The Free Will Problem

[ateista]

I see what you are saying. This is certainly true for us. What makes you think it is true for God? I don’t understand why you deny the ability of a being transcendant of time to be able to see time in its entirety.

Simply because “time” does not exist in its entirety.

Its like looking at an hourglass. The sand in the narrow middle is the present, the sand on the bottom is the past, and the sand in the top is the future. Clearly the sand in the top already exists, even though it has not come to the present yet. While each grain of sand is in the middle, it has the capacity of changing the color of the sand above it. This is like our free will influencing the future. The sand in the bottom is already fixed colors. God is capable of knowing the sequence of color changes of each individual grain of sand in the jar before it happens.

Interesting analogy, but incorrect. The sand above the mid-section exists simultaneously with the sand below. That is not how “time” is understood by science. Admittedly “time” is a very hard concept and our understanding of it far from “finished”. But as we understand it, the “future” does not “exist” as the present or the past.

God has designed natural laws to govern the universe physically. The way you described it is not what I mean. Rather, the existence of creation itself is contingent on God, kind of like how triangles are dependent on lines for their existence. The physical universe runs according the the laws which God has programmed, but such a situation would be impossible if created existence ceased to exist.

So the universe exists “apart” from God. As I understand it is also the Catholic view, which is somewhat similar to the deistic one, where God started the whole “shebang”, but otherwise does not interfere with it. In this sense God is an observer, who does not directly “tinker” with the creation.

Let’s not lose sight of where this side discussion started. The existence of something - in this case the “future” cannot depend on the “vantage point” of the observer. Existence is not a matter of “viewing” something from within the time of outside time. It is an absolute category, not a relative one.

According to newadvent.org, (a reliable Catholic source), knowledge cannot be strictly defined. They take it at its broader meaning however, like knowing somthing’s up with a friend. In the sense you mean it, I would say that it is knowing truth. Truth is what is.

That I would call correct knowledge. Knowledge is information. We may incorrectly interpret the information and then we are incorrect.

The relate in that the tell the subject how certain things relate in time. Something that has happened tells the subject that something has already occured, while “not happened yet” says that it has not come to pass. They are certainly absolute- America was founded in 1776, which cannot change.

Agreed.

Since God is not bound by time, these words have no meaning to God Himself.

We are back to square one. If something (like existence) is absolute, then it is absolute for anyone, be it inside time or outside it. If it is not the same, then it is not absolute, it is relative.

You say we can only know what exists. You also say that our God does not exist. Do you hold that something that is not physcial, like the non-existence of God, can exist in a materialistic world?

Sure can, as a concept. Concepts are physical objects, yet they exist in this physical world as ideas, mental states.

 

[Sarpedon]

I won’t be able to answer these until tomorrow, because I was busy today. Until then, here’s a question:

In the bubble multiverse theory, there are different universes with different physcial constants. In ours the speed of light is c, but it may not be in another. In other words, it depends on what system you are in. It is the much the same way with time. In our system, the future does not exist yet. In God’s system, the future is viewed alongside our present and past as a totality along with the rest of creation. It depends on your vantage point, just as the speed of light would. Light can have two different attributes depending on vantage point, why can’t time and existence?

(this is off the top of my head late at night, this is just my personal conjecture, not necessarily that of the Church.)

 

[ateista]

I won’t be able to answer these until tomorrow, because I was busy today. Until then, here’s a question:

In the bubble multiverse theory, there are different universes with different physcial constants. In ours the speed of light is c, but it may not be in another. In other words, it depends on what system you are in. It is the much the same way with time. In our system, the future does not exist yet. In God’s system, the future is viewed alongside our present and past as a totality along with the rest of creation. It depends on your vantage point, just as the speed of light would. Light can have two different attributes depending on vantage point, why can’t time and existence?

(this is off the top of my head late at night, this is just my personal conjecture, not necessarily that of the Church.)

You don’t even have to invoke such esoteric ideas like the multiverse theory to show that vantage points can matter.

Consider an ordinary defect in some people, their eyes lack the property to distinguish between red and green. For them (their vantage points) the colors red and green do not exist, only similar shades of grey. For others it does. So we can conclude that some attributes may exist for some observers and not exist for others.

The point is this: existence cannot be treated as an attribute.

In Amselm’s “Greatest Conceivable Being” type of proof for God’s existence he committed the same error, and it was pointed out by philosophers and theologians. (In a nutshell: he said that we can imagine a being whose attributes cannot be surpassed. So he said that we can imagine two beings, with the same attributes, where one exists and the other one does not. Clearly the one who has all those attributes and also exists is “greater”, so he must exist. I don’t want to go into this proof, it has been refuted many times.)

