Connection between free will and a known future?

[thecone137]

This doesn’t come close to answering the argument. I did not require omniscience [why you claimed omnipotence, I have no idea] for someone to completely explain the how the machine would function. This sufficient knowledge concerning when the machine would break down and the possible causes makes omniscience largely irrelevant.

What you are failing to establish is a logical connection between certain and sufficient knowledge and causation. The point I was making was that even if certain knowledge were theoretically possible, the level of certainty itself is not sufficient to create a causal connection. Suppose the “knower” accurately predicted for 1000 years precisely the output of the machine, would that mean a causal relationship existed between the knower and the machine, until, inexplicably, the knower erred and because they didn’t anticipate the tiny fast moving teapot, the causal relationship suddenly terminated? I doubt it. The knowledge of the causal relationship and the causal network are two very different entities and a causal relationship simply never existed. Knowledge of, even complete knowledge of, does not establish the causal connection and could very well be inert even when that knowledge is absolute. The burden is still on you to show how knowledge can possibly function causally.

Knowing the complete explanation of something is not the same as “being” the explanation of it.

Would the designer of the machine be the causal determiner of the machine’s activities?

 

[thecone137]

If God knows today that tomorrow I do X, tomorrow arrives and I do X, then:

1. How different would my experience be if I had free will vs no free will?
2. Is it possible that I could have done not X ?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This doesn’t come close to answering the argument. I did not require omniscience [why you claimed omnipotence, I have no idea] for someone to completely explain the how the machine would function. This sufficient knowledge concerning when the machine would break down and the possible causes makes omniscience largely irrelevant.

What you are failing to establish is a logical connection between certain and sufficient knowledge and causation. The point I was making was that even if certain knowledge were theoretically possible, the level of certainty itself is not sufficient to create a causal connection. Suppose the “knower” accurately predicted for 1000 years precisely the output of the machine, would that mean a causal relationship existed between the knower and the machine, until, inexplicably, the knower erred and because they didn’t anticipate the tiny fast moving teapot, the causal relationship suddenly terminated? I doubt it. The knowledge of the causal relationship and the causal network are two very different entities and a causal relationship simply never existed. Knowledge of, even complete knowledge of, does not establish the causal connection and could very well be inert even when that knowledge is absolute. The burden is still on you to show how knowledge can possibly function causally.

Knowing the complete explanation of something is not the same as “being” the explanation of it.

If I create a machine that creates widgets and it creates widgets, it’s my will not the machines.

 

[oldcelt]

If God knows today that tomorrow I do X, tomorrow arrives and I do X, then:

1. How different would my experience be if I had free will vs no free will?
2. Is it possible that I could have done not X ?

Under true free will, any outcome could be possible. It cannot be free will if we are created by a force that already KNOWS the outcome.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Under true free will, any outcome could be possible. It cannot be free will if we are created by a force that already KNOWS the outcome.

On the other hand, we could have been created by a Being, as opposed to a force, that is beyond our understanding, so that we not only have free will but that this Being knows everything (past, present and future) concerning our use of our free will.

Some of us seem to think that if we can’t understand something and explain it than it just can not be possible.

Just because the Creator became part of His creation does not mean that the Creator is bound by the natural laws (which the Creator created) of His creation, however, when the Second Person of the Trinity was Incarnate, He was bound, self-imposed, by these natural laws.

Could this be one of the reasons why Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I”?

The Trinitarian Nature of God is referred to as the First, Second and Third Persons, the First and Third Persons of the Trinity did not become Incarnate, it was just the Second Person of the Trinity that became Incarnate.

We can speak somewhat of the Trinity because of revelation, some public and some private, but there is none of us that can understand It, It just Is.

 

[tonyrey]

Under true free will, any outcome could be possible. It cannot be free will if we are created by a force that already KNOWS the outcome.

