Does Omniscience Limit Free Will?

[A Tripolation]

I have no idea if there is a certain name to this argument/idea. But surely it's been discussed before.

 

Omniscient is used in this context: Knowing everything there is to know about anything and everyone from any point in time in any context.

 

My question is, if you have an omniscient entity, do you have ANY free will whatsoever? If this entity knows what choices I'll make before they are even presented to me, do I really have a choice at all?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Answers, links, and rude comments are all welcome and appreciated.

[Sisyphus]

That depends entirely on how you define "free will." IMO, most of these questions arise from overly vague or self-contradictory definitions.

 

But, do you have a choice? Yes, you have a choice. That some hypothetical being knows what choice it is beforehand doesn't change that, any more than knowing what it was afterwards would.

[ydoaPs]

No. It just means the lay man's magic free will doesn't exist. That in no way means that no varieties of free will worth wanting exist. Omniscience merely implies determinism.

 

Determinism is not at odds with free will. In fact, free will depends upon some level of determinism. It doesn't make much sense to speak of someone making a choice when the choice is based on the roll of the dice.

 

Let's just take some elementary thought about what free will is for a moment. Free will is the ability for 'you' to contemplate multiple options and choose one output. For any 'you' to be distinct from 'Bob' or 'Ashley' or 'him' or 'her', there must be some regularity; there must be a pattern in the choices(otherwise the phrase 'out of character' is rather meaningless, no?). In fact, that is exactly what we see in practice. If you spend enough time around someone you can pretty well predict their choices given a set of circumstances.

 

How do we make choices? A basic overview of psychology(and just common sense) reveals that our choices are quite unsurprisingly based upon factors including our beliefs, values, and past experiences. These can be seen as some of the inputs into the decision generating algorithm we call Free Will.

 

Some of you are probably screaming at your computer: BUT WHAT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS!?! IT INTRODUCES RANDOMNESS! Ah, but the neurons in the brains are classical structures, so QM is really irrelevant. In fact, we have a pretty good idea of how the relevant part of the brain(the neocortex) functions. If you're interested in the functions of the neocortex and how we can use what we know about it to make truly intelligent machines, you should read 'On Intelligence' by Jeff Hawkins(he also has a good lecture called 'Computing Beyond Turing' available on YouTube).

 

So, we can see that Free will:

1)produces a predictable pattern of results

2)requires known inputs

3)functions in a classical rather than quantum computation device

 

That sounds pretty deterministic to me.

 

If you're interested in Free Will and whether it conflicts with determinism, I suggest reading 'Freedom Evolves' by Daniel Dennett.

 

This does, however, make for interesting theological issues when other properties such as omnipotence are taken into effect. Consider the creation story. The omniscient omnipotent Creator created man with a nature(will) such that they would choose to disobey Him. Being omniscient, He knew that they would act in said manner. Being omnipotent, He could have created them with a nature such that they would choose otherwise. It seems that given both omniscience and omnipotence of the Creator, the blame cannot be put upon the creation for disobedience. It like trying to blame your car engine for not providing DSL.

[A Tripolation]

That depends entirely on how you define "free will." IMO, most of these questions arise from overly vague or self-contradictory definitions.

 

But, do you have a choice? Yes, you have a choice. That some hypothetical being knows what choice it is beforehand doesn't change that, any more than knowing what it was afterwards would.

 

Ah. I see. A more accurate free will definition is needed.

I'm more asking, if an omniscient entity knows what decision I will make, can any blame be placed on me for making that decision, seeing as how it was made in this entity's mind long before I was ever forced to choose and make a decision.

Of course I will always have a choice. But are the consequences mine to bear? Or was I damned or blessed from the start?

 

 

So, we can see that Free will:

1)produces a predictable pattern of results

2)requires known inputs

3)functions in a classical rather than quantum computation device

 

I see Free Will as what allows you to break out of your predictable pattern of results. Is this not the mainstream definition?

[pioneer]

Omniscience only defines the limit of knowledge. But as humans, we are not anywere near that limit. Therefore we still need to think, act and experiment to approach that limit. We need free will for that. Without free will we would be stuck at where we are and need to wait for revelations to move foreward.

