Free Will

[DailyBlessings]

Yes there is something preventing me from picking up ye flask. The fact that god infallibly knows that I'm going to get stabbed in the face. Free will states that given options A, B, and C I can pick freely between any of them. But my options are really only limited to one, the one that an infallible god knows is going to happen.
To say I can pick from the others would cause a contradiction of god's infallible nature.

That just doesn't logically follow. The fact that God knows what I will choose in no way suggests that I have no choice. You could pick option B, even though God is aware that you will choose A. There is nothing preventing you from choosing B, it's just that you prefer A for whatever reason, and God knows this.

 

[Dylock]

That just doesn't logically follow. The fact that God knows what I will choose in no way suggests that I have no choice. You could pick option B, even though God is aware that you will choose A. There is nothing preventing you from choosing B, it's just that you prefer A for whatever reason, and God knows this.

If I'm going to always pick A for whatever reason then how could i ever have picked B.

I'll use an example.

We are in a room with 3 doors. A, B, and C

I'm god. I am a omnipotent, omnipresent being and infallible. I know that Timmy is going to open door A at time t. Timmy walks into the room and sees three doors. Now according to free will Timmy can go through any of those doors. But ultimately Timmy can ONLY go through door A because of my infallibility. Timmy can pull on door B and C all he wants, but there is no way he is going to open it, because I know he will choose door A. In that sense Timmy could never have chosen door B or C

 

[Asimov]

If God is all knowing and is not bound by time (his creation)

Logical impossibility. Everything that exists has to be temporal.

 

[Tenka]

Is it really so hard to do? Imagine we are a complex biological computer dealing with innumerable experiences reacting to them according to biology and previous learning all the while developing further. Freewill just seems like a completely unnecessary addition, can you even explain how it works? or how to evidence it?

How does this complex biological computer make decisions? What is the process? When you're done with that, explain the difference between statistical randomness, cryptographically secure randomness, and true randomness, and how that pertains to the decision-making process.

Clearly I don't know, so now what?
Magic?

 

[Aradia]

Is it really so hard to do? Imagine we are a complex biological computer dealing with innumerable experiences reacting to them according to biology and previous learning all the while developing further. Freewill just seems like a completely unnecessary addition, can you even explain how it works? or how to evidence it?

How does this complex biological computer make decisions? What is the process? When you're done with that, explain the difference between statistical randomness, cryptographically secure randomness, and true randomness, and how that pertains to the decision-making process.

Clearly I don't know, so now what?
Magic?

So let's see if I understand you correctly. You seem to be implying through each of your posts that our decisions are entirely predetermined, based on all past events. Yet when directly questioned about the process by which decisions are made, you give no answer. When directly questioned about randomness, you give no answer. Furthermore, you ask for evidence supporting free will. This seems to demonstrate that you lack evidence for free will, and you lack evidence for determinism. Lacking any evidence for one or the other, how can you argue for or against one or the other?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Logical impossibility. Everything that exists has to be temporal.

How is that a logical impossibility?

 

[Asimov]

How is that a logical impossibility?

No being exists exclusive from a temporal atmosphere. It's entirely impossible for God to act and be outside of time. The very notion of action necessitates time.

 

[DailyBlessings]

No being exists exclusive from a temporal atmosphere.

Unless God does... and what, pray tell, is a "temporal atmosphere"? It doesn't sound like any explanation for time that I have heard of.

It's entirely impossible for God to act and be outside of time. The very notion of action necessitates time.

I can see how action might require a notion of time (though not necessarily unilinear time) but existence doesn't seem to need the same requirement. However, this is tangential to the OP.

 

[Asimov]

Unless God does... and what, pray tell, is a "temporal atmosphere"? It doesn't sound like any explanation for time that I have heard of.

You can't just conclude that it is possible for something to exist and be outside of time because you believe that God exists outside of time.

temporal - pertaining to time.
atmosphere - a surrounding or pervading mood, environment, or influence.

