Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[mooduck1]

[/color][/size][/color][/size]
I never said God was the Creator. Merely an omniscient being.

Ah well Christians obviously have different definitions for what the term "God" means. Omnisiant beings are not necessarily Gods. Angels, demons -or demigod to be more PC. Sorry, you and I are on different wave lengths. Silly for Pagans and Christians to debate the anture of God with each other. In that spirit, I have nothing else to say to you on the Topic WC.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah well Christians obviously have different definitions for what the term "God" means. Omnisiant beings are not necessarily Gods. Angels, demons -or demigod to be more PC. Sorry, you and I are on different wave lengths. Silly for Pagans and Christians to debate the anture of God with each other. In that spirit, I have nothing else to say to you on the Topic WC.

As you wish.
For the record, I am not talking of any particular deity. My use of the word 'God' in this thread is merely as a placeholder; as I have said repeatedly, do not draw more theology from this that is there.

 

[chris777]

Which is one of my conclusions: that free will is an illusion when an omniscient exists.

how is it illusion if the choice is yours to make?

If the choice is yours to make, and you are not coerced or trapped(which is why i felt your supposition was flawed, and or a jab at Christianity)
then it is not an illusion, because the choice is not being made for you.
its outcome is just known before you or I are aware.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

So...in other words, He is not omniscient. Limited omniscience is not omniscience, because it is unlimited by definition.

That is to say that one of God's "natures" contradicts one of his other "natures.". So God, by nature, condradicts Himself? The alternative is that omniscence is not part of His nature (because as stated earlier, limited omniscience is not omniscience).

Ok. The point of this thread, though, was whether true omniscience was compatible with free will.

Not necessarily, as I explained in my original post; it depends on who is actually limiting it.

No. The attributes themselves are not contradictory, but a certain use could bring that about. Ever heard of equilibrium?

The point of this thread seems to be: claiming that one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong (that holds for both parties). The OP for example only seems to reply to the opposite party in this thread.... Yet almost all definitions are messed up or at least not coherent.....and hence everything can be claimed to be wrong ad hoc.
If you're all so 'into science' let's start a thread on the wave-particle duality and then we could have a blast (don't worry that's just a figure of speech, I don't feel the need for scientific discussion)... I wonder if the same kind of argumentation would be applied there

 

[Wiccan_Child]

how is it illusion if the choice is yours to make?

If the choice is yours to make, and you are not coerced or trapped(which is why i felt your supposition was flawed, and or a jab at Christianity)
then it is not an illusion, because the choice is not being made for you.
its outcome is just known before you or I are aware.

On the contrary, the foreknowledge forces us to do it by proxy. We may believe we made the decision of our own free will, but, if an omniscient exists, this is simply not true: the foreknowledge of the omniscient collapses all probabalistic functions, restricts all possible outcomes of any given trial to but one outcome: the one it has forseen.
If an omniscient has forseen me writing this text, how am I free to not write the text? If an omniscient has not forseen me visitng Tibet, how am I free to go there?
The omniscient does not do anything in and of itself. It is akin to the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

 

[Digit]

Actually after reading some more about this, and also about Biblical backing (here if anyone is interested) for the omniscient God my post still stands and in addition, the only thing that may be an issue is free will yet after some more reading I don't find any problem with it. God doesn't interfere with our lives, He doesn't stop us doing things that we would otherwise do, he doesn't disconnect my internet to stop me sending an angry forum post filled with hatred or disable my DVD player when trying to watch an adult film. We are free to choose.

By free will and the definition I gave earlier, we are free to choose what we do, when we do it. Without any interferance from God. God waking me up early in my theoretical scenario doesn't affect my freedom to make choices, it simply saves my life. I intended to go to go to work one way or another, I had already made the choice. Afterall, that is perfectly in line with what is said about God in the Bible, that He wants what is best for us, and that is more than just me being alive, it's my familys feelings and so on. I can still choose to go to work or not too, but God knows what my choice will be. Again that doesn't eliminate my freedom to actively make that choice, it simply puts the knowledge of it, and it's outcome in God's hands.

So... what's the problem?

Cheers,
Digit

@Wiccan
Thoughts, comments?

Digit

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Suppose I, an entity allegedly with free will, and God*, an entity allegedly omniscient, are in a room with two boxes, A and B. God asks me to pick one of the boxes.

God knows I will pick box A (in this scenario, at least). I don't know God knows this, nor have I made my decision (such that it may be).

• Can I pick box B?
  • If so, then God is not omniscient.
  • If not, then I do not have free will.