 

As an analogy, you are a freshman taking physics. Your professor is a leading expert in his field. Since there is a such a huge gap between you and him, there is a limit to what he can teach you and what you are able to learn and understand. It may take a lifetime to approac him, like it took him. What helps along the way is you asking questions, doing your own research and running some experiments. These all require willpower. If your willpower fades, and you stop trying to know as much as the prof, then you reach a plateau relative to his omonscience. Knowledge intuitively senses final truths, but requires human will power to keep moving closer and closer, without knowing what the final truth might be.

Edited November 2, 2010 by pioneer

[StringJunky]

Just because an omniscient entity knows your next move doesn't mean he's actually interfered with your choice, therefore, you acted with a large degree of Freewill. The deterministic element comes from the usually limited range of choices presented (and therefore possible outcomes) but within that deterministic range we have Freewill to choose from the available options. Yes, I think our lives are significantly determined by past events but the outcomes are still fuzzy...this fuzzy part is determined by Freewill. Freewill and Determinism is not a dichotomy but a bit of both like the Nature/Nurture debate IMO.

 

I hope this is not is considered off-topic but why would a Creator assemble a Universe with a known destiny.... what's the point? Remove Freewill and you have a predestined Universe which seems, to me, rather pointless from a deity's point of view I think...much more fun to sprinkle some Chance/Uncertainty (from the deity's POV) into the mix.

Edited November 2, 2010 by StringJunky

[Sisyphus]

Ah. I see. A more accurate free will definition is needed.

I'm more asking, if an omniscient entity knows what decision I will make, can any blame be placed on me for making that decision, seeing as how it was made in this entity's mind long before I was ever forced to choose and make a decision.

Of course I will always have a choice. But are the consequences mine to bear? Or was I damned or blessed from the start?

 

If I know what decision you made after the fact, does that excuse you from blame? Why would knowing in the past be different from knowing in the future?

 

I see Free Will as what allows you to break out of your predictable pattern of results. Is this not the mainstream definition?

 

And how does that differ from the definition of "random?" I don't think there is a coherent mainstream definition of free will.

[lemur]

My favorite line from the Star Wars movies comes from Yoda: "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." If a being is omniscient, then they would know exactly what can and can't be known (yet), and the parameters for when variables reach a point of determinance. If an omniscient being sees a statue rocking, for example, they would know exactly at what point it was possible to know whether the statue would fall or not, but they still might not know until that point whether it would indeed fall or settle in an upright position.

[ydoaPs]

Ah. I see. A more accurate free will definition is needed.

I'm more asking, if an omniscient entity knows what decision I will make, can any blame be placed on me for making that decision, seeing as how it was made in this entity's mind long before I was ever forced to choose and make a decision.

Of course I will always have a choice. But are the consequences mine to bear? Or was I damned or blessed from the start?

You still have a choice. The blame is only shifted if the omniscient one is your omnipotent creator.

 

Consider an car. If your engine overheats because you have a broken coolant pump, is it the fault of the coolant pump itself or the various factors that lead to the breaking of the coolant pump? Either way, the pump needs to be fixed or replaced.

 

Similarly, you could fail by breaking a law. Do we blame you for breaking the law, or do we look into why you broke the law and 'fix' you through rehabilitation. This is where the divide between the two types of justice comes in: you have the pointless kind like the Divine justice(you hurt me, so I'm going to torture you forever), and you have the meaningful kind that involves rehabilitation(you are broken, so we're going to help fix you and make you a productive member of society once more).

 

 

I see Free Will as what allows you to break out of your predictable pattern of results. Is this not the mainstream definition?

The predictable pattern is not a problem for free will. In fact, it is what GIVES us free will. For in what sense could it be said that you made a choice if it was random?

[lemur]

you have the pointless kind like the Divine justice(you hurt me, so I'm going to torture you forever), and you have the meaningful kind that involves rehabilitation(you are broken, so we're going to help fix you and make you a productive member of society once more).

