God's foreknowledge and free will

elopez said:

Not so fast. I chose this example for a reason. While you may have never are tacos because it is taco tuesday and they're half off, doesn't mean the event isn't influenced by past factors.

Click to expand...

Ugh. I never said it was completely independent of past factors. I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Either you keep forgetting what I've already said or you don't understand it.

Consider a list of factors, F = f1, f2, ... fn. If the factors have been used to make a decision, we will further denote them as f1p, f2p, ... fnp.

Consider a decision making function D(F).
Consider actions t = eating tacos, and b = looking at baseball cards.

My Dad took me to eat tacos after playing golf: D(f1) = t. I discover I like the taste of tacos and I had fun. Those become factors in future decisions, f2, f3.
My Dad asks if I would like to play golf and eat tacos afterward: D(f1p, f2, f3) = t.

I hang out with my friends and we look at some baseball cards: D(f4) = b. I discover I like baseball cards = factor f5.
My Dad gives me an allowance of $2, and explains baseball card costs $2: D(f5, f6) = b.
I see a sale where baseball cards are only $1, and realize I can get more: D(f5p, f6p, f7) = 2b.

I hear about Taco Tuesdays, where tacos are 1/2 price. My dad is not available to play golf and eat tacos: D(f2p, f7p) = 2t.

So, past factors are showing up all over the place, but arranging them in different combinations creates all kinds of new things.

Lest we lose context...My discussion started with your...
I am only addressing your claim of Mathematical Randomness

Resha Caner said:

...if I study the characteristics of the noise, I can subtract it out and make a very good estimate of the signal within a prescribed confidence band. Engineers do it all the time.

I just mixed something determined with something random.

Click to expand...

No.

You determined the characteristics of the noise compared to the characteristics of the signal. You then unmixed those parts that had the characteristics of the noise from those parts that had the characteristics of the signal.

This nothing to do with the subject matter.

Resha Caner said:

I'm curious what your background is.

Click to expand...

Computer Science.

Resha Caner said:

If I study a system and find it fits a specific distribution, then there are things I can predict about that system. So, we'll stick with a uniform distribution of 1s and 0s, and use strings of length 10 (Though 10 is typically too small for a statistically significant sample, I chose it to keep things simple). What I can predict is that I will typically see strings with five 1s and five 0s - I just don't know the order. So, I might get:
1010101010
1100110001
1011001001
and those fit my prediction. Or, I might occasionally get:
1010101011
which is close to my prediction (within a confidence band). But, if I get:
1111111110
I need to revisit my assumption that the system exhibits a uniform distribution.

Click to expand...

All you have done is agree that in a large string of randomly generated binary digits there should be uniform distribution. If it's not uniform, it's probably not random.

Resha Caner said:

So, again, I was not speaking of predicting specific instances. Probability doesn't do that. I was speaking of predicting the statistical character of future strings. In that sense, I can predict certain aspects of the future - even for random systems.

Click to expand...

In your random strings, those with a uniform distribution...
1010101010
1100110001
1011001001
... you cannot predict the next binary digit.

In your non-random string, 1111111110, you can predict, with a relatively high level of confidence, that the next binary digit will be a 1.

You continue to prove my point and refute your own claims.

"Predicting the statistical character of future strings" can only be done if the past strings are not random.
"Predict certain aspects of the future - even for random systems". OK. But here you are not talking about things like weather, not Mathematical Randomness.

Resha Caner said:

Do you have a source for this definition? It's OK, but I see some problems with it. And what would you call a system that fits a normal distribution?

Click to expand...

I typed... what is a random number ...into google.

ecco said:

Computer Science.

Click to expand...

Any statistics classes in there?

ecco said:

I typed... what is a random number ...into google.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to make dogmatic assertions. Otherwise this is going nowhere, because your comments seem overly argumentative. If that's the level we're starting from, you might want to read this wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable

And chase some of the links that discuss probability distributions.

Then get back to me.

Resha Caner said:

You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to make dogmatic assertions. Otherwise this is going nowhere, because your comments seem overly argumentative.

Click to expand...

I see you have gone from trying to defend your ideas to accusing me of being overly argumentative.

Perhaps I should just have said "Ohhh, you are sooo right"?

ecco said:

Perhaps I should just have said "Ohhh, you are sooo right"?

Click to expand...

I don't care one way or the other.

But if you want to discuss it with me you'll need to 1) answer the questions you missed, 2) clarify instances where it appears you confirm some of my statements while calling them mistakes, and 3) establish your objections - whether they are opinion or mathematical.

As it stands, it's just a fractally confused exchange.

