Free Will and Omniscience

[Machinist]

That doesn't do anything about the fundamental problems I speak of, and adds new ones. Time is supposedly a property of space, hence terms like "space-time continuum". Adding in extra dimensions just multiplies the problem because now you have multiple static* block universes that are all predetermined. If you transcend something you go beyond it. If God has always transcended time, then that means it was never part of His nature. So saying that time is a part of His nature in this context appears self contradictory.

*Without willingly experiencing the illusion of time and change it would still appear as static to a being who transcends time. I say this because the true nature of time under the model of the "block universe" and Sparko's model that uses film as an analogy is still that of a static block that only appears to change for this within the illusion, or in this case those who willingly experience the illusion.

Man i'm just throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. So is it not useful to say that a being can exist in time and simultaneously transcend time at the same time? Like omnipresence can't be trans-dimensional? And if it were can you simulate what that would look like...can you imagine what that would look like? What if this being isn't really transcending time per se, but is rather in all continuums at the same time?

[Cerebrum123]

Man i'm just throwing stuff out there and seeing what sticks. So is it not useful to say that a being can exist in time and simultaneously transcend time at the same time? Like omnipresence can't be trans-dimensional? And if it were can you simulate what that would look like...can you imagine what that would look like? What if this being isn't really transcending time per se, but is rather in all continuums at the same time?

I can understand trying to just come up with a bunch of different ideas like that, and just to clarify I'm not trying say you can't do things like that. I'm just saying I think the ideas you've stated so far don't quite work. As for the other questions.

1. I don't think it is meaningful to say that when said being already knows the future because it is fixed. It just doesn't add anything of substance. Possible, sure. It seems meaningless in the big picture.

2. Omnipresence could certainly be transdimensional, but if those extra dimensions have the same issue of the future already existing and already being fixed, then it is just baseless speculation. Baseless speculation can be fun, but isn't really good for philosophy.

3. I think that this is a distinction without a difference. Or at least so small of a difference that it doesn't mean anything to the main points.

[Sparko]

I can't claim to know how something like this works. There are clearly examples in the Bible that God knows the future*, but taking that to the extreme you do leads to fatalism. Either God has enough present knowledge to correctly predict future events, or He limits Himself to only knowing certain things about the future to allow us real free will. At least, those are the two options I've come up with. I slightly lean towards something like the latter. I don't have firm position on it, I just know that an exhaustively foreknown universe isn't really free.

* Isaiah 46:10 Luke 22:34

Predicting the future isn't the same as omniscience. He could predict that someone would do something but then they might be killed in the meantime. So the only way God can predict the future and be 100% right would be to control events and actions in order to make it happens. Which leads right back to determinism and lack of free will. When Jesus predicted Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, God would have to have set those events into motion and then made sure they all happened as predicted before he made the cock crow within earshot of Peter.

Alternatively, we would have to be so predictable that God can predict our every action perfectly, along with the actions of various things happening around us, which again means that if we are that predictable we have no free will and are just acting in a determanistic manner. Similar to what Tasman believes, that if you could accurately know every physical motion and reaction of every atom you could predict the future accurately because it is all just materialism, even our thoughts.

So either way you end up with a universe without free will.

I will try one more time. If say God knows you will eat decide to eat bacon tomorrow for breakfast, as you say, you WILL eat bacon tomorrow for breakfast. So then you have to ask yourself "WHY will you choose to eat bacon for breakfast tomorrow?" You are not going to eat bacon tomorrow against your will, are you? You are not a robot. So what will happen is tomorrow you would freely decide to eat bacon for breakfast. And God knows that. You could choose to eat a poptart instead but for some reason known only to you (and God) you will eat bacon. Your choice. It might be "fixed" but only because that is what you will freely choose to do.

[Machinist]

Sparko,

What exactly is it about the static 4D block theory that you find implausible? Just assume for a moment that that might be true, how would it affect what you're saying above?

