NationStates Jolt Archive

My philosophy class has been discussing ideologies, and this week began on the basic structure presented by the Bible. One problem we expressed in logical terms, the problem of reconciling omniscience and free will. I apologize for the length of the post, but please bear with me.

Basic Assumptions:
1) Knowledge entails truth
Example: If a person S knows P, then P is true, therefore not-p is false.
2) Omniscience is knowledge of all truths.
3) Free will expressed in logical term: If person S freely performs any action Q, person S could also have performed action Q*.

The Problem of Free Will and Omniscience
Premises
1)For any person S, God knows that S will perform action Q at time T. (Omniscience)
2)So, it is true that S will perform Q at T. (logical consequence of Omniscience)
3)So, there is no other action (Q*) that S can perform at time T.
4)For any person S and any action Q, S freely performs S at T only if there is another action at T. (Free Will)

Conclusion: Therefore, for any S and any Q, S does not freely perform Q.

If you bothered to read this far, give yourself a cookie, or better yet, a drink. Then feel free to critique it, or to tell me if anything seems missing. If you need anything explained, feel free to ask.

You forgot some assumptions:

Existence of truth
Existence of assumptions
Existence of knowledge

The problem can also be brought about with God's omnipotence and free-will.

If you missed it we had about 3 threads on free-will that lead no where.
And those didn't even bring into account God.

You forgot some assumptions:

Existence of truth
Existence of assumptions
Existence of knowledge

The problem can also be brought about with God's omnipotence and free-will.

If you missed it we had about 3 threads on free-will that lead no where.
And those didn't even bring into account God.

I didn't see those earlier threads, but I'll take your word for it. I realize this probably won't go anywhere, but I'd just like to see how far people could take this.

About the existences I forgot, this isn't meant to be a deep philosophical debate about the nature of reality, because those are even more time consuming and pointless than debates about free will and omniscience. I just wanted to address the logical problem in simple terms, not in bs questions of whether truth, assumptions, and knowledge exist.

bs questions

No such thing, hope you have a good teacher.

No such thing, hope you have a good teacher.

He actually is pretty good. What I meant was, you can't even debate the existence of truth, assumptions, or knowledge, because such a debate would involve the posibility that they do not not exist. If those three concepts did not exist, there would be no basis for a debate in the first place, since you couldn't even form basic premises. If you know a way to do so, please tell me, but until I hear it, you have to assume that truth, knowledge, and assumptions exist. Thus, to debate their existence would be a waste of time, and bs.

The one problem with this proof is your definition of free will. You define free will in terms of possibilities: either A or B could happen until the moment the decision is made. A definition of free will that makes sense to me is one of causation: you are the sole cause of your decision. Others have described it more in terms of the ability to reach rational decisions. In other descriptions it becomes freedom from something, such as fate or God.

A simpler proof without God, not in so elegant form:

When give a choice, one will always choose the option he/she believes to be most beneficial to that person. Thus, no other options was ever actually a choice.

The point is that we have no real freedom of choice - we will always try to choose the best thing for us. Since it's what's best for you, does it really matter if things couldn't have gone any other way?

The one problem with this proof is your definition of free will. You define free will in terms of possibilities: either A or B could happen until the moment the decision is made. A definition of free will that makes sense to me is one of causation: you are the sole cause of your decision. Others have described it more in terms of the ability to reach rational decisions. In other descriptions it becomes freedom from something, such as fate or God.

That's a very interesting definition, though I've never heard it before.

So, instead of freedom of choice, free will becomes freedom to cause your actions? It doesn't really change the problem, since God will still know your choice, and you still are destined, as it were, to make that one choice, regardless of the causation of that choice.

So, instead of freedom of choice, free will becomes freedom to cause your actions

This is an absurd statement:

I am the cause of MYSELF!

Cause, by definition, must proceed effect, and cannot act on itself.

A simpler proof without God, not in so elegant form:

When give a choice, one will always choose the option he/she believes to be most beneficial to that person. Thus, no other options was ever actually a choice.

The point is that we have no real freedom of choice - we will always try to choose the best thing for us. Since it's what's best for you, does it really matter if things couldn't have gone any other way?

What if I base my choice on a coin toss?

What if I base my choice on a coin toss?
You choose to do that.

Also, you frame the actions that the toss will decide.

You can have both...it is entirely possible.

I'll give an example.

