Functional definability: free will in creation and God

[Bahman]

I think you misunderstand what a function does.

Shuffle a pack of cards and spread them out face up. Chances are you’re the first person to ever see cards in that order (the number of possible orders = factorial 52 = 8×10[sup]67[/sup] = a really big number).

Yet not knowing the order after you shuffled didn’t stop the pack’s designers creating it.

I think you are referring to second law of thermodynamics. I don’t however understand how it relate to functioning.

 

[empther]

Re Bahman’s post 37

Rhetorical tricks used:
— keep changing the subject
— claim the other person’s questions were already answered in previous posts
— come up with more questions but never make a clear, definitive statement that can be nailed down EX; “Why is there air?” “Why will centuries pass for decades to come?”

 

[seagal]

Why it is huge? It is not as huge as creation. I am telling you that I consider one person and you call it huge, and I am telling you how about creation and you call it alright.

Fair enough, but your statement “God does know or see that given C person make the according decisions” is still an assumption and a contradiction of God’s omniscience.

What is your definition of omniscience?

My definition of omniscience is the standard one: “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding.” If you don’t accept that God is omniscient, then what you’re talking about is not God.

And that is the problem since you define the future as something which is already exist, definable and unique so if you don’t bother with the fact that C is huge then our actions are functionally definable hence there is no free will.

I don’t agree that there is no free will just because God knows our actions and decisions. I’ll give you a simple analogy. My teenage daughter (who is actually grown up now) and I have a huge argument and she’s really ticked off. One of her chores is to do the supper dishes, but given how angry she is I “know” she’s not going to do them. And sure enough, she doesn’t. My knowledge of her future actions in no way constricts her free will to get over herself and do the dishes after all. This analogy is not perfect (as no analogy is) but hopefully it illustrates my point. I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate about foreknowledge because that’s a different topic and it hurts my head .

 

[inocente]

I think you are referring to second law of thermodynamics. I don’t however understand how it relate to functioning.

No. I was giving you an example of something (the order of a pack of cards) which has your “functional definability” yet is highly unpredictable even though it doesn’t have free will. Another example would be chess.

I am saying your OP is disproved by many simple everyday examples. I am saying you appear to be confused about what a function is and what a function does.

 

[Bahman]

Fair enough, but your statement “God does know or see that given C person make the according decisions” is still an assumption and a contradiction of God’s omniscience.

That is strange. Why there is a contradiction? To me that is requirement of foresee and omniscience by which I mean, given C either God sees D through foreknowledge or he knows D through his omniscience.

My definition of omniscience is the standard one: “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding.” If you don’t accept that God is omniscient, then what you’re talking about is not God.

That is an axiom I can accept as far as it doesn’t lead to a contradiction. Given your definition one can deduced that given C God knows D through his omniscience which is the hard argument or at least sees D through his foreknowledge which is the soft argument. Couldn’t we agree on these?

If yes, this means that the function exist hence free will is an illusion. If no, we have to focus on the definition of omniscience and foreknowledge and see what it grants.

I don’t agree that there is no free will just because God knows our actions and decisions. I’ll give you a simple analogy. My teenage daughter (who is actually grown up now) and I have a huge argument and she’s really ticked off. One of her chores is to do the supper dishes, but given how angry she is I “know” she’s not going to do them. And sure enough, she doesn’t. My knowledge of her future actions in no way constricts her free will to get over herself and do the dishes after all. This analogy is not perfect (as no analogy is) but hopefully it illustrates my point. I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate about foreknowledge because that’s a different topic and it hurts my head .

I don’t think if you could have 100% assurance and if you are sure then open the discussion of free will with her and say that you know that she is not going to do dishes and then see what would be outcome.

 

[Bahman]

No. I was giving you an example of something (the order of a pack of cards) which has your “functional definability” yet is highly unpredictable even though it doesn’t have free will.
Another example would be chess.

This is my definition of functional definability for a system namely, given circumstances C there exist a function which gives decision D or outcome O. D or O should be uniquely defined since otherwise we are dealing with a situation which is not definable.

The fact that we don’t know what is the outcome of a shuffling doesn’t mean that the action is undefinable in another word there is a unique sequence of card before and after shuffling hence this function exist which is the act shuffling.

In case of chess considering the finite number of pieces involved one can argue that the number of possible moves grows exponentially in each turn but it always stay finite hence chess to me is completely predictable game. The unpredictability only arises when number of moves is infinite but the unpredictability is resolvable if you have infinite memory.

I am saying your OP is disproved by many simple everyday examples. I am saying you appear to be confused about what a function is and what a function does.

I don’t think if you could find a simple system in which it is unpredictable and has no free will. What I am arguing is in fact free will should be intrinsic since granting that requires functional definability.

 

[inocente]

This is my definition of functional definability for a system namely, given circumstances C there exist a function which gives decision D or outcome O. D or O should be uniquely defined since otherwise we are dealing with a situation which is not definable.

Did you make up this definition yourself? Search for “functional definability” on google and you will find that hardly anyone has ever used the phrase. Why do you think that Ford can’t design a car without knowing in advance every possible way and place it will be driven?

