If a computer could predict your decisions...

[cloudyday2]

Computing power continues to increase exponentially. Imagine if your behavior could be recorded over the course of a normal day. Then at the end of the day the computer gurus could show you that a computer predicted your every thought, word, and deed over that day - along with every other human and animal that interacted with you either directly or indirectly.

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.

Would Christianity be dead without free will? What if the computer gurus could predict the exact words spoken in tongues during Pentecostal services? What if they could predict the exact inspirations sparked in the minds of bible readers? This might happen someday if the human brain is deterministic like a computer. Of course the human brain might not be deterministic and this dream of mine might be impossible.

 

[Wgw]

Computing power continues to increase exponentially. Imagine if your behavior could be recorded over the course of a normal day. Then at the end of the day the computer gurus could show you that a computer predicted your every thought, word, and deed over that day - along with every other human and animal that interacted with you either directly or indirectly.

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.

Would Christianity be dead without free will? What if the computer gurus could predict the exact words spoken in tongues during Pentecostal services? What if they could predict the exact inspirations sparked in the minds of bible readers? This might happen someday if the human brain is deterministic like a computer. Of course the human brain might not be deterministic and this dream of mine might be impossible.

There are substantial reasons to believe the universe is non-deterministic; certainly the input required for a computer to extrapolate human activities even if the universe is deterministic would be...unreasonable. This is one of the major scientific flaws in Dune, by the way.

 

[ChetSinger]

Speaking as a programmer, I agree that our measurement abilities have advanced dramatically in the past ten years, and present trends are likely to continue.

But speaking as an educated physicist (although never a working one), it now appears that our universe is indeterminate down at the quantum level. That is, at the very bottom of existence, indeterminacy reigns.

But are quantum effects observed in any living things? Do they have any effect at the macro level of biological organisms? Yes, as we're starting to find out. Some migrating birds, for example, are now thought to measure quantum entanglement to help them navigate their way. And there's a kind of quantum tunneling (teleportation) used by enzymes.

I'm no philosopher, but I've wondered if the free will the Bible says we have might be resting on quantum indeterminacy.

Just my $.02.

 

[cloudyday2]

But are quantum effects observed in any living things? Do they have any effect at the macro level of biological organisms? Yes, as we're starting to find out. Some migrating birds, for example, are now thought to measure quantum entanglement to help them navigate their way. And there's a kind of quantum tunneling (teleportation) used by enzymes.

There is also this about quantum mechanics in the sense of smell ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_theory_of_olfaction ).

However... does that level of detail matter in simulating the "choices" that humans make? If a computer can predict what I typed in this post several hours beforehand, I would be very skeptical of my own "inspiration".

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Who's telling who what I'm going to do that day?

Am I telling the computer, which then tells me?

Or is the computer telling me ahead of time?

IOW, if I'm the source of the computer's input, then the computer depends on me; not the other way around.

 

[cloudyday2]

Who's telling who what I'm going to do that day?

Am I telling the computer, which then tells me?

Or is the computer telling me ahead of time?

IOW, if I'm the source of the computer's input, then the computer depends on me; not the other way around.

Imagine you are put into a room with various books to read, food to eat, movies to watch, etc. The computer gurus scan the physical state of your brain and body to whatever level of detail is required for the initial state of their simulation of you. Their computers instantly simulate your behavior for the day, but they don't tell you the results. Then you make your "choices" throughout the day. At the end of the day, the gurus smugly show you that their computers predicted your every action.

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine you are put into a room with various books to read, food to eat, movies to watch, etc. The computer gurus scan the physical state of your brain and body to whatever level of detail is required for the initial state of their simulation of you. Their computers instantly simulate your behavior for the day, but they don't tell you the results. Then you make your "choices" throughout the day. At the end of the day, the gurus smugly show you that their computers predicted your every action.

My wife does that to me all the time!

 

[ChetSinger]

There is also this about quantum mechanics in the sense of smell ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_theory_of_olfaction ).

However... does that level of detail matter in simulating the "choices" that humans make? If a computer can predict what I typed in this post several hours beforehand, I would be very skeptical of my own "inspiration".

I can't conceive of a computer that, based on past observation of us, could predict the sentences you or I will post on this forum.

 

[cloudyday2]

I can't conceive of a computer that, based on past observation of us, could predict the sentences you or I will post on this forum.

I imagine using something like a super-duper functional MRI that would measure your brain's initial state, and then simulate all the electrical and chemical behavior at whatever level of detail is necessary to predict your behavior. Of course if human behavior is routinely sensitive to quantum mechanical non-deterministic stuff, then the idea fails.

 

[cloudyday2]

So just for the sake of discussion, imagine the gurus built this thing and it worked. Would that change anything about Christian theology?

 

[Chesterton]

So just for the sake of discussion, imagine the gurus built this thing and it worked. Would that change anything about Christian theology?

Before we get to that - if the gurus told me what the computer had predicted for a certain choice that day, wouldn't I then be free to comply or not comply with the prediction? And if they told the computer that they were going to tell me, I guess the computer would take that into account. But if they told me that they told the computer that, I would again be free to choose. It seems an unending moving spiral, but it also seems to me the spiral is being powered by my choice. (Does that make sense?)