1. You are - rather presumptuously - applying the categories of creatures to the Creator!
2. Is it likely that the Infinite Being is subject to rules made by finite beings?
3. Is man the measure of all things?
4. How do you know divine knowledge precludes free will?
5. What evidence is there to support your opinion?
6. Can it be verified?
7. Can it be falsified?

 

[oldcelt]

1. You are - rather presumptuously - applying the categories of creatures to the Creator!
2. Is it likely that the Infinite Being is subject to rules made by finite beings?
3. Is man the measure of all things?
4. How do you know divine knowledge precludes free will?
5. What evidence is there to support your opinion?
6. Can it be verified?
7. Can it be falsified?

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time. If my pal Joey is sitting out there and already knows what is going to happen, he is not only culpable, but has withheld important information. By doing so he has disrupted my decision process and denied me free will.

For the others, look at what I list as my religion and they will all be answered. I believe we have free will because there is no god with pre-knowledge of the event

What real evidence do you have to support your contentions? You know, something that can be tested for its veracity.

I know that the universe exists, that it is continuing to grow and change…that species have come and gone on this planet. How do I know this? Because I can see it, test it, and theorize on the gaps.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would the designer of the machine be the causal determiner of the machine’s activities?

This is an interesting question and leads inevitably to a discussion of Aristotle’s theory of the four causes. What is the difference, for example, between the efficient cause and the formal cause of the machine?

What if we “disconnect” the designer from the design and have a third party reverse engineer the machine so they now know everything the designer put into the machine? They would have a complete but “abstract” knowledge of the machine identical to what the originator started out with and using that knowledge can provide with 100% accuracy a foretelling of what the machine will do. Would that knowledge in and of itself have any kind of efficient “causal” effect on the machine? I think not.

So why would God’s knowledge, as a kind of “third party” knowledge - similar to the knowledge of the person who reverse engineers a machine possesses - have any kind of effect on the choices of a free agent simply by knowing what that agent will do, any more than the third party who reverse engineers the machine?

The original designer and builder of the machine acts as both the formal and efficient cause of the machine, while the reverse engineer has only a kind of “abstract” hold on the formal cause and no efficient causality regarding the actual machine. This does show that merely holding knowledge of the “formal” cause of the machine has no direct effect on the output of machine itself.

Human beings are not machines and free will adds another layer onto the issue - that of agency. The machine does not act autonomously as its own determining agent, but still the point holds. Merely possessing a complete accounting of the formal cause of a machine and, thereby, having full access to what the machine will do, does not in any sense actually determine what the machine will do, even when that knowledge is fully held, in advance, by the reverse engineer. Even less would simply having complete knowledge of outcomes be the determining “cause” of the outcomes brought about by the autonomous choices of agents endowed with free will.

There is no direct “causal” connection between knowledge and outcome in the case of machines, why should there be with regard to human agents?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time.

This is NOT what free will is. This describes information processing. To assume that is all that humans possess is merely to claim that humans are computing machines pre-programmed by their Designer to act in a certain way according to the Designer’s intention.

This is precisely what is being contested by those arguing that free willed decisions are not known to the Designer BECAUSE of the way that humans were programmed, but rather known to the Designer BECAUSE of a feature about the Designer himself, that is, omniscience.

You are trying to reduce the argument to God “foreknows” because of the determined nature of human beings, discounting free will completely. The question is whether God’s foreknowledge where human free will is not pre-programmed, in any way determines the choices.

My argument is that simple knowledge or foreknowledge even of a pre-programmed machine is not causally efficacious and therefore knowledge or foreknowledge of the free willed choices of humans cannot necessarily or logically be causally connected to outcomes.

 

[oldcelt]

This is NOT what free will is. This describes information processing. To assume that is all that humans possess is merely to claim that humans are computing machines pre-programmed by their Designer to act in a certain way according to the Designer’s intention.

This is precisely what is being contested by those arguing that free willed decisions are not known to the Designer BECAUSE of the way that humans were programmed, but rather known to the Designer BECAUSE of a feature about the Designer himself, that is, omniscience.

