If a computer could predict your decisions...

[Chesterton]

In other words, the computer gurus could demonstrate to you that you did not exercise free will that day - even though it felt like free will to you. You could sensibly assume that you never exercise free will. If you had doubts, the experiment could be repeated day after day until you were finally convinced.

I'd argue that the ability to predict actions doesn't necessarily indicate that free will isn't being used. The computer program simply knows what I'll choose based on the given data. That doesn't mean I wasn't free to choose it.

You could say "but that means you weren't free to choose otherwise, so you weren't free". But it could just mean that I didn't (won't) choose otherwise, given the data the computer is reading.

 

[Chesterton]

On the theological implications, here are a couple of thoughts:

(1) Christians could no longer believe that they instantly go to heaven and await their loved ones prior to the second coming of Christ. Christians must die and cease to exist until they are resurrected all at the same time in the future with new bodies and brains.

Some Christians believe the former, some believe the latter. Even if you do cease to exist temporarily, you don't have a sense of time, so awakening from a long period of non-existence might feel the same as awakening from an 8 hour sleep.

(2) Calvinism would probably benefit. Some people are programmed to go to heaven and some people are programmed to go to hell.

Yes it would benefit. I'm not a fan though.

(3) Universal salvation would probably seem desirable. The idea of programming somebody to go to hell is a bit mean - even if that person is only an android.

Agreed.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'd argue that the ability to predict actions doesn't necessarily indicate that free will isn't being used. The computer program simply knows what I'll choose based on the given data. That doesn't mean I wasn't free to choose it.

You could say "but that means you weren't free to choose otherwise, so you weren't free". But it could just mean that I didn't (won't) choose otherwise, given the data the computer is reading.

I would say that our deterministic android brains are programmed to instinctually believe that "free will" exists to make "choices". The "free will" fiction works good enough to get the job done (survival and reproduction). We feel like we have "free will", because that fiction is fundamental to our programming. Feeling something exists doesn't mean that something exists.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another theological implication of a successful simulation is deism. If a computer can simulate regions of reality, then God must be inactive in those regions of time and space. Whatever God might do during the experiments must be irrelevant to humans - otherwise the variations from the simulation's predictions would be noted as errors. If these experiments are repeated many times without a single failure, then most people would begin to suspect that God is mostly irrelevant or non-existent.

 

[Chesterton]

I would say that our deterministic android brains are programmed to instinctually believe that "free will" exists to make "choices". The "free will" fiction works good enough to get the job done (survival and reproduction). We feel like we have "free will", because that fiction is fundamental to our programming. Feeling something exists doesn't mean that something exists.

I'm not sure how an illusion of free will works advantageously. If I've been programmed to do stuff like eat and have sex, that's what I'd do without needing any illusion of choosing to do it. Plants and maybe animals get the same job done (survival) without any illusions.

Also, the illusion could be seen as disadvantageous since it allows for all kinds of nasty things like competition and war, which wouldn't occur without the perception of choice (or at least they'd occur a whole lot less).

Plus, feeling something exists certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Chesterton]

Another theological implication of a successful simulation is deism. If a computer can simulate regions of reality, then God must be inactive in those regions of time and space. Whatever God might do during the experiments must be irrelevant to humans - otherwise the variations from the simulation's predictions would be noted as errors. If these experiments are repeated many times without a single failure, then most people would begin to suspect that God is mostly irrelevant or non-existent.

"If a computer can simulate regions of reality" we're still talking about just a machine using electricity and physical laws. If I build something very simple like a 4-wheeled cart it can roll downhill repeatedly without errors, presumably with or without divine intervention. It seems as if you're saying deism is an implication of physical reality itself, which could be true, but by no means necessarily true.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure how an illusion of free will works advantageously. If I've been programmed to do stuff like eat and have sex, that's what I'd do without needing any illusion of choosing to do it. Plants and maybe animals get the same job done (survival) without any illusions.

Those are good points. Here are some thoughts:

In a society, humans negotiate and communicate with other humans to benefit themselves. Imagine a poker game. (I'm really imagining, because I don't know how to play poker LOL )... Anyway, you try to understand what is happening in your adversary's mind. What are his/her "goals"? What will he "choose" to do? "Free will" becomes a concept in an algorithm for social interactions. This concept is not necessary if we can simulate every player in the poker game using a computer program. Our human brains can't simulate every player, because we don't have the number-crunching capability, so our brains have evolved a social algorithm based on the concept of "free will", "choices", and so on.

