Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Gukkor]

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

haHA! I'm not a rationalist! My beliefs don't have to make sense!

You have no idea how much I annoy my friends with that when they're trying to debate with me about something.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

As far as I could tell, the scenario is analogous to many in reality, in that humans are faced with 'choices' daily. My scenario explored what would happen with regard to the nature of 'choice' if an omniscient exists.

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.

What factors would these be?

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.

Fortunately, I am not arguing for a 'forced' choice.

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.

Just because the prediction is correct does not mean the alleged omniscient is actually omniscient. I also fail to see where free will comes into the example.

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.

Agreed. But in my scenario, the omniscient merely foresees my picking box A. Why I will pick box A is irrelevant.

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.

Such options are part of my scenario. However, if one chooses to pick both boxes or neither box, then you get the 'If so, then God is not omniscient' conclusion.

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.

On the contrary, if you can independantly demonstrate their existances in our reality, then I must concede that there is a flaw in my logic. Reality trumps belief, after all.

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.

If you see a reconciliation in that, do tell.

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

I wasn't aware there had previous attempts. Oh well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

haHA! I'm not a rationalist! My beliefs don't have to make sense!

You have no idea how much I annoy my friends with that when they're trying to debate with me about something.

The human mind is something to be marvelled and nurtured, not left in squalor. A pity.

 

[chris777]

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

my point is you have already decided the outcome of said discussion have you not? is that not what this thread is about is verification of your supposition?

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.

these are assumptions made by finite beings and by nature are speculation at best, and limited, to define a "certain form of universe" is frankly foolish to presume we have enough knowledge about our own universe to make such acessments, much less an "alternate" one

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.

are you refering to quantum entanglement, or something else, I understand some of these things, but Have discovered the jargon most scientist use differs vastly from my own terminology , I have for some of my own theories, I am still on occasion comparing the two to see what matches and what we differ on,

That is, the knowledge itself influences events.

and here we have the issue itself, If we are speaking about the same thing you are refering to as I keep pulling up different things based on your above statement, I do not get observer effect, I keep pulling up quantum entanglement, and quantum teleportation. do you have a link using what you are describin gas the observer effect, or is it entanglement?

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.

what would you define as free will?

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).

is this not philosophy though?

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.

I wonder if that is akin to a theory I have on it, do you happen to have a link to any of this?

 

[Digit]

Aha, I missed this


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.

Yeah I know, but for me I wanted to know more about whether the Bible talks specifically about God being omniscient. If it doesn't then I really don't have much invested in this topic.

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.

Why? Why does the knowledge of what is going to happen, make the universe anymore rigid than if that knowledge is unknown?

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 can see what you are saying but I reject the conclusion that fore-knowledge of my choice, somehow prevents me from choosing the alternate. God has not interfered in any way to force me to choose otherwise, He simply knows what my choice will be. That puts no constraints on my freedom to choose otherwise.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah I know, but for me I wanted to know more about whether the Bible talks specifically about God being omniscient. If it doesn't then I really don't have much invested in this topic.

It's worth mentioning that just because the Bible says an omniscient can coexist with those with 'free-will'-ians, doesn't make it true. Literalism is demonstratably false.

Why? Why does the knowledge of what is going to happen, make the universe anymore rigid than if that knowledge is unknown?

It does not, per se. Consider the (weak or strong, I forget) anthropic principle: for us to exist, the set of universes our universe could be, can only be those that allow us to exist.
Our universe must be hospitable to life since life exists in it. The existance of life does not force the universe to take on the form that it has, but rather we can deduce it's form (or possible forms).
Likewise, though the knowledge doesn't force the universe into any particular shape, the universe's shape can be deduced (at least partially) by the fact that the knowledge exists.

Oh, wait, I've already said this. My bad

I can see what you are saying but I reject the conclusion that fore-knowledge of my choice, somehow prevents me from choosing the alternate. God has not interfered in any way to force me to choose otherwise, He simply knows what my choice will be.