First, I don't think you get that eternal suffering may just refer to the fact that your own conscience never gives up punishing you until you have accepted forgiveness from some source.

 

Second, do you realize that rehabilitative punishment is a concept derived from the Christian approach to extracting penance for sin? It's basically the principle that a criminal can be forgiven if they redeem themselves by good deeds and prove their devotion to go(o)dwill instead of crime(evil).

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Second, do you realize that rehabilitative punishment is a concept derived from the Christian approach to extracting penance for sin? It's basically the principle that a criminal can be forgiven if they redeem themselves by good deeds and prove their devotion to go(o)dwill instead of crime(evil).

That's not at all the same thing as rehabilitation.

[lemur]

That's not at all the same thing as rehabilitation.

 

What's the difference between rehabilitation and redemption then?

[ydoaPs]

What's the difference between rehabilitation and redemption then?

Rehabilitation is about fixing what made the person not a productive member of society. That is not a thing like what you just described. You just changed 'You hurt me so I'll hurt you' into 'You hurt me, so I'll hurt you until I feel better.'

[lemur]

Rehabilitation is about fixing what made the person not a productive member of society. That is not a thing like what you just described. You just changed 'You hurt me so I'll hurt you' into 'You hurt me, so I'll hurt you until I feel better.'

 

No, you're confusing redemption with retaliation. You have it in your head that Christianity is about God retaliating against people for sin but that's really not it. Christianity views sin as having natural consequences. God is the being that tries to warn people about the consequences so they can avoid them. The logic of redemption is based on the idea that your sins have already been paid for so you don't need to suffer for them, but in gratitude for your suspended sentence you have to live a better life. That's the same thing as rehabilitative justice. Your sentence gets suspended in exchange for you being rehabilitated from a life of crime to being a good citizen. What's the difference?

[ydoaPs]

God is the being that tries to warn people about the consequences so they can avoid them.

The Bible says the opposite. See Genesis 2.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ydoaPs

[lemur]

The Bible says the opposite. See Genesis 2.

 

Genesis 2:?. You are assuming that God created sins as arbitrary rules to punish people if they violated them. Why aren't the commandments things like, "thou shalt not wear blue shoes on tuesday" then? Sins are things like killing, stealing, etc. that have a harmful effect on others or yourself. All the bible does it to try to teach people that if they avoid sins, suffering in the world is reduced. That's not because God is punishing the world for sinning; it's because sin itself causes suffering. That, and what goes around comes around. That's why the lord's prayer says to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." That's why in the book of exodus, Moses goes from killing an Egyptian to watching one Israelite kill another, to bringing God's message that no one should kill. Scripture is full of insights from people who realized that harming the creation is harming God and therefore yourself. This is why you're supposed to treat others as you want to be treated, because what goes around comes around, the last shall be first, etc. etc. Everyone comes to experience the consequences of their own sins and good deeds - basically the same idea as karma. That's also why you rehabilitate/redeem people instead of subjecting them to eternal damnation, but for that to work they have to believe in their own redemption/rehabilitation. That's what it means to "accept Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness for sin."

Edited November 3, 2010 by lemur

[Sisyphus]

This is where the divide between the two types of justice comes in: you have the pointless kind like the Divine justice(you hurt me, so I'm going to torture you forever), and you have the meaningful kind that involves rehabilitation(you are broken, so we're going to help fix you and make you a productive member of society once more).

 

There are other kinds. There is deterrent: I promised to hurt you if you hurt me, so I have to in order to be credible and deter others from hurting me. That's not pointless.

 

Christianity views sin as having natural consequences. God is the being that tries to warn people about the consequences so they can avoid them

 

This is only one of many views. And it is a minority one. It also assumes there is a "nature" that god does not control.

 

Why aren't the commandments things like, "thou shalt not wear blue shoes on tuesday" then?

 

Quite a few of them are.

 

All of this stuff about Christianity and the Bible seems rather off topic, though, doesn't it?

[lemur]

This is only one of many views. And it is a minority one. It also assumes there is a "nature" that god does not control.