This is why a true omniscient being cannot coexist with an entity with true free will.

*The word is only a placeholder for 'the omniscient'. Don't read too much theology from this

I didn't bother reading through the thread.
I didn't because there is not much point in doing so when the flaw in the OP is obvious.

On the slim chance that nobody bothered mentioning it, the OP commits the fallacy of loading the situation where one of the conditions (free will/omniscience) will logically contradict the other. It is similar to the failed omnipotent paradox of "Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?"

Notice that the OP says that God in His omniscience knows the person exercising free-will is going to pick box A. Logic dictates that the omniscient God sees the outcome and the person will pick box A, not that the option of picking box B was removed before it happened.

If the person picked box B, then the paradox's given omniscient outcome in the argument simply was not correct.
IOW - the error isn't in God's omniscience or with there being free will, but in giving a flawed paradox legitimacy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

@Wiccan
Thoughts, comments?

Digit

Aha, I missed this

Actually after reading some more about this, and also about Biblical backing (here if anyone is interested) for the omniscient God my post still stands and in addition,

My issue is not with whether an omniscience can exist, but whether it can coexist with free will. I have some thoughts on what we can say about omniscients, but that would move us off-topic.

the only thing that may be an issue is free will yet after some more reading I don't find any problem with it. God doesn't interfere with our lives, He doesn't stop us doing things that we would otherwise do, he doesn't disconnect my internet to stop me sending an angry forum post filled with hatred or disable my DVD player when trying to watch an adult film. We are free to choose.

This argument is common on this thread: they assume that the omniscient is actively altering reality to conform it to it's predictions. But for a true omniscient, this is not the case. It's foreknowledge, even if it is private and uncommunicable to the rest of us, places restraints on the universe.
Consider the (strong or weak, I forget which) anthropomorphic principle: that we exist places a restriction on the universe: of all possible universes, our universe can only be that which is hospitable to life.
Our existance does not actively force the universe into being a form which is hospitable to life, but the fact that we exist allows us to deduce that the universe must be hospitable to life.
Likewise, the foreknowledge that I will pick box A does not force me to pick box A, but rather allows us to deduce that the universe is in a form in which I can only pick box A: if there is even the smidgen of a possibility that box A may not be picked, then we reach a contradiction: the omniscient's foreknowledge is not true.

I hope this clarifies the issue here. Basically, for an omniscient to exist at all, the universe must be of a certain form (specifically, one that is fully determinable).

By free will and the definition I gave earlier, we are free to choose what we do, when we do it. Without any interferance from God. God waking me up early in my theoretical scenario doesn't affect my freedom to make choices, it simply saves my life.

Direct interferance by an omniscient is, I believe, impossible.

I intended to go to go to work one way or another, I had already made the choice.

That is a very nebulous conceptualisation of choice. If I murder you, it is necessarily your choice: after all, you will die someday.

Afterall, that is perfectly in line with what is said about God in the Bible, that He wants what is best for us, and that is more than just me being alive, it's my familys feelings and so on. I can still choose to go to work or not too, but God knows what my choice will be. Again that doesn't eliminate my freedom to actively make that choice, it simply puts the knowledge of it, and it's outcome in God's hands.

So... what's the problem?

The problem is that the existance of agents with free will belies the existance of foreknowledge of said agent's decisions. More generally, foreknowledge that an outcome will occur collapses all probabilities involved; if there is a chance that an outcome contrary to that foreseen, then the foreknowledge is not known, which is tantamount to saying A ≠ A.

And for the record, in this thread, I do not use the word 'God' to refer to the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic deity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't bother reading through the thread.
I didn't because there is not much point in doing so when the flaw in the OP is obvious.

On the slim chance that nobody bothered mentioning it, the OP commits the fallacy of loading the situation where one of the conditions (free will/omniscience) will logically contradict the other. It is similar to the failed omnipotent paradox of "Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?"

I disagree, but I'll say why in later comments.

Notice that the OP says that God in His omniscience knows the person exercising free-will is going to pick box A. Logic dictates that the omniscient God sees the outcome and the person will pick box A, not that the option of picking box B was removed before it happened.

Logic dictates that the omniscient knows everything. It knows what the outcome will be, it knows my thought-processes that go into 'deciding' to pick box A, it knows the exact motion my body will enact to indicate my 'decision', etc.
For the record, it might have been helpful if you'd read the rest of this thread, or at least the last few pages: the issue of a 'forced' decision, or of box B being 'forcably unnattainable', has been addressed.