I know that tommorow at 9:00 AM my friend will go to work.

Did i negate his free will, just by knowing this? What if i knew what everybody was doing? Just because G-d knows whats going to happen, does not make it, that the person does not have free will.

I think human brains are complex (though squishy) decision making machines. The feeling we have when we make a decision we call freewill. It doesn't make sense to say, could "I" have made a different decision from my brain, because "you" are your brain.

As for god, I'll be happy to discuss him and free will as soon as he sends me an e-mail and Fed-exs me his brain.

Phylum, you're scientifically minded, as I correct?

If you have a chance, review this. It has much to do with what's here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443453

That's a very interesting definition, though I've never heard it before.

So, instead of freedom of choice, free will becomes freedom to cause your actions? It doesn't really change the problem, since God will still know your choice, and you still are destined, as it were, to make that one choice, regardless of the causation of that choice.

The point is that God is not the cause of that choice, and thus the decision was free of outside causation and came solely from oneself. The God may know your choice beforehand, which may mean you have only one option, but it is you who cause that to be the sole option.

Problem is this brings free will into the realm of science, where in my opinion it becomes disproved.

You can have both...it is entirely possible.

I'll give an example.

I know that tommorow at 9:00 AM my friend will go to work.

Did i negate his free will, just by knowing this? What if i knew what everybody was doing? Just because G-d knows whats going to happen, does not make it, that the person does not have free will.

Assuming you had omniscience, then, yes, you did negate your friend's free will. Since we are assuming, as I said at the beginning, that knowledge is truth, then by knowing that your friend will go to work at 9:00am, then he or she will be going to work at 9:00am.

The point is that God is not the cause of that choice, and thus the decision was free of outside causation and came solely from oneself.

This is saying "I caused myself" which again is illogical.

The point is that God is not the cause of that choice, and thus the decision was free of outside causation and came solely from oneself. The God may know your choice beforehand, which may mean you have only one option, but it is you who cause that to be the sole option.

Problem is this brings free will into the realm of science, where in my opinion it becomes disproved.

So you would say that one of the assumptions I made at the beginning, the knowledge entails truth, is false? If knowledge of an action entails truth, then if God knows you will do Q, then it must be true you will do Q, because it is known.

If it is false that knowledge entails truth, though, then it can be said that just because God knows you will do Q doesn't mean you will do it, since you have the final say in whether you will actually do Q. Is this what you meant, or am I off on some wild tangent? (Going off on wild tangents is a bad habit of mine)

This is saying "I caused myself" which again is illogical.

If we're operating from a Cartesian Dualist standpoint (which, since we're discussing free will, we are) it is more correctly: My mind caused my body. Thus, it is logical.

Assuming you had omniscience, then, yes, you did negate your friend's free will. Since we are assuming, as I said at the beginning, that knowledge is truth, then by knowing that your friend will go to work at 9:00am, then he or she will be going to work at 9:00am.

Knowledge is not truth....knowledge is wisdom.

And is it Wise you tell your wife the truth, that she does look fat in that dress?

Think about that. ;) You don't have to be omniscient to guess what's gonna happen next.

Knowledge is not truth....knowledge is wisdom.

And is it Wise you tell your wife the truth, that she does look fat in that dress?

Think about that. ;) You don't have to be omniscient to guess what's gonna happen next.

You'd be surprised how many people wouldn't know what would happen next. :D

And, if knowledge is wisdom, then yes, knowing something wouldn't lead to it necessarily happening, so then omniscience and free will would be reconciled.

So you would say that one of the assumptions I made at the beginning, the knowledge entails truth, is false? If knowledge of an action entails truth, then if God knows you will do Q, then it must be true you will do Q, because it is known.

If it is false that knowledge entails truth, though, then it can be said that just because God knows you will do Q doesn't mean you will do it, since you have the final say in whether you will actually do Q. Is this what you meant, or am I off on some wild tangent? (Going off on wild tangents is a bad habit of mine)

I agree that knowledge equals truth, but I don't agree that truth equals causation. You can know that when a billiard ball hits another one, it will move it a certain direction. You are still not the cause of the movement. The result is still set, but I'm operating from a definition of free will as self-causation, not self-determination, so the fact that its set doesn't matter.

If we're operating from a Cartesian Dualist standpoint (which, since we're discussing free will, we are) it is more correctly: My mind caused my body. Thus, it is logical.