Agreed. But for the foreknowledge to exist, the universe must be deterministic. Indeed, how can one be deterministic in a non-deterministic universe? The knowledge doesn't change the universe, and neither does the omniscient interfere with your ability to choose. But for the knowledge, or the omniscient, to exist, the universe must meet certain requirements.
For a triangle to have it's internal angles to sum to exactly 180°, the plane it is on must meet certain requirements (specifically, it must be Euclidean).

That puts no constraints on my freedom to choose otherwise.

I disagree. For the foreknowledge to exist, there cannot be the possibility of choosing other outcomes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

my point is you have already decided the outcome of said discussion have you not? is that not what this thread is about is verification of your supposition?

This thread is to discuss whether I am right, or whether I am wrong. I believe I am right, but I fully concede that I may not be.

these are assumptions made by finite beings and by nature are speculation at best, and limited, to define a "certain form of universe" is frankly foolish to presume we have enough knowledge about our own universe to make such acessments, much less an "alternate" one

We do not have complete information about our universe, not even the laws under which it works. Thus, there are a multitude of possible universes that fit the observations seen thus far. We may be limited to Middle-World (as Dawkins puts it), but that does not mean we cannot make meaningful statements about World in general.

are you refering to quantum entanglement, or something else, I understand some of these things, but Have discovered the jargon most scientist use differs vastly from my own terminology , I have for some of my own theories, I am still on occasion comparing the two to see what matches and what we differ on,

Yes, I am referring to quantum entanglement.

and here we have the issue itself, If we are speaking about the same thing you are refering to as I keep pulling up different things based on your above statement, I do not get observer effect, I keep pulling up quantum entanglement, and quantum teleportation. do you have a link using what you are describin gas the observer effect, or is it entanglement?

The observer effect.
Quantum entanglement.

what would you define as free will?

Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices.

is this not philosophy though?

Yes, I believe it is.

I wonder if that is akin to a theory I have on it, do you happen to have a link to any of this?

Quantum spin.

 

[Digit]

It's worth mentioning that just because the Bible says an omniscient can coexist with those with 'free-will'-ians, doesn't make it true. Literalism is demonstratably false.

No, but then I didn't say that. I simply said that for me (one who believes God exists and He is as described in scripture) I wanted to know what it actually says about Him.

It does not, per se. Consider the (weak or strong, I forget) anthropic principle: for us to exist, the set of universes our universe could be, can only be those that allow us to exist.
Our universe must be hospitable to life since life exists in it. The existance of life does not force the universe to take on the form that it has, but rather we can deduce it's form (or possible forms).
Likewise, though the knowledge doesn't force the universe into any particular shape, the universe's shape can be deduced (at least partially) by the fact that the knowledge exists.

Oh, wait, I've already said this. My bad

Yeah... and that supports what I said.

I disagree. For the foreknowledge to exist, there cannot be the possibility of choosing other outcomes.

There can be the possibility. That is, it is entirely possible and feasible to do one or the other, it is not restrained in any way, our free will is not hampered in any way, we can do as we please. I still think you confuse knowledge with limitations, or as I said earlier, knowledge with choice.

With my definitions, that I posted earlier. I see no conflict. *shrug*

Cheers,
Digit

 

[ChristianCenturion]

As far as I could tell, the scenario is analogous to many in reality, in that humans are faced with 'choices' daily. My scenario explored what would happen with regard to the nature of 'choice' if an omniscient exists.

That may be what you say is your position.
However, the talking points are a religion/philosophy quandary that is very old. A simple google can produce the usual mindsets trying to make claims that they can argue one or the other doesn't exist/can't co-exist.

And yes, once the assertions start becoming free-will can't co-exist with an omniscient God, then it is reminiscent of motivated attempts to create a false dilemma where either:

A) A sinner can blame God (or some go the route of blaming Satan) for their transgressions.

or

B) The God from Judeo/Christian teaching allegedly doesn't exist and therefore, one can transgress without the known consequences i.e. guilt, being exposed to another while in transgressions, etc.