I can see how action might require a notion of time (though not necessarily unilinear time) but existence doesn't seem to need the same requirement. However, this is tangential to the OP.

Time is the measure between events. An action is an event.

It is not tangential to the OP. It explicitly stated that if God is all-knowing and outside of time then "...he knows the outcome of all events past, present, and future.

 

[Aradia]

You can't just conclude that it is possible for something to exist and be outside of time because you believe that God exists outside of time.

temporal - pertaining to time.
atmosphere - a surrounding or pervading mood, environment, or influence.



Time is the measure between events. An action is an event.

It is not tangential to the OP. It explicitly stated that if God is all-knowing and outside of time then "...he knows the outcome of all events past, present, and future.

Technically, if god is outside of our universe, he is also outside of time, since time is inextricably linked to our universe. The argument really should focus on what it means to be outside of time.

 

[DailyBlessings]

It is not tangential to the OP. It explicitly stated that if God is all-knowing and outside of time then "...he knows the outcome of all events past, present, and future.

Very well then.

You can't just conclude that it is possible for something to exist and be outside of time because you believe that God exists outside of time.

No, but I don't see existence "outside of time" (terrible metaphor btw, as time is not a place one can be in or out of) as being a problem in the first place, so I don't necessarily feel any need to prove the possibility of it on God's behalf. I realise we could go around all day talking about on whom the burden of proof lies, but you have incorrectly characterized my position. I'm not making an exception for God, because my world view makes such an exception unnecessary to begin with.

temporal - pertaining to time.
atmosphere - a surrounding or pervading mood, environment, or influence.

Which of those do you see time as being? a mood, an environment, or an influence? Do you see time as a powerful substance, as would be necessary for it to "influence" something or make up an environment? I would consider time to be largely a matter of perception. It is not, in fact, an all-pervasive physical constant of some sort, since how you perceive time largely depends on where you stand, or rather, how fast you are moving. We perceive time as unilineal and possessing "directionality" because that is how our minds understand the occurrence of events. But time, as we are discussing it, is not an entity with an existence in and of itself- it is merely a cognitive construct formed in response to a given set of natural conditions.

God, occupying a very different position of existence than we, does not necessarily see time in the same sense, nor is there any particular, reason why she ought to. To take the classic "Flatland" example, if we were to examine a world of two dimensional creatures, no doubt we would perceive their existence very differently than we. We, existing in three, naturally have a difficult time perceiving the fourth and other dimensions, though we can describe them mathematically. God, if God exists, is free from the constraints of perception that we are bound to, and time is thus an irrelevant question to God.

 

[Hnefi]

Oh goodie. Another free will discussion.

Ultimately, the realization of whether free will exists or not does not come from arguments that we are machines or God's omnipotence. It comes from the realization that the very concept of free will is incoherent. Free will does not exist for the same reason that four-sided triangles don't - the definition is a contradiction of terms.

Let me demonstrate. There are two types of systems that we know can theoretically exist - random systems and deterministic systems. There may be more - I'll get to that later.

In a completely random system, effects do not depend on any prior cause. This makes things that happen in a random system "free" in the sense that it's impossible to tell what will happen in the future, but all basis for order and rationality are obviously missing in such a system. Obviously, neither our universe or our minds are completely random for this very reason.

In a completely deterministic system, all effects depend fully on prior causes. This means that, given perfect knowledge of the system, one can perfectly predict the behaviour of that system. Given partial knowledge of the system, one can approximate the future behaviour of that system. The approximation will improve with the available information. This fits rather well with both our universe and our selves, although scientists tell us that there are some things that seem to not be deterministic. In any event, we can approximate the behaviour of those around us, and we get better at it the better we know the people around us. Obviously, a deterministic system can be rational, but it is certainly not free.

