, something drives these men and women to argue, endlessly, while fully knowing they won't back away. It's a fist fight, a power struggle. I think they had done better using sticks and stones, rather than those endless, indirect arguments.

It takes two sides for an argument. Your comments, even if they had any value, would apply to theists as well. Remember theists started the issue by asserting fantasies are real.

 

[water]

It remains a fantasy. You haven’t demonstrated that omniscience is possible or that gods are possible.

How could a non-omniscient being demonstrate omniscience?
It's nonsensical to demand a non-omniscient being to demonstrate omniscience.

Well no there is no proof that we are truly free.

Think: Can there even exist a proof of freedom?

As soon as you have *proven* something, you've shown it to be regular in some way, and thus determined.
"Proof of freedom" is a contradiction in terms.

If everything is the result of cause and effect then our actions may still be the result of a long line of preceding events.

Yes, very much so.
The thing is that causal relations are not something we could have full insight into. The best we can do is to get a statistical maximum which will always be less than 100% -- so we still remain uncertain.

But consider this: God created free beings, and only from then on, they come under the rules of cause and effect.

 

[water]

“ God, who is omnipotent, can create a free being.

This is the basic premise you must understand. It's an axiom. Accept it, or the whole discussion on omnipotence vs. free will is pointless.

But an omniscient creator cannot - hence the paradox. The issue was not about omnipotence.

God's omniscience does not affect the being's freedom.

Omniscient does not mean all-intervening.

This, and it seems to me that the definition of freedom you are operating with implies that freedom could exist only in a world where things don't work by the principle of cause and effect.

However, it must not be that freedom and the principle of cause and effect operate on the same level, or that they address the same thing. We *can* choose.

But if you open up the issue that the way we choose is also predetermined, then I'd say that from there on, it's all a matter of identity and how identity exists.

 

[water]

It takes two sides for an argument.

Yes.

Your comments, even if they had any value, would apply to theists as well. Remember theists started the issue by asserting fantasies are real.

They don't think what they are asserting are fantasies.

 

[KennyJC]

For real, why can't Kenny / Cris grasp this?

Finite minds unraveling the mysteries of the Infinite God.

Omniscience nullifies your free will only because you've been telling yourself that for the last 29384723987 times you've talked about this. Congratulations on seering your mind closed to possibility.

Since there is no proof for your guys' BS idea, and only proof that we're free, and plenty of knowledge resides in this sphere without nullifying our agency-- it's safe to deduce on all hands that you're wrong.

I actually agree with a lot of what you said about not knowing God and how God works. And it is a convincing argument which could be turned around on religious people who in my view most certainly have a closed mind as they already knows how God works apparently.

But I actually think the question of 'free will' is actually something which could debated to the point were we can have a best guess scenario. My best guess is if there is an intelligent creator then we as life forms have no say in what we do. It was going to happen anyway from moment zip. But I'm open to the possability that we could have free will along with an intelligent designer, I just don't think it is the case.