 

[cloudyday2]

Before we get to that - if the gurus told me what the computer had predicted for a certain choice that day, wouldn't I then be free to comply or not comply with the prediction? And if they told the computer that they were going to tell me, I guess the computer would take that into account. But if they told me that they told the computer that, I would again be free to choose. It seems an unending moving spiral, but it also seems to me the spiral is being powered by my choice. (Does that make sense?)

I don't see a problem. The computers would run their simulation in the first second after scanning your brain and body. Then the simulation would be stored and guarded by a trustworthy person. Everything you do would be recorded throughout the day. At the end of the day the simulation would be compared to the actual to show that they match. Only the computer knows the result of the simulation until the day ends when everybody examines it together to compare to your actual behavior for the day.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't see a problem. The computers would run their simulation in the first second after scanning your brain and body. Then the simulation would be stored and guarded by a trustworthy person. Everything you do would be recorded throughout the day. At the end of the day the simulation would be compared to the actual to show that they match. Only the computer knows the result of the simulation until the day ends when everybody examines it together to compare to your actual behavior for the day.

I'm with you there, but I'm asking what if one bit of information was revealed to me one morning? The person in charge tells me, "the simulation indicates you're going to have a sandwich for lunch". Then what? Am I forced by destiny to eat a sandwich?

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm with you there, but I'm asking what if one bit of information was revealed to me one morning? The person in charge tells me, "the simulation indicates you're going to have a sandwich for lunch". Then what? Am I forced by destiny to eat a sandwich?

If the simulation included that the person in charge would tell you that bit of foreknowledge, then you would be surprised to discover that you behaved exactly as predicted in spite of all your efforts to "choose" differently. If we are deterministic enough to simulate with a computer, then we have no real choice except to follow our programming. We are androids that imagine ourselves to be making "choices", because our own brains are too limited to see the causes for our behavior. In these cases we say that we "chose" from a range of options, but actually we only followed our programming.

The fly in the ointment would be if the quantum mechanical stuff affects our behavior significantly. That would make the simulation a failure.

Of course the other fly in the ointment would be if humans have a soul/spirit that somehow transcends our physical body. That would also mess-up the simulation. And of course God could fool around with the experiment if He exists.

 

[Chesterton]

If the simulation included that the person in charge would tell you that bit of foreknowledge, then you would be surprised to discover that you behaved exactly as predicted in spite of all your efforts to "choose" differently. If we are deterministic enough to simulate with a computer, then we have no real choice except to follow our programming. We are androids that imagine ourselves to be making "choices", because our own brains are too limited to see the causes for our behavior. In these cases we say that we "chose" from a range of options, but actually we only followed our programming.

The fly in the ointment would be if the quantum mechanical stuff affects our behavior significantly. That would make the simulation a failure.

Of course the other fly in the ointment would be if humans have a soul/spirit that somehow transcends our physical body. That would also mess-up the simulation. And of course God could fool around with the experiment if He exists.

A like for allowing for the 3 flys. (Which need not be mutally exclusive; all could possibly be intertwined.)

I still have a hard time deciding whether this could work when you introduce the variable of my knowledge. IF/THEN machine says "if you tell him sandwich, he'll have soup", "if you tell him soup, he'll have pizza" and on and on until it seems the machine can't actually tell us anything.

Also, what if I'm told I'm going to have a sandwich, and I was really looking forward to having a sandwich, and then I realize I have no will, I abandon Christianity, decide life's not worth living and kill myself before having lunch. Would the machine have predicted my suicide based on what it was programmed to tell me? Or did it cause my suicide? I'm confused.

 

[cloudyday2]

A like for allowing for the 3 flys. (Which need not be mutally exclusive; all could possibly be intertwined.)

I still have a hard time deciding whether this could work when you introduce the variable of my knowledge. IF/THEN machine says "if you tell him sandwich, he'll have soup", "if you tell him soup, he'll have pizza" and on and on until it seems the machine can't actually tell us anything.

Also, what if I'm told I'm going to have a sandwich, and I was really looking forward to having a sandwich, and then I realize I have no will, I abandon Christianity, decide life's not worth living and kill myself before having lunch. Would the machine have predicted my suicide based on what it was programmed to tell me? Or did it cause my suicide? I'm confused.

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.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

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

(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.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Can you explain this part? What do you mean by "disappearing as a future event"?

 

[cloudyday2]

Can you explain this part? What do you mean by "disappearing as a future event"?

So the gurus run the simulation where the sim-you is not told anything, and they discover that sim-you "chooses" to eat pizza for lunch. Then the gurus run the simulation again, but this time they tell sim-you that he/she will choose pizza. As a result, sim-you "chooses" a hot dog for lunch instead. The future event of eating pizza for lunch disappeared after giving the foreknowledge to sim-you.

So the foreknowledge must be a future event that you will "choose" even though you have foreknowledge. For example, you might "choose" to eat pizza, because you want the simulation to be a success. Or you might "choose" to eat pizza, because you love the smell of oregano more than you care about proving the gurus wrong. In both cases you "feel" like you made a "choice" to eat pizza, but actually the simulation predicted your thoughts and actions. The simulation knew that you would "choose" to eat pizza in spite of the foreknowledge.

By definition, it isn't foreknowledge unless it actually happens. If the gurus told you that you will eat pizza for lunch, and you decide to eat a hot dog, then that wasn't foreknowledge - it was a lie.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

My mind just exploded.