I would imagine that social animals like dogs probably believe in "free will". There have been experiments showing morality in animals. Another ingredient in our social algorithm is empathy. Animals have empathy too.

 

[cloudyday2]

"If a computer can simulate regions of reality" we're still talking about just a machine using electricity and physical laws. If I build something very simple like a 4-wheeled cart it can roll downhill repeatedly without errors, presumably with or without divine intervention. It seems as if you're saying deism is an implication of physical reality itself, which could be true, but by no means necessarily true.

I've always felt that God should leave clues to His existence. If everything can be explained without God, then what does that imply? Ideally, Christians should be able to use their beliefs about God's personality and capabilities to predict something measurable. If the computer gurus always outperform Christians, then we much discard Christianity.

EDIT: Actually, we humans are not computers, so it is really a question of Christianity versus other religions and non-religions. What beliefs lead to the best performance. It doesn't matter if the beliefs are true.

 

[Chesterton]

Those are good points. Here are some thoughts:

In a society, humans negotiate and communicate with other humans to benefit themselves. Imagine a poker game. (I'm really imagining, because I don't know how to play poker LOL )... Anyway, you try to understand what is happening in your adversary's mind. What are his/her "goals"? What will he "choose" to do? "Free will" becomes a concept in an algorithm for social interactions. This concept is not necessary if we can simulate every player in the poker game using a computer program. Our human brains can't simulate every player, because we don't have the number-crunching capability, so our brains have evolved a social algorithm based on the concept of "free will", "choices", and so on.

I would imagine that social animals like dogs probably believe in "free will". There have been experiments showing morality in animals. Another ingredient in our social algorithm is empathy. Animals have empathy too.

When someone says "let me sleep on it" - why are there some decisions that we have to consider, ruminate and ponder if the decision is ultimately the one we were going to make anyway? Seems to be a seriously messed up flow chart.

How do you address the moral nihilism that determinism implies? Without choice of actions there's no morality.

How do you address the absurdity that the idea of determinism undermines thought and reason themselves? No idea can be said to be reasonable if it was produced purely by mechanical necessity, and could not have been other than what it is.

 

[Chesterton]

I've always felt that God should leave clues to His existence. If everything can be explained without God, then what does that imply?

It doesn't imply anything in particular to me because one can explain the workings of a television set without the inventor of television.

Ideally, Christians should be able to use their beliefs about God's personality and capabilities to predict something measurable. If the computer gurus always outperform Christians, then we much discard Christianity.

EDIT: Actually, we humans are not computers, so it is really a question of Christianity versus other religions and non-religions. What beliefs lead to the best performance. It doesn't matter if the beliefs are true.

I don't know why you think Christians should be able to predict things, and I don't know what you mean about computer gurus outperforming Christians.

 

[cloudyday2]

When someone says "let me sleep on it" - why are there some decisions that we have to consider, ruminate and ponder if the decision is ultimately the one we were going to make anyway? Seems to be a seriously messed up flow chart.

How do you address the moral nihilism that determinism implies? Without choice of actions there's no morality.

How do you address the absurdity that the idea of determinism undermines thought and reason themselves? No idea can be said to be reasonable if it was produced purely by mechanical necessity, and could not have been other than what it is.

Thinking and computation are very similar (if not equivalent), and there are mathematical models of computation (Turing machine, finite state machine, etc.). Computation affects entropy, so it continues to be a valid concept without free will.

"Reasonable" is trickier. An algorithm is "reasonable" if it outperforms other "unreasonable" algorithms and leads to reproduction. The thing being reproduced might be the biological genes of the organism or it might be the memes of the algorithm itself. We go to school and memes are passed from the instructor to the students that tend to improve reproduction of biological genes.

Humans would continue to believe in free will and choices, because that algorithm is instinctual. We would know that these concepts are fictional in theory.

One application I can imagine is stock markets. A computer might have hope of simulating the psychology of investors to predict pricing.

 

[cloudyday2]

It doesn't imply anything in particular to me because one can explain the workings of a television set without the inventor of television.

