Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Wiccan_Child]

Unpredictable by whom? Us? or God?

To any and all entities. Otherwise, it is not 'true' free will, especially in the sense that we would be divinely culpable for our actions.

Just bcuz God may know what someone is going to do, doesn't remove their free will (choice to act)....

Clarification: an omniscient being has no choice but to know. Otherwise, it wouldn't be omniscient, would it.

I personally think free will needs to properly be defined first (and possibly agreed upon) in order to seek an answer.

I've given my definition. Could you give yours?

I'm still waiting for an elaboration on your previous statement
"I find that people who reject God are illogical"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is no such thing as an unpredictable reasonable choice, any more than there are random numbers.

A true random number generator could, by definition, generate truely random numbers. Indeed, number generators that give the appearance of randomness are ultimately predictable, and are hence not true random number generators. Likewise, predictable 'free will' is not true 'free will'.
A good analogy to free will; I must remember to use it.

 

[Teufelhund]

Actually a random generator generates pseudorandom numbers. It has a bias, and patterns.

 

[JonF]

I do not claim that 'free will' is 'will that is free', in the superficial sense of the phrase. Before, I defined it as: "Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices".

Personally, I have no stance as to whether it exists or not. I'm simply arguing against the coexistance of it and omniscience (something we seem to agree on).

This is a substandard definition of free will. If that’s how you want to define it then an omniscient being violates freewill. But this an argument from a stipulitory definition that is substandard.

p.s. I came into this a bit late, so sorry that you have had to repeat yourself a few times

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually a random generator generates pseudorandom numbers. It has a bias, and patterns.

Please reread what I wrote:

A true random number generator could, by definition, generate truely random numbers. Indeed, number generators that give the appearance of randomness are ultimately predictable, and are hence not true random number generators.

I made the distinction between 'true' randomness and 'faux' randomness.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is a substandard definition of free will. If that’s how you want to define it then an omniscient being violates freewill. But this an argument from a stipulitory definition that is substandard.

Substandard? Please, inform me of the superior definition.

 

[Teufelhund]

There are no true random number generators, unless you've built one, that's an arguement out of nonreality and probably not really pertinent to my previous argument. Free will is the ability to do what you want, and face whatever consequences follow, for example I could willingly jump out of a building, but I could not willingly "miss" the ground.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are no true random number generators, unless you've built one, that's an arguement out of nonreality and probably not really pertinent to my previous argument.

On the contrary, it is a good analogy for my argument.
That said, can you prove that a Geiger-counter isn't a true random number generators? Can you prove that true random number generators are impossible?

Free will is the ability to do what you want, and face whatever consequences follow, for example I could willingly jump out of a building, but I could not willingly "miss" the ground.

So what entities have free will? Is there an objective test?

 

[JonF]

Substandard? Please, inform me of the superior definition.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

[Nadiine]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

After reading this over, it just confirms my earlier issue; DEFINE FREE WILL accurately.

Not everyone can even agree on what it truly is in it's fullest scope given the parameters we face here.... in what respect is our will "free" and to what extent?

THEN I can better get to the issue of omniscience. Until then, I just can't wrap my brain around all this (namely when I'm on a detailed project that's taking up my offline time).

 

[JonF]

Exactly, there is nothing that slick about defining free will as “nothing have foreknowledge of your will” and then saying his version of free will and omniscience aren’t compatible…

 

[JonF]

Just for fun here are some standard definitions of freewill:

A will is said to be free if: It is devoid from external influence to the extent it is responsible and accountable as a moral agent.

A will is said to be free if: It is free from constraints that affect what the will X. Where X is some list of internalized attributes such as: desires, values, loves. Historically this list has always been disputed but they all have the general idea of “esteem”.

Will is that which regulates our actions in a mechanical way. The will is free if nothing regulates it other than what it is in of it self in such a manner.

None of these are particularly good or my favorites, but they are certainly at least fairly standard.

 

[JonF]

This is a fairly good (secularized) explanation of what I believe in regards to freewill and determinism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

 

[Wiccan_Child]

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

I see a multitude of definitions distributed in a fascinating discourse on free will & determinism.
That said, I see no definition that is superior to my own (that is, no definition to which mine pales to 'substandard' quality in comparison).

 

[JonF]

Substandard wasn’t meant to describe the quality of your definition. I meant “other than the normal”, which it clearly isn't. Your description isn't about causation, moral agency, or influence.

But I think your definition has quality issues too: Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices

What exactly is this will free from? Predictions? You also don’t define the scope of the unpredictability. I can predict you will respond to this post, is your will free? You can predict before you do it even better than I can if you will respond.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Substandard wasn’t meant to describe the quality of your definition. I meant “other than the normal”, which it clearly isn't. Your description isn't about causation, moral agency, or influence.

I wasn't aware it had to be.

But I think your definition has quality issues too: Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices

What exactly is this will free from? Predictions? You also don’t define the scope of the unpredictability. I can predict you will respond to this post, is your will free? You can predict before you do it even better than I can if you will respond.

By 'predictable', I meant predictions with 100% accuracy. Anyone can make statements that just so happen to coincide with reality, or statements based on experiance. But only in a deterministic universe can predictions with 100% accuracy be formulated.
So, a prediction is a guess that is certain to come true (in hindsight, 'prophecy' might have been a better term, though that has the 'self-fulfilling' distinction).

 

[JonF]

I wasn't aware it had to be.

Typically when one speaks of free will, that is what one is speaking off. Must people (theist or not) would deny your notion of free will as what free will is.

This is basically what your saying: I define free will to be the state of the non existence of an omniscient thus free will isn’t compatible with the existence of an omniscient being.

By 'predictable', I meant predictions with 100% accuracy. Anyone can make statements that just so happen to coincide with reality, or statements based on experiance. But only in a deterministic universe can predictions with 100% accuracy be formulated.

So, a prediction is a guess that is certain to come true (in hindsight, 'prophecy' might have been a better term, though that has the 'self-fulfilling' distinction).

That isn’t a “prediction” that is “certainty” or “absolute certainty” depending on how you mean it. This significantly changes your claim, but all my objections still stand.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Typically when one speaks of free will, that is what one is speaking off. Must people (theist or not) would deny your notion of free will as what free will is.

I disagree. I believe my definition of free will encompasses the general notion people think of when they hear the phrase 'free will'.

This is basically what your saying: I define free will to be the state of the non existence of an omniscient thus free will isn’t compatible with the existence of an omniscient being.

I wonder if you would have come to this conclusion before I posited that omniscient and free will cannot coexist.

That isn’t a “prediction” that is “certainty” or “absolute certainty” depending on how you mean it.

Why can a prediction not be certain? A prediction is just a claim about the future; there is nothing intrinsically 'uncertain' about it.

This significantly changes your claim, but all my objections still stand.

I don't see how: your objections were concerning my definition of free will, specifically that I did not define 'unpredictable'.

 

[Teufelhund]

Actually given that the universe is composed of a specific amount of matter and everything can really be reduced to mathematical interactions, it is entirely predictible, in fact nothing unpredictible ever happens we simply sufficient to compute, so if that means that your definition of free will cannot exist, then free will does not exist, it exits under other definitions but not yours so, an omniscient God can exist, be free will itself, under your definition cannot, whether or not God exists.