That's because people get caught in the dualism of natural/artificial, which is actually not present in the creationist idea that God created nature. If you think about it, it is as simple as the fact that humans have power to kill each other and steal from each other, etc. So it makes no sense to say that God punishes you for killing or stealing, because your punishment is to live fearfully in a world of killing and theft. It's just what goes around comes around, and forgiveness, either feeling forgiven or feeling forgiving to others goes a long way to cure the fear by lessening thoughts of fear and retaliation that "poison your soul." It's complicated to explain in detail but the line in the lord's prayer I've already quoted sums it up, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." When people don't do this, it leads to a vicious cycle of hate and retaliation which pretty well exemplifies the expression, "burning in hell," where burning refers to burning rage and hell refers to all the actions that flow from and to that rage.

 

All of this stuff about Christianity and the Bible seems rather off topic, though, doesn't it?

If you want to exclude it from the discussion, it may. It's actually very relevant to the thread topic, though, because the bible is the main source I can think of that explains human behavior in terms of free will. Many other texts only consider social or natural determinism as causing human actions. That is how we got essentialist theories that would postulate that criminality was inherent in certain people's genes/nature and inherently absent in others. Christianity views all people as inherently prone to sin insofar as they are human and not immune from being tempted to evil; but it also recognizes that people have the capacity to resist and choose for good over evil, however those are defined. According to Christianity, thus, an omniscient god would not know what choices humans are going to make, but s/he/it would understand many possible outcomes/consequences of various choices.

 

 

[A Tripolation]

All of this stuff about Christianity and the Bible seems rather off topic, though, doesn't it?

 

It is off topic in my opinion. Though one could see very obvious parallels between my OP and the Christian belief of damnation because of inherent sin, and the "free will" to come to God, those parallels do not interest me.

 

But maybe I should add that the omniscient entity is your omnipotent creator that will judge you one day.

 

This being knew your fate all along. I don't understand how you can have free will if this being knew since the beginning of time that you would be damned or saved or stuck in the middle or whatever.

 

If free will simply means being able to choose a set of options, but can easily be predicted by computer models, then how does that fit as free will at all? That seems to be like AI to me.

[ydoaPs]

If free will simply means being able to choose a set of options,

That is what free will is. Whether or not it can be predicted is irrelevant. If you know people enough, you can predict their behaviour quite well even without a computer.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well as ydoaPs said in post 3, the "magical" free will that many people believe in doesn't work (with or without an omniscient God for that matter).

 

But what about determinism? What if you have an omniscient God that lives outside of our time dimension, and so can view all events past and present and future at its own leisure? I'm not sure if that also would require determinism.

 

Oh, and also I know something God doesn't.

[lemur]

Have you ever noticed how atheists reflexively go against anything religious people believe in, such as faith, free will, spirituality, etc. Why do you suppose that so many have taken a negation approach to religion instead of just understanding it as a form of culture?

[ydoaPs]

Have you ever noticed how atheists reflexively go against anything religious people believe in, such as faith, free will, spirituality, etc. Why do you suppose that so many have taken a negation approach to religion instead of just understanding it as a form of culture?

Have you ever noticed that theists reflexively misrepresent the positions of atheists? Or is that just you? Which atheist in this thread is suggesting that free will does not exist?

[lemur]

Have you ever noticed that theists reflexively misrepresent the positions of atheists? Or is that just you? Which atheist in this thread is suggesting that free will does not exist?

 

I have noticed the pattern you mention as well, yes, I don't know about this thread, specifically. I was just thinking of a pattern of ideological positions that all seem to converge in opposition of religion in general and Christianity in particular. It's as if there is an ideological war against Christianity going on.

[Edtharan]

Actually I don't think Athiests just disagree with Theists on principal, but that Athiests just don't believe things because someone told them to believe it. This means that things taken for granted by Theists are questioned by Athiests and are found to have problems. It is these problems that are brought up is discussions because they are points of disagreement between the two sides.

 

It is no so much a "reflexive" reaction, but that these are actual points of interest and disagreement.

 

It is a bit like showing supprise when two people who disagree about likeing a movie actually disagreeing with each other when talking about that movie.