One cannot say that this apple has the attributes of red, delicious, without blemish and existence. While this other apple has the properties of green, tart, slightly bruised and non-existence.

Existence is not an attribute, which may or may not be present - depending on the vantage point of the observer. It is an absolute category, which is either there for all observers, or not there for all of them.

 

[john_doran]

Simply because “time” does not exist in its entirety.

depends on who you ask.

ateista:

Interesting analogy, but incorrect. The sand above the mid-section exists simultaneously with the sand below. That is not how “time” is understood by science.

i guess it depends on what you mean by “simultaneously”…

minkowskian spacetime operates exactly in this way: spacetime is a 4 dimensional “block” manifold in which each point tenselessly exists. in that model, time is no longer considered a parameter, as it was in einstein’s original theory, but eather as a co-ordinate.

ateista:

Admittedly “time” is a very hard concept and our understanding of it far from “finished”. But as we understand it, the “future” does not “exist” as the present or the past.

that may be as you understand it, but it’s certainly not as everyone understands it.

if you’re actually interested, you should try reading some stuff on the metaphysics of time - it’s very, very cool.

ateista:

Let’s not lose sight of where this side discussion started. The existence of something - in this case the “future” cannot depend on the “vantage point” of the observer. Existence is not a matter of “viewing” something from within the time of outside time. It is an absolute category, not a relative one.

again, not necessarily true.

look, for the john doran existing at 8:15am on June 7, 1993, that point in time is “now”, but for the john doran existing at 8:15am on February 28, 2008, ***that ***point is “now”.

la voila: perspective.

but this is hardly surprising: special relativity stipulates the very same thing, namely that what is past for me might be future for you, depending on our relative motion.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s inaccurate to use the present tense for anything God does. We can’t say he ‘knows’ the future, because ‘knows’ is the present tense of the verb ‘to know’.

So it’s true that the future does not exist, because exist is present tense. The future ‘will exist’.

Applying logic to things that we cannot conceive, IMO, is pointless. And we can’t conceive existing outside of time.

 

[ateista]

depends on who you ask.

No kidding. But isn’t that true for practically anything? Sure there are exceptions, mainly in exact sciences. But when it comes to reality, people will have different ways of viewing things - and not all of them are correct.

It is not really an argument (much less a compelling one) to say that some people might disagree.

minkowskian spacetime operates exactly in this way: spacetime is a 4 dimensional “block” manifold in which each point tenselessly exists. in that model, time is no longer considered a parameter, as it was in einstein’s original theory, but eather as a co-ordinate.

Ok, that is yet another way of viewing reality. What follows from it?

If the future “exists” as an objective, ontological entity, then what we believe as our “present” is already “past” from someone else’s viewpoint. If that is the case, then all our seemingly pending decisions are already resolved, and as such they are illusionary.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either the future does not have an ontological existence, and then it is unknowable - in the sense that one can have information about it (one may imagine it, hope for it, strive for it, etc… but cannot have **hard information **about it). After all it is nonsensical to talk about “knowing the attributes of a nonexistent apple”. What is the color, the size, the taste, the look of a nonexistent apple?

Or the future does exist as an ontological entity, in which case all our decisions are already resolved, and therefore our freedom to choose is merely an illusion, imposed on us by our lack of knowledge.

Pick your choice.

look, for the john doran existing at 8:15am on June 7, 1993, that point in time is “now”, but for the john doran existing at 8:15am on February 28, 2008, ***that ***point is “now”.

Let’s be more precise: for the john doran who existed at 8:15am on June 7, 1993, that point in time was “now”.

but this is hardly surprising: special relativity stipulates the very same thing, namely that what is past for me might be future for you, depending on our relative motion.

Where did you get this one from? The special relativity simply states that all coordinate systems which are stationary or moving in a linear and non-accelerating fashion are identical, they cannot be differentiated by physical experiments. (This is not true for accelerating or non-linear coordinate systems).

It only says that viewing the same event from both systems, the value of

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2 * t^2

is invariant. Observe, it talks about viewing the save event. If an event would have occurred viewed from one coordinate system, but would not have occurred viewed from the other one, there are no (x, y, z and t) coordinates to put into the formula.

 

[ateista]

It’s inaccurate to use the present tense for anything God does. We can’t say he ‘knows’ the future, because ‘knows’ is the present tense of the verb ‘to know’.

True. It is just as incorrect to say as “God acts” or “God created…” or “God wants…” or even “God exists”. God does not know, does not act, does not want, does not exist - in any sense of these words as we understand them. From that I draw a certain conclusion. Presumably, you do, too. Most probably our conclusions will be different.