Resha Caner said:

I never said it was completely independent of past factors.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yet you won't go all the way to say it's a determined event.

Resha Caner said:

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Either you keep forgetting what I've already said or you don't understand it.

Click to expand...

IDK. Maybe it's because you won't go as far as saying it's a determined event. Only some things are. Yet I really see no relevant difference between this and a determined event. There are past factors that result in future events.

Resha Caner said:

So, past factors are showing up all over the place, but arranging them in different combinations creates all kinds of new things.

Click to expand...

I still see this as determinism. Of course past factors are going to create new events; the past events cannot be replicated. Some people theorize tacos took a great deal of origin in indigenous people living in the lake region of the Valley of Mexico, probably filling them with fish. That event is said and done, and is a past factor relevant to all sorts of new events that will take place in the future (you eating tacos on Tuesday).

Also, those combinations would eventually run dry, and you would come to find yourself eating Tacos on the following Tuesday, and any other Tuesday after that.

elopez said:

Yeah, yet you won't go all the way to say it's a determined event.

Click to expand...

That's correct. I won't. So let me ask you this: Do you believe randomness occurs?

Resha Caner said:

Do you believe randomness occurs?

Click to expand...

In the sense that you defined it, on the microscopic scale according to QM, sure.

elopez said:

In the sense that you defined it, on the microscopic scale according to QM, sure.

Click to expand...

That was only one example. So do you mean you believe that on larger scales there is no randomness?

Resha Caner said:

That was only one example. So do you mean you believe that on larger scales there is no randomness?

Click to expand...

I thought you were saying that sense of randomness is true over the others.

IDK. To me the uses of the terms 'random' are just epistemic, and relate to how much information we have. People say a coin toss is random yet if I were to know the force, its mass, etc., it may be possible to provide a certain answer about how it will fall.

elopez said:

IDK. To me the uses of the terms 'random' are just epistemic, and relate to how much information we have. People say a coin toss is random yet if I were to know the force, its mass, etc., it may be possible to provide a certain answer about how it will fall.

Click to expand...

That is one use of the term. Though you didn't give a yes/no answer, I wonder if this might be the root of our differences.

Resha Caner said:

That is one use of the term. Though you didn't give a yes/no answer, I wonder if this might be the root of our differences.

Click to expand...

Like I said I have no idea for sure, as in I cannot committ myself to a yes or no. Your definition of randomness that we have been talking about is on the microscopic scale. I also said randomness occurs on the macro scale in reference to superconductivity.

elopez said:

Like I said I have no idea for sure, as in I cannot committ myself to a yes or no.

Click to expand...

And I can't prove true randomness exists. Though there seems to be much evidence that it does, there always lingers the possibility of some determining factor beyond our ability to detect it. So I must assume randomness exists. That doesn't bother me too much. It's not an absurd assumption; I'm not the only one who makes it; and everyone assumes something.

Locutus said:

No, it's not illogical. If you know a certain outcome, then that outcome must happen. Otherwise how could you know the outcome? Unless you can choose something your god isn't expecting (thereby rendering the god considerably less than all knowing and all powerful), you have only the appearance of free will.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Knowing an outcome does not mean it MUST happen, merely that it does happen.

AgentSmith said:

I disagree. Knowing an outcome does not mean it MUST happen, merely that it does happen.

Click to expand...

There is no way to meld the two concepts of us stuck in time, and God outside of time.

Job8 said:

Why should God's foreknowledge raise any question about "being in control"? "Being in control" is a false concept of God's sovereignty. Had God planned to "be in control" of every circumstance and situation, He would not have created anything that can make choices and decisions. All you would have is the vegetable kingdom.

Click to expand...

Did your god plan everything that would ever happen?

AgentSmith said:

I disagree. Knowing an outcome does not mean it MUST happen, merely that it does happen.

Click to expand...

So can you choose to do something god isn't expecting?

Locutus said:

So can you choose to do something god isn't expecting?

Click to expand...

No, God will expect whatever it is you choose.

AgentSmith said:

No, God will expect whatever it is you choose.

Click to expand...

Which means there is only the appearance of free will. True free will would be an ability to choose something the god isn't expecting. You simply can't have an Omni-everything god (especially one who planned everything that would ever happen) and free will. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

The church really needs to think about dispensing with one or the other. Either admit there is only an appearance of free will under such a god, or admit that the god isn't Omni-everything.

Locutus said:

Which means there is only the appearance of free will. True free will would be an ability to choose something the god isn't expecting. You simply can't have an Omni-everything god (especially one who planned everything that would ever happen) and free will. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Click to expand...

So true free will requires the ability to instantiate logical contradictions? That's an interesting viewpoint.