[Cerebrum123]

Predicting the future isn't the same as omniscience. He could predict that someone would do something but then they might be killed in the meantime. So the only way God can predict the future and be 100% right would be to control events and actions in order to make it happens. Which leads right back to determinism and lack of free will. When Jesus predicted Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, God would have to have set those events into motion and then made sure they all happened as predicted before he made the cock crow within earshot of Peter.

No, predicting/knowledge of the future is not the same as omniscience, but it is the part of omniscience that can conflict with free will. You were even asking me if God "is just a really good guesser", which implies asking about knowledge of the future.

My model doesn't require such a forcing of events. Human beings are able to set up events in which their predictions are shown to be true without anywhere near controlling 100% of every single detail involved. Why wouldn't God be able to do that when He is far more powerful and knowledgeable?

Alternatively, we would have to be so predictable that God can predict our every action perfectly, along with the actions of various things happening around us, which again means that if we are that predictable we have no free will and are just acting in a deterministic manner. Similar to what Tasman believes, that if you could accurately know every physical motion and reaction of every atom you could predict the future accurately because it is all just materialism, even our thoughts.

So either way you end up with a universe without free will.

Many people are extremely predictable, which is how narcissists and others are able to control large groups of people so easily. That doesn't entail determinism unless we take it to extremes like you just did. I haven't done that.

Not only that, but in your model every single cell, single atom, every single quantum fluctuation is fixed from eternity past because it is all fixed by God's omniscience.

I will try one more time. If say God knows you will eat decide to eat bacon tomorrow for breakfast, as you say, you WILL eat bacon tomorrow for breakfast. So then you have to ask yourself "WHY will you choose to eat bacon for breakfast tomorrow?" You are not going to eat bacon tomorrow against your will, are you? You are not a robot. So what will happen is tomorrow you would freely decide to eat bacon for breakfast. And God knows that. You could choose to eat a poptart instead but for some reason known only to you (and God) you will eat bacon. Your choice. It might be "fixed" but only because that is what you will freely choose to do.

You're just repeating yourself with nothing more than saying you are right to back it up. You've not even interacted with what I've said about freedom, just declared that your version is "free will", because you say so. You have a very, very anemic view of "free will".

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. If it was all fixed beforehand, then it was never really free. For a choice to be free it requires alternatives to have been a real possibility. Your model removes that possibility in principle, and in doing so removes freedom. You have not given an explanation for how such fixed choices can truly be considered free if they are constrained in such a way.

Sparko,

What exactly is it about the static 4D block theory that you find implausible? Just assume for a moment that that might be true, how would it affect what you're saying above?

He seems to accept that model, not reject it. He just rejects the implications of the model that I point out.

[Machinist]

Also something that I would request be addressed when time allows, is that the bacon analogy seems like the consumer is set on the bacon, as if he is premeditating the act. That's kind of throwing me off a bit. I'm sure an omniscient being would discern something if it's being planned out in someone's mind as to what decision they are committed to make in the future. Not all decisions are made in such manner. Is this not a factor? It seems like it would be.

Thank you.

[tabibito]

Also something that I would request be addressed when time allows, is that the bacon analogy seems like the consumer is set on the bacon, as if he is premeditating the act. That's kind of throwing me off a bit. I'm sure an omniscient being would discern something if it's being planned out in someone's mind as to what decision they are committed to make in the future. Not all decisions are made in such manner. Is this not a factor? It seems like it would be.

Thank you.

Near as I can tell, that would be so. If a prophet can know and speak of the things that are "hidden in someone's heart," it would be reasonable to assume that the one who made that information available to the prophet would also know those things.

[Sparko]

No, predicting/knowledge of the future is not the same as omniscience, but it is the part of omniscience that can conflict with free will. You were even asking me if God "is just a really good guesser", which implies asking about knowledge of the future.