So it’s true that the future does not exist, because exist is present tense. The future ‘will exist’.

Indeed. If the future does not exist, then it is nonsensical to say that it can be “known”, that anyone can have “information” about it. There is no information about nonexisting ontological entities.

Applying logic to things that we cannot conceive, IMO, is pointless. And we can’t conceive existing outside of time.

Let’s accept this, even though we can theorize about timeless existence, we can try to imagine it. If we take your point precisely, then what can we say about God (or any other timeless existence)? Exactly nothing.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Let’s accept this, even though we can theorize about timeless existence, we can try to imagine it. If we take your point precisely, then what can we say about God (or any other timeless existence)? Exactly nothing.

I wouldn’t say ‘exactly nothing’… but maybe ‘nothing exactly’

I think anything we say about God has to be metaphorical. Like “God is love”. Being an analytical type myself (I’m an engineer) I’ve had a lot of fun trying to explore that one logicaly and analytically, and it’s tough

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Indeed. If the future does not exist, then it is nonsensical to say that it can be “known”, that anyone can have “information” about it. There is no information about nonexisting ontological entities.

Interestingly, when Jesus existed, within time, here on Earth, he said that He did not know the day or hour of the end of the world, but that only God the Father knew it. Perhaps when God exists, in the strict sense, existing in a particular time, God can not see the future, since the future does not, strictly speaking, exist. It timeless-exists beyond time, where God the Father stays.

 

[ateista]

I wouldn’t say ‘exactly nothing’… but maybe ‘nothing exactly’

Very nice pun! But, seriously, if one cannot say anything “exactly”, then what is the use of saying anything?

I think anything we say about God has to be metaphorical. Like “God is love”. Being an analytical type myself (I’m an engineer) I’ve had a lot of fun trying to explore that one logicaly and analytically, and it’s tough

There one problem with metaphores. It assumes that there is something commensurable between the beings it is applied to.

As an example, we say that dogs are “loyal” to their masters. We know that the “loyalty” of a dog is not exactly the same as the loyalty of a human, we use it as a metaphor. We say that a dog’s loyalty is commensurate to its nature, while humans’ loyalty is commensurate to their nature.

I am glad to see that you are an egineer. Obviously you see that in the “equation” which compares dogs, their loyalty, humans and their loyalty, we have 3 knowns (humans, human loyalty and dogs) and one unknown (dog’s loyalty). Therefore we can “solve” the equation.

If you wish to speak about God and God’s love in a metaphorical fashion, and say that God’s love is commensurate to God’s nature, while humans’ love is commensurate to the human nature, you have 2 knowns (humans and human love) and 2 unknowns (God and God’s love). That equation cannot be solved, because it contains two unknowns.

I am sure you see the problem. And to say that the problem is tough is an understatement.

(Speaking for myself, the most mysterious of God’s alleged attributes is God’s “love”. If a human would behave as God does and would claim that he is a loving being, we would scorn him for being a hypocrite. But this belongs to another thread, which I am already putting together.)

 

[Syele]

OK. What good is a prayer to the victim about to be raped, tortured and murdered? If we would be in the position to prevent such acts, then we would be morally obliged to do our best to prevent it.

You seem to subscribe to the old Latin concept: “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi”. (What is allowed for Jupiter is not allowed for the ox). I find this concept a perfect example of “moral relativity”. If it is morally wrong for us not to intervene, then it is also morally wrong for God not to intervene either.

Moral relativism.

God has infinitely more information than we do. We are morally required to intervene because we have only a portion of the information. The part where we see someone is in danger of severe suffering with no knowledge of good coming from it. God, however, knows EVERY consequence of every action that happens to us. He is morally obligated to keep his promise from scripture that " all things work together for the good of those who love Him." Suppose a person would live their whole life against God unless some hard circumstance happened, then they would turn to God in their suffering and praise Him for delivering their soul from hell. So this person could convert in suffering as they died or else live a long life against God and live eternally in hell. Is God morally obligated to stop the suffering? Is there any possible way we could know the information that God knew to make it ok to not intervene? no. Infinite knowledge would naturally come with infinite responsibility. We are morally obligated to act with what info we have, God would be morally obligated to act with the info He has. This is not a double standard. His will always be correct even when suffering is involved, we can only do our best.

 

[averheyen]

Anybody ever read “Hamlet: Prince of Denmark” by William Shakespeare?

I think it addresses this problem in lurid detail.