*The fact that we don’t know what is the outcome of a shuffling doesn’t mean that the action is undefinable in another word there is a unique sequence of card before and after shuffling hence this function exist which is the act shuffling.

In case of chess considering the finite number of pieces involved one can argue that the number of possible moves grows exponentially in each turn but it always stay finite hence chess to me is completely predictable game. The unpredictability only arises when number of moves is infinite but the unpredictability is resolvable if you have infinite memory.*

Predictable means the exact sequence can be certainly predicted. It can’t in chess or after shuffling a pack of cards. The number of possible sequences doesn’t need to be infinite, just too big to allow prediction.

Making up your own definitions of words and inventing impossible notions such as infinite memory won’t rescue your OP. It’s disproved, RIP, move on dude.

 

[Bahman]

Did you make up this definition yourself? Search for “functional definability” on google and you will find that hardly anyone has ever used the phrase.

It is not much more different from the definition of function. Do you know the definition of function?, if so you can deduce definition of functional. Function is simply a map between two set of variables and functional is simply a map between two set of functions.

Why do you think that Ford can’t design a car without knowing in advance every possible way and place it will be driven?

And that is not subject of this thread. As you mentioned functional definablity is required in this example so we know how a car function in any given circumstances. Now lets go back to case of creation. Does creation is functionally definable from God point of view meaning that given circumstances God knows what is the outcome? To answer to this question you have to be careful that free will is not functionally definable.

Predictable means the exact sequence can be certainly predicted. It can’t in chess or after shuffling a pack of cards. The number of possible sequences doesn’t need to be infinite, just too big to allow prediction.

The exact sequence can be predicted in chess. The only problem is that the number of possible moves grows exponentially with each turn yet the number of possible moves is finite if the number of turns is finite unless you claim that the number of possible moves is infinite given the finite number of turn which to me is completely nonsense.

And for card shuffling, do you agree that there exist a cards sequence after and before shuffling? The problem with shuffling is that the functioning is not defined because you don’t look at final sequence of cards and if you look then given initial cards sequence then you can exactly define the function hence there is nothing unpredictable here. Of course I cannot tell you what is function and what is outcome if you don’t give any of them to me.

Making up your own definitions of words and inventing impossible notions such as infinite memory won’t rescue your OP. It’s disproved, RIP, move on dude.

I think you need to be sure that your argument is 100% correct before declaring victory! All I was saying that if the number of turns in a chess game is finite then the number of move is finite hence undefinability in chess could only comes from the fact that one could have infinite number of moves.

 

[inocente]

It is not much more different from the definition of function. Do you know the definition of function?, if so you can deduce definition of functional. Function is simply a map between two set of variables and functional is simply a map between two set of functions.

I said that according to google no one else uses the phrase “functional definability”, so I was asking if you made up the phrase yourself.

Your definition of function as “a map between two set of variables” only applies in math. You’ve given no rationale for using that definition outside of math.

And that is not subject of this thread. As you mentioned functional definablity is required in this example so we know how a car function in any given circumstances. Now lets go back to case of creation. Does creation is functionally definable from God point of view meaning that given circumstances God knows what is the outcome? To answer to this question you have to be careful that free will is not functionally definable.

The point of my example was that if Ford can (and do) design cars without knowing in advance every possible way and place they will be driven, then obviously God can design a world without knowing in advance every possibility.

You are arguing that Ford can do something God can’t.

The exact sequence can be predicted in chess.

No it can’t. If you could predict that, then you could also predict the stock market and you’d be the richest person on Earth.

I think you need to be sure that your argument is 100% correct before declaring victory!

I think we’re done here!

 

[Bahman]

I said that according to google no one else uses the phrase “functional definability”, so I was asking if you made up the phrase yourself.

According to google there is a definition for functional hence there is nothing left undefined.

Your definition of function as “a map between two set of variables” only applies in math. You’ve given no rationale for using that definition outside of math.

My rational is similarity and applicability of a math concept. Lets consider your example of snuffling. There exist a set of card by given sequence S and there is an action called shuffling that changes the sequence. Is shuffling a functional? Yes, only if one can define a unique map between final sequence S’ and initial sequence hence I can define a functional F such that S’=F.

The point of my example was that if Ford can (and do) design cars without knowing in advance every possible way and place they will be driven, then obviously God can design a world without knowing in advance every possibility.

My point is anything in car has a functioning for a specific purpose. Could one add a element to a car without knowing how it functions?

You are arguing that Ford can do something God can’t.

What I am claiming is that free will is functionally indefinable hence you cannot design a system in which it has free will.

No it can’t. If you could predict that, then you could also predict the stock market and you’d be the richest person on Earth.

You are not making any argument here. What is the total numbers of move after one turn? Finite. What is the total number of moves after N turns? Huge but again finite. So chess is predictable game. Why it looks unpredictable? Because we have no machine so fast that could take care all possible combinations and memorize all of them.

I think we’re done here!

If you wish so. Things are not done in my opinion.