You are trying to reduce the argument to God “foreknows” because of the determined nature of human beings, discounting free will completely. The question is whether God’s foreknowledge where human free will is not pre-programmed, in any way determines the choices.

My argument is that simple knowledge or foreknowledge even of a pre-programmed machine is not causally efficacious and therefore knowledge or foreknowledge of the free willed choices of humans cannot necessarily or logically be causally connected to outcomes.

Then give me your definition.
You keep insisting that God’s foreknowledge of specific events somehow leaves him out of the equation.You are granting him a dispensation from responsibility when he created EVERYTHING that is involved according to Christianity. He knew that X would be murdered by Y and yet created Y. He knew about WWII, 911, Newtown…created all those involved and watched as it happened.

Your final paragraph simply is another attempt at deflection of complicity.

 

[tonyrey]

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time.

We know what free will does but we don’t know what it is! No one has ever explained **how **we can force ourselves to do something we don’t want to do.

If my pal Joey is sitting out there and already knows what is going to happen, he is not only culpable, but has withheld important information. By doing so he has disrupted my decision process and denied me free will.

He hasn’t denied you free will at all. You still choose what to do even with your limited knowledge - and our knowledge is always limited in some way or other.

For the others, look at what I list as my religion and they will all be answered. I believe we have free will because there is no god with pre-knowledge of the event

You haven’t explained how knowledge of what you are going to do compels you to do it. We can usually predict what people will do but our knowledge has no effect on their behaviour.

What real evidence do you have to support your contentions? You know, something that can be tested for its veracity.

The facts I have just stated.

I know that the universe exists, that it is continuing to grow and change…that species have come and gone on this planet. How do I know this? Because I can see it, test it, and theorize on the gaps.

Can you see your power to choose and decide? Where does it come from? And why?

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt;11511739:

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time.

We know what free will does but we don’t know what it is! No one has ever explained **how **

we can force ourselves to do something we don’t want to do.

He hasn’t denied you free will at all. You still choose what to do even with our limited knowledge - and our knowledge is always limited in some way or other.

You haven’t explained how knowledge of what you are going to do compels you to do it. We can usually predict what people will do but our knowledge has no effect on their behaviour.

The facts I have just stated.

Can you see your power to choose and decide? Where does it come from? And why?

The Joey scenario was to demonstrate that one cannot not have free will about an event that is foreknown by an omnipotent deity and that Joey is complicit because he did nothing to stop it… The Christian version of God does exactly the same thing. In fact, one of these days I’ll start a thread about how that God uses sin to accomplish creation.

My free will comes from my personal will and was not a gift from anyone. In fact, many in my life have tried to deny me free will…they found me to be less than cooperative.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then give me your definition.
You keep insisting that God’s foreknowledge of specific events somehow leaves him out of the equation.You are granting him a dispensation from responsibility when he created EVERYTHING that is involved according to Christianity. He knew that X would be murdered by Y and yet created Y. He knew about WWII, 911, Newtown…created all those involved and watched as it happened.

Your final paragraph simply is another attempt at deflection of complicity.

Perhaps, but that may only be an apparent deflection in the eyes of someone who demands a here and now explanation even when an adequate explanation must depend upon a full understanding of how human will functions. Why would a complete explanation be in the offing when no one really understands how human will operates to begin with?

Let’s take a look at your definition again to try to “open” it up just a little.

You said,

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time.

The “make a decision” denoted above requires some criteria according to which the options are prioritized and the means by which an appropriate decision based on that prioritization is made. In a computer model, the filtering criteria is determined by the programmer. This would be akin to Aristotle’s “final cause,” the “ends” or goal (output) towards which the computed “decisions” are made.

Free will, minimally would have a kind of “open ended” architecture regarding the selection of “ends” that would serve as the criteria by which decisions are made.