My model doesn't require such a forcing of events. Human beings are able to set up events in which their predictions are shown to be true without anywhere near controlling 100% of every single detail involved. Why wouldn't God be able to do that when He is far more powerful and knowledgeable?

Your idea of God means he can easily be wrong. Can you show me where God was wrong in the bible? How can you trust a God who can be wrong? Everything in Revelation might not happen. Your God could "lose". Unless as I said, he takes control and makes everything happen, which as I said, means no free will.

It's not a strawman at all. It is just following through on the logic of your position.

Many people are extremely predictable, which is how narcissists and others are able to control large groups of people so easily. That doesn't entail determinism unless we take it to extremes like you just did. I haven't done that.

So what you are saying is that you could accurately predict exactly what someone would do because they are so predictable, but them doing it would be still free will? That say I could know that you will go fishing this weekend because I know you so well but you choosing to go fishing would still be your free will choice?

How is that any different than what I said that God KNOWS you will go fishing this weekend because he can see the future but that it is still your free will choice? It's the same thing but without the possibility of God being wrong.

Not only that, but in your model every single cell, single atom, every single quantum fluctuation is fixed from eternity past because it is all fixed by God's omniscience.

No I am saying that is the only way God could predict the future in YOUR model. He would need to know how every action will affect every other action, how every atom will affect every other atom, and use that to predict what comes next.

You're just repeating yourself with nothing more than saying you are right to back it up. You've not even interacted with what I've said about freedom, just declared that your version is "free will", because you say so. You have a very, very anemic view of "free will".

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. If it was all fixed beforehand, then it was never really free. For a choice to be free it requires alternatives to have been a real possibility. Your model removes that possibility in principle, and in doing so removes freedom. You have not given an explanation for how such fixed choices can truly be considered free if they are constrained in such a way.

The alternatives are real, you just didn't choose them. Just like every decision you make. You will choose one and all of the others won't be real. Just like every decision you made in the past. If you ate cheerios for breakfast yesterday, you COULD have eaten anything else, or nothing. But you didn't. You ate cheerios. All other alternatives are not real at that point. But it was your free will choice that made it happen.

He seems to accept that model, not reject it. He just rejects the implications of the model that I point out.

Yep. I believe all of the decisions are free will and is what is "fixed", just like a recording of a football game. The recording is fixed and can't be changed, but every action and decision made on the recording was a free will choice. The universe is like a recording if you look at it from outside (4D) but we are who make the recording what it is.

[Cerebrum123]

Your idea of God means he can easily be wrong. Can you show me where God was wrong in the bible? How can you trust a God who can be wrong? Everything in Revelation might not happen. Your God could "lose". Unless as I said, he takes control and makes everything happen, which as I said, means no free will.

But it does not require controlling things down to the last molecule like you state. Also, I could go as extreme as your interpretation of my words and then apply it to the Bible and I could just as easily say God was wrong.

Just as humans who have successfully predicted things in their future don't need to control every atom to be right. God wouldn't need that either in my system, although I do think He does have knowledge of all things happening in the present.

It's not a strawman at all. It is just following through on the logic of your position.

No, you're using a non-sequitur. You are also complaining about part of your own position in an attempt to argue against mine. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

So what you are saying is that you could accurately predict exactly what someone would do because they are so predictable, but them doing it would be still free will? That say I could know that you will go fishing this weekend because I know you so well but you choosing to go fishing would still be your free will choice?

How is that any different than what I said that God KNOWS you will go fishing this weekend because he can see the future but that it is still your free will choice? It's the same thing but without the possibility of God being wrong.

It's different because in the example of someone being predictable under my alternative is that other possibilities aren't ruled out from eternity past. The alternatives aren't locked out in advance, which is the logical conclusion of your model. It is also the reason I came to reject that model. The way you are reading what I've written puts God as even less competent than humans, which is completely backwards, and not what I said at all. That is the reason I say you are making a straw man argument.