That sounds like deism to me. Christians expect to know Jesus in their hearts and have a relationship. What kind of relationship exists when Jesus does nothing measurable. We can ask Jesus for favors, but nothing happens. We can flatter Jesus by singing songs at church, but nothing happens. We can laugh at Jesus by watching atheist cartoons on youtube, but nothing happens. If the simulation does not include Jesus in the model, then we should expect that the simulation should fail whenever Jesus does something.

I don't know why you think Christians should be able to predict things, and I don't know what you mean about computer gurus outperforming Christians.

Probably explained in previous paragraph

 

[Chesterton]

Thinking and computation are very similar (if not equivalent), and there are mathematical models of computation (Turing machine, finite state machine, etc.). Computation affects entropy, so it continues to be a valid concept without free will.

"Reasonable" is trickier. An algorithm is "reasonable" if it outperforms other "unreasonable" algorithms and leads to reproduction. The thing being reproduced might be the biological genes of the organism or it might be the memes of the algorithm itself. We go to school and memes are passed from the instructor to the students that tend to improve reproduction of biological genes.

Humans would continue to believe in free will and choices, because that algorithm is instinctual. We would know that these concepts are fictional in theory.

One application I can imagine is stock markets. A computer might have hope of simulating the psychology of investors to predict pricing.

I was asking about your brain though.

That sounds like deism to me. Christians expect to know Jesus in their hearts and have a relationship. What kind of relationship exists when Jesus does nothing measurable. We can ask Jesus for favors, but nothing happens. We can flatter Jesus by singing songs at church, but nothing happens. We can laugh at Jesus by watching atheist cartoons on youtube, but nothing happens. If the simulation does not include Jesus in the model, then we should expect that the simulation should fail whenever Jesus does something.

Probably explained in previous paragraph

No I don't think it's deism. For the rest, I see what you're saying, just don't forget it's science fiction.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was asking about your brain though.

I'm confused about what you were asking.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe we should try to focus on the theological implications?

Quantum mechanics says that we can't measure the state of tiny particles to precisely predict their future states. The question is whether this effect trickles-up into human behavior. A computer contains tiny particles, but a computer is designed to be very predictable. Did the human brain evolve to be predictable like a computer? If the human brain is like a computer, then we aren't actually making "choices".

So assume that we someday discover that our brains are predictable. What ideas in Christian theology would benefit and what ideas would need to be discarded?

EDIT: After rereading the post by @Wgw early in the thread, I realized I might have misread his ideas. I thought he was referring to quantum mechanics, but he might have been referring to some other issues. So I changed what I said above so I wouldn't be misquoting him.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The computer must know the initial state of your brain and everything in the room, so that includes any results of the simulation that are given to you. If the result of the simulation can only be found by "running" the simulation, then the computer gurus would need to run the simulation many times until they discover a bit of foreknowledge that they can reveal to the simulated human without it disappearing as a future event of the simulation. ... HOWEVER, it might be possible to "solve" the simulation like an equation. This mathematical solution of the simulation would discover those bits of foreknowledge that can be revealed to you successfully (if any).

If there is some bit of foreknowledge that can be revealed (like eating a sandwich for lunch), then it would probably seem for some unexpected reason that eating the sandwich is more important than proving the computer gurus wrong in their predictions. Maybe you would learn that a golden ticket to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory is likely to be hidden in the sandwich - who knows.

Theoretically if one could know the entire state of one's brain, and the entire state of things surrounding the brain, then with enough computing power one could know what that brain would do. However quantum mechanics dictates that it is impossible to know the precise speed and location of a single electron, let alone all electrons in the brain, so that seems to rule out ever being able to do this.

But what the brain does in the future is definitely determined by the physical brain based on physical laws. This is a problem for the Christian view, because the thoughts one will think in the future are predetermined by the current state of the world. That being said, how can a person be condemned to hell for having the wrong thoughts if he was made such that he would have those thoughts?

 

[cloudyday2]

But what the brain does in the future is definitely determined by the physical brain based on physical laws. This is a problem for the Christian view, because the thoughts one will think in the future are predetermined by the current state of the world. That being said, how can a person be condemned to hell for having the wrong thoughts if he was made such that he would have those thoughts?