The “processing” of information by the agent where free will is operative would be auto-determined by the agent precisely because by taking in raw data and having an open view of possible intentional ends, the agent does not merely “make a decision based upon facts” but does so after determining the intended “ends” as an aspect of the decision. The agent, in a real sense, introduces “novelty” into him/herself as agent, and can then, in slightly modified form, make a slightly different determination based upon their new agency state. Over time, this means the agent actually “self-creates” or auto-determines the basis or grounds by which to make new decisions. The capacity to foresee future possibilities and “intend” with regard to these ends allows the kind of agency that computers do not (and possibly cannot) possess.

The key, it would seem, lies in the capacity to “self-determine” ends and the means (free will) by which that capacity itself operates. To “will” seems inherently tied to a capacity to “intend” (select and act towards) future goods, and the possibility of making effective changes to the agent him/herself, neither of which are merely “filtering” information.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Come now, we all know what free will is: the ability to analyze a situation and make a decision based on the facts known to you at the time. If my pal Joey is sitting out there and already knows what is going to happen, he is not only culpable, but has withheld important information. By doing so he has disrupted my decision process and denied me free will.

The difference between God and Joey is that God has complete knowledge of your intentional states that Joey does not. God, as the author and creator of you as an intentional being also has an inherent interest in each of your intentional states. God may, in fact, be the ground for your “free choice” according to which he continually provides the effective means by which you can choose alternative options. God may be the dynamic aspect that underwrites your free will.

In other words, God may not be your “Creator” in the sense of building, winding you up and “watching” your action, but may be intimately involved in creating who “you” are as an agent every second of your existence. It may be in response to God’s creativity working within you and in your intentional existence that make you responsible for the choices you make.

 

[thecone137]

This is an interesting question and leads inevitably to a discussion of Aristotle’s theory of the four causes. What is the difference, for example, between the efficient cause and the formal cause of the machine?

What if we “disconnect” the designer from the design and have a third party reverse engineer the machine so they now know everything the designer put into the machine? They would have a complete but “abstract” knowledge of the machine identical to what the originator started out with and using that knowledge can provide with 100% accuracy a foretelling of what the machine will do. Would that knowledge in and of itself have any kind of efficient “causal” effect on the machine? I think not.

So why would God’s knowledge, as a kind of “third party” knowledge - similar to the knowledge of the person who reverse engineers a machine possesses - have any kind of effect on the choices of a free agent simply by knowing what that agent will do, any more than the third party who reverse engineers the machine?

The original designer and builder of the machine acts as both the formal and efficient cause of the machine, while the reverse engineer has only a kind of “abstract” hold on the formal cause and no efficient causality regarding the actual machine. This does show that merely holding knowledge of the “formal” cause of the machine has no direct effect on the output of machine itself.

Human beings are not machines and free will adds another layer onto the issue - that of agency. The machine does not act autonomously as its own determining agent, but still the point holds. Merely possessing a complete accounting of the formal cause of a machine and, thereby, having full access to what the machine will do, does not in any sense actually determine what the machine will do, even when that knowledge is fully held, in advance, by the reverse engineer. Even less would simply having complete knowledge of outcomes be the determining “cause” of the outcomes brought about by the autonomous choices of agents endowed with free will.

There is no direct “causal” connection between knowledge and outcome in the case of machines, why should there be with regard to human agents?

Thanks for that clarification.

I’m still struggling to understand how the engineer’s knowledge provides a possible solution to the knowledge dilemma.

The designer seems to have knowledge “that” the machine will do X in the future, while the engineer, reverse engineering the machine, seems to have knowledge “of” the machine having the ability to do X in the future.

It seems as if knowing something’s future actions and knowing the potential of something’s ability are different. Could you expand on that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thanks for that clarification.

I’m still struggling to understand how the engineer’s knowledge provides a possible solution to the knowledge dilemma.

The designer seems to have knowledge “that” the machine will do X in the future, while the engineer, reverse engineering the machine, seems to have knowledge “of” the machine having the ability to do X in the future.