There is a third option. A system that is partially deterministic and partially random. Computer based decision making systems are typically constructed according to this model (although the randomness is not true randomness, but that has no relevance here). Such a system can be very similar to a deterministic system, but even with perfect knowledge of the system it is not possible to fully predict its behaviour. However, when the system does not behave according to a "perfect" prediction, it does not do so out of rationality but out of chance. The behaviour in that instance will be chaotic. Therefore, these occasions are signs of free actions that do not fit the description of will, because they cancel out the effects of premeditation. This system therefore does not fit the idea of free will.

So my question to free will proponents is this: if none of the 3 types of systems above fit free will, then just what the heck IS free will? I've asked that question many times, and NOONE has been able to give me an answer.

So how can you argue for something that isn't even possible to define? How do you propose that free will can exist when the very concept of free will is so nebulous that noone knows what it is? I've heard people declare that it is none of the three options above (which is why I brought them up). But a definition must include a positive description - saying what free will isn't is not enough. We must know what it IS if you are to assert its existence.

 

[elman]

Oh goodie. Another free will discussion.

Ultimately, the realization of whether free will exists or not does not come from arguments that we are machines or God's omnipotence. It comes from the realization that the very concept of free will is incoherent. Free will does not exist for the same reason that four-sided triangles don't - the definition is a contradiction of terms.

Let me demonstrate. There are two types of systems that we know can theoretically exist - random systems and deterministic systems. There may be more - I'll get to that later.

In a completely random system, effects do not depend on any prior cause. This makes things that happen in a random system "free" in the sense that it's impossible to tell what will happen in the future, but all basis for order and rationality are obviously missing in such a system. Obviously, neither our universe or our minds are completely random for this very reason.

In a completely deterministic system, all effects depend fully on prior causes. This means that, given perfect knowledge of the system, one can perfectly predict the behaviour of that system. Given partial knowledge of the system, one can approximate the future behaviour of that system. The approximation will improve with the available information. This fits rather well with both our universe and our selves, although scientists tell us that there are some things that seem to not be deterministic. In any event, we can approximate the behaviour of those around us, and we get better at it the better we know the people around us. Obviously, a deterministic system can be rational, but it is certainly not free.

There is a third option. A system that is partially deterministic and partially random. Computer based decision making systems are typically constructed according to this model (although the randomness is not true randomness, but that has no relevance here). Such a system can be very similar to a deterministic system, but even with perfect knowledge of the system it is not possible to fully predict its behaviour. However, when the system does not behave according to a "perfect" prediction, it does not do so out of rationality but out of chance. The behaviour in that instance will be chaotic. Therefore, these occasions are signs of free actions that do not fit the description of will, because they cancel out the effects of premeditation. This system therefore does not fit the idea of free will.

So my question to free will proponents is this: if none of the 3 types of systems above fit free will, then just what the heck IS free will? I've asked that question many times, and NOONE has been able to give me an answer.

So how can you argue for something that isn't even possible to define? How do you propose that free will can exist when the very concept of free will is so nebulous that noone knows what it is? I've heard people declare that it is none of the three options above (which is why I brought them up). But a definition must include a positive description - saying what free will isn't is not enough. We must know what it IS if you are to assert its existence.

Free will is our ability to be loving to our neighbor in need. It is a deterministic system. We determine if we are going to act in a loving way or not.

 

[elman]

Logical impossibility. Everything that exists has to be temporal.

Why?

 

[Asimov]

No, but I don't see existence "outside of time" (terrible metaphor btw, as time is not a place one can be in or out of) as being a problem in the first place, so I don't necessarily feel any need to prove the possibility of it on God's behalf.

Unfortunately, it's irrelevant if you don't see it as a problem, or the OPer. I'm presenting it as a problem, I have indicated my reasons for stating it as such and all you do is say "I don't see it as a problem".

It's essentially likening it to saying that God is outside of existence, yet still exists and then wondering why I'm raising an objection to that.

I realise we could go around all day talking about on whom the burden of proof lies, but you have incorrectly characterized my position. I'm not making an exception for God, because my world view makes such an exception unnecessary to begin with.