What factors would these be?

I already mentioned some.
Basically, anything that goes beyond the given Either/Or presentation.

Fortunately, I am not arguing for a 'forced' choice.

Ah, it must have been another poster mentioning forced.
I'll have to go back a few posts and see who mentioned a condition forced it back to a given conclusion of Either God isn't omniscient Or people don't have free will.

Just because the prediction is correct does not mean the alleged omniscient is actually omniscient. I also fail to see where free will comes into the example.

True - even if we accept the story as-is, one time does not indicate omniscience.
But I thought the ability of the characters to choose was readily observable.
No biggy - I thought it demonstrated something.

Agreed. But in my scenario, the omniscient merely foresees my picking box A. Why I will pick box A is irrelevant.

Actually, the nature of why is relevant with several speculations of determinism. Simply dismissing the why or nature of the one making a choice does a disservice to at least those arguments that have more reasoning within them.

Such options are part of my scenario. However, if one chooses to pick both boxes or neither box, then you get the 'If so, then God is not omniscient' conclusion.

That reads as still following the circular path back to the conclusion.

Well, you will have to pardon me for knowing that there are other options. For example: that the author creating the dilemma didn't correctly represent an omniscient God giving the right prophecy in a given scenario. That is a possibility - that the argument is flawed.

And once again, if both or neither were going to be picked, then logic dictates that the omniscient God knows that will be the outcome. Whether or not the person picking remembers the foretold outcome, has disconnected reasons for picking as they do despite knowledge of the foretold outcome, an outside influence causes events leading to the outcome, God foretells the outcome in a way that only is understood after the fact, etc. - the possibilities may only be limited by imagination for producing a 'reason'.

On the contrary, if you can independantly demonstrate their existances in our reality, then I must concede that there is a flaw in my logic. Reality trumps belief, after all.

I don't really understand what you intended when using "independently", but what you say there about "reality trumps belief" isn't exactly true of the world or the people in it 'must concede'.

For example, there are plenty of people in the world that will feign a disbelief, fall back on denial, or hold up an ignorance as if those along with others trump reason, reality, a reasonably clear explanation, etc. As I said before, human behavior doesn't always follow the tidy logic restrictions and you can't always force someone to believe or accept what they are determined not to believe/accept for whatever reason.

I accept that God is omniscient and that I am responsible for my own choices. Whether you want to accept or not accept both or either would be... another matter.

If you see a reconciliation in that, do tell.

Not seeing a spark of progress with what we've covered so far, I don't think going into temporal states or transcendent existence will be the better route.

I wasn't aware there had previous attempts. Oh well.

You could always try looking up determinism, predestination, temporal mechanics, omniscience paradox, or a multitude of terms associated with omniscience and free will - even if it were on wikipedia or something.

 

[chris777]

This thread is to discuss whether I am right, or whether I am wrong. I believe I am right, but I fully concede that I may not be.

And my point is the parameters are flawed, and predicate a result in your favor , its biased

We do not have complete information about our universe, not even the laws under which it works. Thus, there are a multitude of possible universes that fit the observations seen thus far. We may be limited to Middle-World (as Dawkins puts it), but that does not mean we cannot make meaningful statements about World in general.

God exist outside of our world, thats one flaw in your supposition.

Yes, I am referring to quantum entanglement.

ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

The observer effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglementthis is where I looked, but your application does not seem to fit the definition provided here unless you are applying it theoretically or in the common lay misuse of the term.

Free will is the ability by which a sentient entity can make unpredictable (though reasoned) choices.

its relativity to a certan degree,

Yes, I believe it is.

and thats the flaw of quantum mechanics,

Quantum spin.