I see several questions to answer:
(1) How sensitive is human behavior to the unpredictability of tiny particles? As I mentioned in post #35, a computer contains tiny particles, but it is NOT very sensitive to the unpredictability of these particles. Maybe the human brain magnifies the unpredictability of these tiny particles to produce unpredictable behavior or maybe not.

(2) If human behavior is sensitive to this unpredictability from quantum mechanics, then what is the source of this unpredictability? Is there a transcendent part of the human that is expressing its choices through this unpredictability somehow? Maybe the unpredictability is like watching a movie for the first time in a universe where the script is transcendent? Or maybe the unpredictability is something else?

(3) How does Christian theology cope with these various possibilities?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm confused about what you were asking.

Maybe we should try to focus on the theological implications?

Quantum mechanics says that we can't measure the state of tiny particles to precisely predict their future states. The question is whether this effect trickles-up into human behavior. A computer contains tiny particles, but a computer is designed to be very predictable. Did the human brain evolve to be predictable like a computer? If the human brain is like a computer, then we aren't actually making "choices".

So assume that we someday discover that our brains are predictable. What ideas in Christian theology would benefit and what ideas would need to be discarded?

EDIT: After rereading the post by @Wgw early in the thread, I realized I might have misread his ideas. I thought he was referring to quantum mechanics, but he might have been referring to some other issues. So I changed what I said above so I wouldn't be misquoting him.

You have to look at the big picture of your brain. The simple answer for Christianity might be some kind of hardcore Calvinism. But if your science fiction scenario actually came true, you'd have much bigger fish to fry. Choice is so integral to being human that if it were shown that we were complete slaves to physics, it would undo what it means to be human. Reason, science, art, morality and criminal justice, romance; everything goes out the window. The situation would absurd because it would be unreasonable; no thought in the mind (including the thought of determinism) can be said to be based on reason if no other thought were possible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I see several questions to answer:
(1) How sensitive is human behavior to the unpredictability of tiny particles? As I mentioned in post #35, a computer contains tiny particles, but it is NOT very sensitive to the unpredictability of these particles. Maybe the human brain magnifies the unpredictability of these tiny particles to produce unpredictable behavior or maybe not.

Ok, maybe in spite of the limits of quantum mechanics it would be theoretically possible to know the status of a brain close enough to predict how that brain will react 10 minutes from now. I don't think anyone can say for sure if that can be done.

But regardless, from a practical matter, we are nowhere close to doing this. If you wanted to know my behavior 10 minutes from now with certainty, you would need to know the state of every brain on the planet. For it is possible that in the next minute somebody in India will write something on the Internet that I will read and it will change how I am thinking 10 minutes from now. So you would need to predict how every brain and every computer on the planet would work. The computer power to analyze all the molecules in a single brain would require computers much bigger than the human brain. The computing power to analyze every brain and every molecule that could possibly affect me in the next 10 minutes would probably be larger than the planet. It would probably be easier to clone the whole planet and watch what the cloned planet does rather than build computers to simulate it. But of course, the cloned planet would only work at the speed of this planet, so it would "predict" my behavior only after it actually happened.

The issue for me is whether an absolute knowledge of the state of everything in the universe, combined with infinite computer power and infinite understanding of nature would be able to know what I will do 10 minutes from now. It will certainly always be impossible for humans to do that, but theoretically, if it could be done, I think it would know the future.

 

[cloudyday2]

But regardless, from a practical matter, we are nowhere close to doing this. If you wanted to know my behavior 10 minutes from now with certainty, you would need to know the state of every brain on the planet. For it is possible that in the next minute somebody in India will write something on the Internet that I will read and it will change how I am thinking 10 minutes from now. So you would need to predict how every brain and every computer on the planet would work.
...

Imagine a person alone for a day in a room filled with books to read, movies to watch, snacks to eat, etc. Cameras would record every detail of behavior and compare that to the expected behavior calculated at the beginning of the day by the computer. If the computer could precisely predict that person's behavior then I would be convinced that free will is a fiction. "See there he is scratching his nose as expected... Here he takes a bite from the Twinkie... Now he puts the book down and stretches..."

In other words, the computer does not need to simulate the entire planet Earth for all of eternity. A perfect simulation of one person alone in a room for a day is all that we need.

EDIT: @AV1611VET said his wife is already capable of predicting his behavior, so we know it can be done.