You're the one who responded to me, so I have in no way incorrectly characterized your position. If you contend that God is a temporal being, then why are we having this argument. If you contend that God is atemporal, then I have no mischaracterized your position.

Which of those do you see time as being? a mood, an environment, or an influence? Do you see time as a powerful substance, as would be necessary for it to "influence" something or make up an environment? I would consider time to be largely a matter of perception. It is not, in fact, an all-pervasive physical constant of some sort, since how you perceive time largely depends on where you stand, or rather, how fast you are moving.

Irrelevant, temporality is an environment of events. Time is the measure between those events.

We perceive time as unilineal and possessing "directionality" because that is how our minds understand the occurrence of events. But time, as we are discussing it, is not an entity with an existence in and of itself- it is merely a cognitive construct formed in response to a given set of natural conditions.

I'm not talking about perception or directionality, so this statement is irrelevant.

God, occupying a very different position of existence than we, does not necessarily see time in the same sense, nor is there any particular, reason why she ought to. To take the classic "Flatland" example, if we were to examine a world of two dimensional creatures, no doubt we would perceive their existence very differently than we. We, existing in three, naturally have a difficult time perceiving the fourth and other dimensions, though we can describe them mathematically.

Except that any specific dimensionality isn't necessary, temporality is, much like existence.

God, if God exists, is free from the constraints of perception that we are bound to, and time is thus an irrelevant question to God.

If God acts, then time is not an irrelevant question to God.

 

[Asimov]

Why?

We've already had this discussion, elman.

 

[Aradia]

Except that any specific dimensionality isn't necessary, temporality is, much like existence.

Actually, specific dimensionality could play a rather important role. We view time from the perspective of our own three-dimensional universe. A god who existed outside of our own three-dimensional universe would necessarily exist outside of our concept of time. From the perspective of the christian tradition, god does exist outside of our universe. From the perspective of physics, it seems unlikely that we'd ever be able to prove or disprove such a plane of existence, and thus it would remain nothing more than mental speculation.

 

[Asimov]

Actually, specific dimensionality could play a rather important role. We view time from the perspective of our own three-dimensional universe. A god who existed outside of our own three-dimensional universe would necessarily exist outside of our concept of time.

Irrelevant, he would still be temporal. God would necessarily have to exist, even though he exists "outside" of our own concept of life/existence. God is necessarily temporal, even though his measure of time is different.

From the perspective of the christian tradition, god does exist outside of our universe.

I don't see the relevancy of that. Time is not exclusive to our universe in an abstract concept of action and event.

 

[Aradia]

There is a third option. A system that is partially deterministic and partially random.

Ok, I'm following you thus far...

Computer based decision making systems are typically constructed according to this model (although the randomness is not true randomness, but that has no relevance here).

...and now you've lost me. Are you a computer programmer? Could you explain how, in a computer, randomness can be both not truly random and not deterministic?

Such a system can be very similar to a deterministic system, but even with perfect knowledge of the system it is not possible to fully predict its behaviour. However, when the system does not behave according to a "perfect" prediction, it does not do so out of rationality but out of chance. The behaviour in that instance will be chaotic. Therefore, these occasions are signs of free actions that do not fit the description of will, because they cancel out the effects of premeditation. This system therefore does not fit the idea of free will.

This currently seems to be the only usable mechanism to describe how the universe works. However, I'm not entirely convinced that free will couldn't be described by such a mechanism. One word in particular seems to stick out: rationality. What is rationality?

 

[Tenka]

Lacking any evidence for one or the other, how can you argue for or against one or the other?

The brain receives information about the environment and reacts to it by triggering muscles and releasing chemicals, we see physical effects altering the way it does this in predictable ways. Where is the room for freewill?
I really don't see any reason to believe in freewill, it is purported to be some kind of X-factor acting between input and choice for which we are responsible.
Can you explain how it can be distinguished from magic?