I wish I could speak math, I see these things visually, and math aside from seeming lacking in the sense of a picture being worth a thousand words, well it is gibberish to me , I need a rosetta stone of sorts I guess.

 

[Gukkor]

The human mind is something to be marvelled and nurtured, not left in squalor. A pity.

Bah, relax, man, I was joking.

 

[CShephard53]

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

Wow, you didn't even bother to look up the verse, did you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, but then I didn't say that. I simply said that for me (one who believes God exists and He is as described in scripture) I wanted to know what it actually says about Him.

I was being preemptive

Yeah... and that supports what I said.

Then I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that the knowledge actively changes the universe.

There can be the possibility. That is, it is entirely possible and feasible to do one or the other, it is not restrained in any way, our free will is not hampered in any way, we can do as we please. I still think you confuse knowledge with limitations, or as I said earlier, knowledge with choice.

Could you explain how knowledge doesn't limit possibilities? For example, if I know a particle is at point A, how can it be at point B? Even quantum mechanics agrees on this.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That may be what you say is your position.

I find it interesting that you doubt my word.

However, the talking points are a religion/philosophy quandary that is very old. A simple google can produce the usual mindsets trying to make claims that they can argue one or the other doesn't exist/can't co-exist.

Your point? An old quandry is no less unsolvable than a new one.

And yes, once the assertions start becoming free-will can't co-exist with an omniscient God, then it is reminiscent of motivated attempts to create a false dilemma where either:

A) A sinner can blame God (or some go the route of blaming Satan) for their transgressions.

or

B) The God from Judeo/Christian teaching allegedly doesn't exist and therefore, one can transgress without the known consequences i.e. guilt, being exposed to another while in transgressions, etc.

A false, and rather baffling, dichotomy. That the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic god is not omniscient is hardly an excuse to throw morality in the air. It is still omnipotent, and we still have free will. I don't see how Christian morality is affected by a non-omniscient entity.

I already mentioned some.
Basically, anything that goes beyond the given Either/Or presentation.

You're going to have to be more specific; this is just a rephrase of your initial claim. What factors are conveniently not addressed?

Actually, the nature of why is relevant with several speculations of determinism. Simply dismissing the why or nature of the one making a choice does a disservice to at least those arguments that have more reasoning within them.

I was referring to the exact cause (a moment of insanity, say). That there is a cause at all is quite important (was it caused by true sentience? Or by neural cascades?), but the specific reason is, I believe, irrelevant, since we only need to consider 'true' choice and 'illusory' choice.

That reads as still following the circular path back to the conclusion.

Well, you will have to pardon me for knowing that there are other options. For example: that the author creating the dilemma didn't correctly represent an omniscient God giving the right prophecy in a given scenario. That is a possibility - that the argument is flawed.

The alleged-omniscient in the scenario did not communicate it's alleged-foreknowledge.
Please, give all the alternate options. A disproof is as exciting as a proof.

And once again, if both or neither were going to be picked, then logic dictates that the omniscient God knows that will be the outcome.

Remember that is an alleged-omniscient. As impartial observers to the scenario, we are trying to deduce whether it is omniscient of not, and whether 'I' have free will or not.

Whether or not the person picking remembers the foretold outcome, has disconnected reasons for picking as they do despite knowledge of the foretold outcome, an outside influence causes events leading to the outcome, God foretells the outcome in a way that only is understood after the fact, etc. - the possibilities may only be limited by imagination for producing a 'reason'.

Arguably, free will is proven if there is no 'reason'.

I don't really understand what you intended when using "independently",

As in, prove an omniscient exists, and then prove free will exists, without referring to each other.

but what you say there about "reality trumps belief" isn't exactly true of the world or the people in it 'must concede'.

For example, there are plenty of people in the world that will feign a disbelief, fall back on denial, or hold up an ignorance as if those along with others trump reason, reality, a reasonably clear explanation, etc. As I said before, human behavior doesn't always follow the tidy logic restrictions and you can't always force someone to believe or accept what they are determined not to believe/accept for whatever reason.