If the person picked box B, then the paradox's given omniscient outcome in the argument simply was not correct.

Which would demonstrate that the alleged-omniscient is not, in fact, omniscient: foreknowledge must be true.

IOW - the error isn't in God's omniscience or with there being free will, but in giving a flawed paradox legitimacy.

By all means, explain why the scenario is invalid.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I disagree, but I'll say why in later comments.


Logic dictates that the omniscient knows everything. It knows what the outcome will be, it knows my thought-processes that go into 'deciding' to pick box A, it knows the exact motion my body will enact to indicate my 'decision', etc.
For the record, it might have been helpful if you'd read the rest of this thread, or at least the last few pages: the issue of a 'forced' decision, or of box B being 'forcably unnattainable', has been addressed.


Which would demonstrate that the alleged-omniscient is not, in fact, omniscient: foreknowledge must be true.


By all means, explain why the scenario is invalid.

Give more than I already did?

Taking on the task of explaining how a choice can or can not exist with foreknowledge has had better minds than mine try to explain each side in a comprehensible way. It is a subject with its share of controversy and I have no motivation to try and make some claim for one side or another.

The givens are there - choice and omniscience. Man's ability or inability to comprehend those givens would be another issue. I simply pointed out that you as the author of the OP created a supposed paradox and now contend that choice cannot exist with omniscience. I contend that choice is separate from omniscience.

You can google predestination or the fictional variants in temporal mechanics if you wish.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Give more than I already did?

I saw no explanation of why my scenario gave a "flawed paradox legitimacy". So yes, if you don't mind.

Taking on the task of explaining how a choice can or can not exist with foreknowledge has had better minds than mine try to explain each side in a comprehensible way. It is a subject with its share of controversy and I have no motivation to try and make some claim for one side or another.

Then why enter a discussion on the subject?

The givens are there - choice and omniscience.

In reality? By all means, demonstrate the existance of choice in our universe. Indeed, demonstrate the existance of an omniscient in our universe.

Man's ability or inability to comprehend those givens would be another issue. I simply pointed out that you as the author of the OP created a supposed paradox and now contend that choice cannot exist with omniscience. I contend that choice is separate from omniscience.

What do you mean by 'choice is separate from omniscience'? Do they exist at alternate times?

 

[CShephard53]

Suppose I, an entity allegedly with free will, and God*, an entity allegedly omniscient, are in a room with two boxes, A and B. God asks me to pick one of the boxes.

God knows I will pick box A (in this scenario, at least). I don't know God knows this, nor have I made my decision (such that it may be).

• Can I pick box B?
  • If so, then God is not omniscient.
  • If not, then I do not have free will.

This is why a true omniscient being cannot coexist with an entity with true free will.

*The word is only a placeholder for 'the omniscient'. Don't read too much theology from this

Um, let me ask you. Does anyone care? 1 Corinthians 13:12.

 

[chris777]

On the contrary, the foreknowledge forces us to do it by proxy.

that is debatable but not something I wish to debate.

We may believe we made the decision of our own free will, but, if an omniscient exists, this is simply not true: the foreknowledge of the omniscient collapses all probabalistic functions, restricts all possible outcomes of any given trial to but one outcome: the one it has forseen.

yet you are still unaware of that foreknowledge, and not influenced by it, other than your own inner conflict with it.

If an omniscient has forseen me writing this text, how am I free to not write the text? If an omniscient has not forseen me visitng Tibet, how am I free to go there?

thats the point you can stop, and you could go, but you don't know which you will or will not do until you come to the choice.

The omniscient does not do anything in and of itself. It is akin to the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

I wasn't familiar with that term, but when I looked it up, it did mention the common lay misuse of the term, what way are you applying it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Um, let me ask you. Does anyone care? 1 Corinthians 13:12.

Those who subscribe to omniscience and free will should care: I believe I have demonstrated their premise wrong.

 

[chaz345]

Those who subscribe to omniscience and free will should care: I believe I have demonstrated their premise wrong.

Unfortunately for you, your belief does not necessarily make it so. Now if you were omnicient....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

that is debatable but not something I wish to debate.

Then leave this thread. It is, after all, the topic of discussion.

yet you are still unaware of that foreknowledge, and not influenced by it, other than your own inner conflict with it.

On the contrary, that the foreknowledge exists at all influences the universe; or rather, the foreknowledge can only exist in a certain form of universe.
Also, consider the observer effect: two quantum particles of unknown spin are entangled, and sent off in different directions. When you measure the spin of one particle, the wavefunction for the spin of the other instantly collapses and becomes definitive. That is, the knowledge itself influences events.

thats the point you can stop, and you could go, but you don't know which you will or will not do until you come to the choice.