No I am saying that is the only way God could predict the future in YOUR model. He would need to know how every action will affect every other action, how every atom will affect every other atom, and use that to predict what comes next.

Your model of omniscience already states He knows all of that, and all of the future to the same level of detail. How can this be used a complaint against my model when yours is even more restrictive?

The alternatives are real, you just didn't choose them. Just like every decision you make. You will choose one and all of the others won't be real. Just like every decision you made in the past. If you ate cheerios for breakfast yesterday, you COULD have eaten anything else, or nothing. But you didn't. You ate cheerios. All other alternatives are not real at that point. But it was your free will choice that made it happen.

No, they weren't real possibilities in your model because they were already locked out from eternity past.

Yep. I believe all of the decisions are free will and is what is "fixed", just like a recording of a football game. The recording is fixed and can't be changed, but every action and decision made on the recording was a free will choice. The universe is like a recording if you look at it from outside (4D) but we are who make the recording what it is.

Which is self contradictory. Such fixed actions are by nature not free, as no other alternatives were ever a real possibility. You also assume that the past works the exact same way as the future. In your model the "recording" existed from eternity past, long before the events "recorded".

You still aren't interacting with what I have said is wrong with your model, you just handwave it away with a bad analogy every time. Your model works more like that episode of Twilight Zone with the camera that takes pictures of the future. They thought that they could just use it to get rich*, only later to take a picture that showed themselves dead. Nothing they did could prevent that event from occurring. The same thing happened to the man who took the camera from them.

Burn more straw if you want, I'm done here.

*They did win some stuff from betting on horse races, but their gains were short lived.

[Machinist]

From the article that Cerebrum provided : https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-deb...time-20160719/



"I'm sick and tired of this block Universe. I don't think that next Thursday has the same footing as next Thursday. The future does not exist. It does not! Ontologically, it's not there." -Avshalom Elitzur

I find his use of the word Ontologically here very intriguing in describing the absence of the future. It's a very artistic use of the word. Does anyone agree?

[Machinist]

Ismael had heard these objections many times before. Future events exist, she said, they just don’t exist now. “The block universe is not a changing picture,” she said.“It’s a picture of change.

Another seemingly relevant, and enigmatic statement from the above article. Reading it a few times could perhaps help in articulating these opposing views.

[tabibito]

Ismael had heard these objections many times before. Future events exist, she said, they just don’t exist now. “The block universe is not a changing picture,” she said.“It’s a picture of change.

Another seemingly relevant, and enigmatic statement from the above article. Reading it a few times could perhaps help in articulating these opposing views.

In short - the "block universe" and "cause and effect" are incompatible. In the "block universe," nothing actually happens: at any given point in time, things are as they are because that is how they always are. "Were" and "will be" are illusions. "Can become" and "cannot become" are mere illusions. Fatalism is the reality.

[Sparko]

Ismael had heard these objections many times before. Future events exist, she said, they just don’t exist now. “The block universe is not a changing picture,” she said.“It’s a picture of change.

Another seemingly relevant, and enigmatic statement from the above article. Reading it a few times could perhaps help in articulating these opposing views.

she is saying what I did. That the so called block universe is a recording of what we decide to do, when we decide to do it. Just like the video tape analogy is a recording of the free will choices of the football game. The choices "fix" themselves when they are made. You can't change a decision once you make it and you have to make a decision (that is what life is, a series of choices and changes), so if you have to make a decision, only one can ever occur at a specific point in time, meaning it then is fixed in the block universe. If you make a different choice that will be what is fixed. The past is a perfect example of this. It appears fixed to us now but we know everything we did was our free will choice. Just imagine someone from 30 years in the future looking back at what we do today or tomorrow. To us it is open, but to him, it is "fixed" - all a matter of perspective.

[Machinist]

Thank you. That was very concise and food for thought.


Do decisions ever make us?

[Sparko]

Thank you. That was very concise and food for thought.


Do decisions ever make us?

Talk to your parents about that.