Agreed. But I said I will concede. As a scientist (in training), I will take my perceived reality over human wisdom any day (statistical error notwithstanding )

I accept that God is omniscient and that I am responsible for my own choices. Whether you want to accept or not accept both or either would be... another matter.

This smacks of the proselytisation 'loaded claim' technique: you presume (or rather, it appears as if you presume) that we all are aware of God's existance.
It is a matter of belief, not acceptance. How can I turn down an offer I don't believe exists? But I think we digress...

Not seeing a spark of progress with what we've covered so far, I don't think going into temporal states or transcendent existence will be the better route.

As you wish.

You could always try looking up determinism, predestination, temporal mechanics, omniscience paradox, or a multitude of terms associated with omniscience and free will - even if it were on wikipedia or something.

I had a look, and encountered something called 'theological fatalism'. The page is basically a condensed form of this entire thread.
No conclusion is given. So much for foreknowledge

 

[Teufelhund]

You are presuming that God is an entity bound by time, the idea is God is seperate from time, and that he knows which box you have picked as you have already picked it. And if you study Quantum Mechanics you'll find that you pick both B and A but never C, which is I suspect closer to the truth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wow, you didn't even bother to look up the verse, did you?

Actually, I did, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, so I just relegated it to the Random Bible Verse Generator (RBVG) striking again.
If you would like to explain it, please, go ahead.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are presuming that God is an entity bound by time, the idea is God is seperate from time, and that he knows which box you have picked as you have already picked it.

I have presumed nothing about the omniscient's 'time-ness'. I have only ascribed him the quality of total foreknowledge ('fore-' with respect to us temporal agents, of course).

And if you study Quantum Mechanics you'll find that you pick both B and A but never C, which is I suspect closer to the truth.

In the scenario, there is no box C. I fail to see how quantum mechanics leads to this conclusion.

 

[Teufelhund]

Quantum mechanics speculates that energy must exist in variety of phases which doesn't make sense, and places, ergo a particle can either point A, or point C, but never point B. The only way that this really makes sense is if there an infinite number of universes in point B is in fact occupied. That's really the gist of it.
The problem with the foreknowledge arguement is that we are assuming that thre is a fore there is not in this case, and as all our logic is bound by time, and physics ironically enough, it is not suited or designed to compute or study a being beyond it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And my point is the parameters are flawed, and predicate a result in your favor , its biased

And my point is that I do not see how my 'parameters' are flawed.

God exist outside of our world, thats one flaw in your supposition.

I'm not quite sure how this follows, but I'll go with it.

Could you elaborate what you mean by 'exists outside of our world'? Are you referring to a being not on our spacetime continuum?

Could you explain how an omniscient that 'exists outside of our world' solves the paradox?

this is where I looked, but your application does not seem to fit the definition provided here unless you are applying it theoretically or in the common lay misuse of the term.

I used it to show that knowledge regarding an event can alter the nature of the event itself. It was an analogy, nothing more.
If you think I have used it incorrectly, please, show me my flaw.

its relativity to a certan degree,

I'm sorry?

and thats the flaw of quantum mechanics,

I don't see you. To recap:

I said: 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).
You said: is this not philosophy though?
I said: Yes, I believe it is.
You said: and thats the flaw of quantum mechanics,

I do not see where quantum mechanics comes into it.

I wish I could speak math, I see these things visually, and math aside from seeming lacking in the sense of a picture being worth a thousand words, well it is gibberish to me , I need a rosetta stone of sorts I guess.

Mathematical language is used to paint a picture of absolute precision (as opposed to natural languages, say). If you could understand the language, it's quite a lovely picture.

 

[Teufelhund]

Actually mathematical language is a flawed system that was created to explain physics hence the famous: "Mathematics where it applies to reality is uncertain, and where it is certain does not apply to reality."