It seems as if knowing something’s future actions and knowing the potential of something’s ability are different. Could you expand on that?

What kind of “knowledge” does God have of our actions?

If it is merely an “at a distance” observational knowledge (foreknowledge - as in prior to - or eternal - as in present to - knowledge) then that form of knowledge is, in principle, no different from an engineer who can accurately predict or concurrently observe and predict what the machine will carry out. There is NO causal connection between the knowledge God has about human agency or the engineer has about the functioning of the machine.

Humans are not constrained to act BECAUSE God knows or foreknows their actions just as the machine is not causally to determined to function as it does by the knowledge of the reverse engineer who knows or foreknows with certainty what the machine will do.

So omniscience, by itself, cannot be the determining factor that compels humans to act as we do even if God knows completely what we will do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The designer seems to have knowledge “that” the machine will do X in the future, while the engineer, reverse engineering the machine, seems to have knowledge “of” the machine having the ability to do X in the future.

No, the engineer who reverse engineers the machine then would possess the same level of knowledge, i.e., “knowledge that” the machine will do X. I don’t see a difference between the knowledge required by the original designer that allows “knowledge that” and the complete knowledge of the reverse engineer who has all the knowledge required to make an identically functioning machine, but just doesn’t.

The reverse engineer also possesses “knowledge that” because s/he could predict “that” the machine will do X with the same level of accuracy as the original designer/builder. The reverse engineer could even stand beside the original designer and make exactly the same predictions with regard to what the machine will do and neither of their predictions or any “knowledge that” would have any causal influence on the machine, even if both “know” for certain, because of the design, what the machine will do in every case. The mere knowledge that X is not causal, in the least.

 

[JamesATyler]

Then give me your definition.
You keep insisting that God’s foreknowledge of specific events somehow leaves him out of the equation.You are granting him a dispensation from responsibility when he created EVERYTHING that is involved according to Christianity. He knew that X would be murdered by Y and yet created Y. He knew about WWII, 911, Newtown…created all those involved and watched as it happened.

Your final paragraph simply is another attempt at deflection of complicity.

The only reason God knows X was killed by Y is because God created Y. If God didn’t create Y he wouldn’t know that X was killed by Y. (This is my assumption about God. He doesn’t know what Y will do unless he creates Y. If he doesn’t create Y, there is nothing to know about Y.)

 

[oldcelt]

The only reason God knows X was killed by Y is because God created Y. If God didn’t create Y he wouldn’t know that X was killed by Y. (This is my assumption about God. He doesn’t know what Y will do unless he creates Y. If he doesn’t create Y, there is nothing to know about Y.)

Precisely my point…no y, x is not murdered. However, in this scenario, God created Y and X was murdered. Remember too, the OT verse…I knew you, etc., etc…that’s what omniscience is…the knowledge of everything there is to know.

God, under the Christian belief, would no that Y would murder even before he was created because the Christian God is not restricted to linear time, or so I’m told.

Please remember, I don’t believe God, if there is one, has any of these powers. However, I was sure taught he did and that opened a whole keg of worms.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Precisely my point…no y, x is not murdered. However, in this scenario, God created Y and X was murdered. Remember too, the OT verse…I knew you, etc., etc…that’s what omniscience is…the knowledge of everything there is to know.

God, under the Christian belief, would no that Y would murder even before he was created because the Christian God is not restricted to linear time, or so I’m told.

Please remember, I don’t believe God, if there is one, has any of these powers. However, I was sure taught he did and that opened a whole keg of worms.

There is no “before” with God, God is eternal, not temporal.

Y could not murder without being created. God’s creation of Y, owing to free will, is identical to God knowing Y, is identical to Y acting freely and autonomously. God creates a free being Y who self-determines what God “knows” from eternity even though for Y the “process” appears to be sequential and lasts 60, 70, 80 years, or more.

The confusion stems from trying to impose temporality on God in eternity.