Then you get the ghost in the machine problem AGAIN...

Mind is free of cause and effect:
Body is determined by cause and effect

Tell me Descartes, how the hell do they interact!!!

You'd be surprised how many people wouldn't know what would happen next. :D

And, if knowledge is wisdom, then yes, knowing something wouldn't lead to it necessarily happening, so then omniscience and free will would be reconciled.

Does that mean this thread is over now? =D

If you have a chance, review this. It has much to do with what's here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443453
Thanks for the link Bjornya. I've already posted a much more limited thread that deals with the question of free will in a very simple way without bringing god into it. It's called "Marbles, Robot Dogs and Free Will," I think the questions it asks are kind of interesting.

I agree that knowledge equals truth, but I don't agree that truth equals causation. You can know that when a billiard ball hits another one, it will move it a certain direction. You are still not the cause of the movement. The result is still set, but I'm operating from a definition of free will as self-causation, not self-determination, so the fact that its set doesn't matter.

Well, to put in other terms, if knowledge equals truth, then if you know that Q will happen at T, then it is true that T will happen at Q. It's not a question of cause, but of end result. It doesn't matter if you cause the action or if God causes the action, but that Q will happen. So causation is not really the question here, but the end result, and whether we, as humans, really have a choice in the end result.

Does that mean this thread is over now? =D

No, just that there is one way to reconcile omniscience and free will. I'm hoping to see if anyone else comes at the problem from another direction.

Besides, if the thread ended, I'd have to go to sleep, and that's just boring. ;)

Thanks for the link Bjornya. I've already posted a much more limited thread that deals with the question of free will in a very simple way without bringing god into it. It's called "Marbles, Robot Dogs and Free Will," I think the questions it asks are kind of interesting.

*sigh* scientists are never able to accept the logical conclusions of theri philosophy.

No, just that there is one way to reconcile omniscience and free will. I'm hoping to see if anyone else comes at the problem from another direction.

Besides, if the thread ended, I'd have to go to sleep, and that's just boring. ;)

Well here's an interesting fact to know.

Remember at one point the americans started calling French Fries, Freedom Fries...and all that stuff.

Well did you know that France means "land of the free men" in their own language.

So technically....French Fries are Freedom Fries! Think about that. ;p

Question:
Can we, as people, even have "free will", because there is no such thing as ourselves outside of our experiences and inborn personality traits?
For example, we are given two people, both growing up in opposite envirments;
i.e. A grew up in a caring, if spoilling family, B grew up in a harsher envirment
Both are given the same question: You have $20 what will you do with it?
Depending on the exact situation, both will give an answer depending on their experiences.

I guess what I'm trying to say (not very effectively), is that because we can only know what we have been exposed to, how can we make a completely free decision? Aren't we dictated by our circumstance and knowledge?
There could be hundreds of answers to give to the twenty dollar question, but only a few are known.
And even between those that are known, the decision will still probably fall back on that person's personality ("I think I'll like ___ best, it has chocolate") or our surroundings ("Well my friend says ____ is good.")

What could we define as free will, if it's our enviroment that shapes who we are? Even the most worldly of people only knows what is best by what they have seen.

Being a Christian, this is a question that is often asked of me. I think that it is possible for God to be all-knowing and free will existing. Just because God (or whatever you believe in) knows what we are going to choose, it does not mean that we do not have free will. Look at it like this: God gives us all a choice whether to believe in Him or not. He knows what we will choose with our free will, but that does not mean that He is the one who made the decision for us, because if He was able to make the decision for us, He would have us all follow Him instead of some following Him and the rest not believing in His existence.

Then you get the ghost in the machine problem AGAIN...

Mind is free of cause and effect:
Body is determined by cause and effect

Tell me Descartes, how the hell do they interact!!!

This is the real problem with free will. It only works if you don't know that the body is controlled by outside stuff. Once you know that both free will and Descartes become moot.

Well, to put in other terms, if knowledge equals truth, then if you know that Q will happen at T, then it is true that T will happen at Q. It's not a question of cause, but of end result. It doesn't matter if you cause the action or if God causes the action, but that Q will happen. So causation is not really the question here, but the end result, and whether we, as humans, really have a choice in the end result.

But again, that's assuming that free will is an issue of choice. If, as I proposed in my earlier post, free will is not about whether you choose the action but instead whether you cause the action, it works. Except that Cartesian Dualism is wrong.