Except the omniscient already knows what I will do. I, in my non-omniscient limitations, may not know what I will choose (until I make such a decision), but the omniscient does. To me, I have free will, but the omniscient knows better by definition.
An extention of my scenario is that we cannot deduce the existance of an omniscient simply by noting that we have free will (since it may just be an illusion).

I wasn't familiar with that term, but when I looked it up, it did mention the common lay misuse of the term, what way are you applying it?

See above; a particle's spin is know by measuring the spin of it's entanglement-partner. Before such a measurement is taken, each particle exists in identicle states of 'multi-spin'; that is, if they were merry-go-rounds, they'd be spinning clockwise and anti-clockwise.
Quantum is so much fun.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Unfortunately for you, your belief does not necessarily make it so.

Naturally. Notice how I has not so arrogant as to say I had proved the wrong, merely that I believe I have proven them wrong. I concede that I may be wrong

Now if you were omnicient....

What makes you think I'm not

 

[chaz345]

Naturally. Notice how I has not so arrogant as to say I had proved the wrong, merely that I believe I have proven them wrong. I concede that I may be wrong


What makes you think I'm not

What proves beyond a doubt that you're not omnicient is that a true omnicient cannot concede the possibility that they may be wrong. They probably couldn't even understand the concept of being wrong.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I saw no explanation of why my scenario gave a "flawed paradox legitimacy". So yes, if you don't mind.

The flaw as I see it would be that the speculations with the proposed givens in place (free will and omniscience) was your responsibility as an author to make sure it wasn't a false dilemma or that you could simulate a fabricated situation involving an omniscient God. A tall order to fill.

There are noticably other factors that are conveniently not addressed because of what appears as forced simplicity to what is allowed as a factor and it has thus far played out in a circular manner. While I read assertions that the prophetic outcome removes the choice, I don't see that as true.
The choice was still there.

There is the retort I've seen trying to claim a 'forced' choice, but that strikes me as much of a cop-out as I would with a criminal trying to put the burden of their choice on the shoulders of an authority holding them accountable.

For humor and if you wish to explore 'other possibilities', we could look at a legend of a prophet and an instance concerning two pigs for an example:

~~~
For instance, Nostradamus was a guest at the chateau de Fains when his host, the Seigneur de Florinville, had the chef bring out two pigs, a white one and a black one. The Seigneur de Florinville asked his famous guest Nostradamus to predict which pig they would be eating. Nostradamus predicted the black one. The host then secretly instructed the cook to serve the white pig. To prove the great psychic wrong the Seigneur de Florinville called the cook out during dinner and made him reveal which pig had been served. To the shock of the host the cook nervously replied "the black one" and explained that a wolf broke into the kitchen and had stolen the white pig as he was preparing it forcing the cook to serve the black one instead.
~~~

Not to give credence to the story, but the above could be used as an example of where the prediction was correct with the free will choice present.
The causality would be what explained how the two existed. In a similar manner, one could say box B was chosen, but for some causation -insanity, mistake, outside influences, rebellion, etc. - box A was the final outcome. Human behavior doesn't not always follow the tidy collection of logical restrictions.

Your creation even avoids the option to pick both boxes or neither - again suspect of a false dilemma construction and simplification within a complex topic.

In reality? By all means, demonstrate the existance of choice in our universe. Indeed, demonstrate the existance of an omniscient in our universe.

Perhaps if I thought it would be of use or I was compelled for some reason, I might try despite the resistance I'm seeing with accepting the possibility of the two existing together. But I am not compelled.

But better yet, maybe we can all watch the Matrix twenty times and contemplate figuring out 'the why'. That factor in the topic seems to have more promise than hearing someone make grand claims about having proved something.

What do you mean by 'choice is separate from omniscience'? Do they exist at alternate times?

With the speculative nature of the topic, there could be the issue of time only being a factor for one and not restrictive for the other.
But I wasn't relying on that as a given.

I just don't see the presented argument 'proving' what it claims and allegedly succeeding where so many others have failed to 'prove'.

But if you insist that you've done it, let us know when you get published by a majority of authorities in the field. I could give a prediction on that, but admittedly I would be riding the probability factor in determinism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What proves beyond a doubt that you're not omnicient is that a true omnicient cannot concede the possibility that they may be wrong. They probably couldn't even understand the concept of being wrong.

Haha, touché! Reps for you, sir.