 

[ateista]

God has infinitely more information than we do. We are morally required to intervene because we have only a portion of the information. The part where we see someone is in danger of severe suffering with no knowledge of good coming from it. God, however, knows EVERY consequence of every action that happens to us.

Here is my analysis: it is possible that some suffering is necessary to achieve some “good”. We all can bring up examples to substantiate this.

You say that all the sufferings are necessary to achieve some unspecified greater good, to which we are not privy, but God is, and that is why he allows them. Naturally it follows that despite God’s omnipotence he would be unable to reach this greater good without the suffering. If he could then some of the suffering would not be necessary.

Of course, this greater good must happen to the very being who was subject to the suffering. Makes sense, I hope. To allow some suffering to being “A”, so that being “B” will gain some “good” is simply ridiculous.

Therefore all the suffering is necessary for whatever good will come out of them. Any lesser suffering would not bring forth the desired greater good. That presumes that the suffering involved is always commensurate with the good gained. After all allowing unnecessary or gratituos suffering would be evil.

To sum it up: every instance of suffering is necessary, and the amount of suffering is precisely the necessary amount to achieve the greater good. God, despite his omnipotence is unable to reach the desired greater good without the suffering involved. Even the smallest decrease of suffering would deny the forthcoming of this greater good?

Does this analysis describe your position correctly?

I hope it does. If so, let’s contemplate the methodology involved.

Let’s take an example. A habitually drinking father beats up his children on a regular basis. Every time he beats them up he will administer the (mathematically) precise amount of pain to achieve whatever greater good will come out of it. Even one fewer lash with his belt would not not be sufficient. Even one fewer kick in the groin would make that grater good impossible to achieve.

I am not arguing against your proposition, I just wish to clarify the methodology. Without God stopping in and deliberately preventing the father from delivering an extra punch just how would each drunkard beat up his children to the precise amount God knows as being necessary?

Do you say that by simple chance every amout of pain and suffering will stop at the precise instant when it would go from necessary to gratituous?

Or do you say that God does interfere and somehow stops the administering the pain when it would be too great? You said that God does not interfere when rapes, murders etc. happen because all of those will bring greater good to the very persons who suffer these atrocities.

So, does God interfere or not?

He is morally obligated to keep his promise from scripture that " all things work together for the good of those who love Him."

And what about the rest? They can go to hell? Is it possible that their suffering is not necessary?

 

[john_doran]

No kidding. But isn’t that true for practically anything? Sure there are exceptions, mainly in exact sciences. But when it comes to reality, people will have different ways of viewing things - and not all of them are correct.

It is not really an argument (much less a compelling one) to say that some people might disagree.

no kidding. but you talk about everything as if there are no other competing points of view - as if the position you’re explaining is uncontroversial.

ateista:

Ok, that is yet another way of viewing reality. What follows from it?

If the future “exists” as an objective, ontological entity, then what we believe as our “present” is already “past” from someone else’s viewpoint. If that is the case, then all our seemingly pending decisions are already resolved, and as such they are illusionary.

You can’t have it both ways.

whoa, there - i’m not having it any way: i’m simply pointing out that what you’re calling “science” doesn’t have a unified, monolithic view on the nature of time.

ateista:

Either the future does not have an ontological existence, and then it is unknowable - in the sense that one can have information about it (one may imagine it, hope for it, strive for it, etc… but cannot have **hard information **about it). After all it is nonsensical to talk about “knowing the attributes of a nonexistent apple”. What is the color, the size, the taste, the look of a nonexistent apple?

this doesn’t follow: the future may very well not exist, but it may also very well be determined by the present (or the past); and, if we knew all of the initial conditions and the covering laws governing them, then we could know what the future would be like.

ateista:

Or the future does exist as an ontological entity, in which case all our decisions are already resolved, and therefore our freedom to choose is merely an illusion, imposed on us by our lack of knowledge.

again, not true: the existence of the future doesn’t entail that there are no free choices, but rather only that we have already made them.

think about it this way: just because my ***past ***free choices have already existed and cannot be changed doesn’t make them any less free. if i freely chose to eat cornflakes when this morning was present, then the becoming-past of that free choice didn’t make it any less free.

so why, if the future exists in an analogous way to the past, would the choices made at future moments be any less free than the choices we have made at past moments?

ateista:

Let’s be more precise: for the john doran who existed at 8:15am on June 7, 1993, that point in time was “now”.

it’s only the past relative to this moment; it is the future relative to every moment prior to it.

ateista:

Where did you get this one from?

it follows simply and straightforwardly from special relativity and the absence of any preferred frame of reference, that an event viewed by observers in diffrerent inertial frames will perceive that event as occurring at different times.

for example, a stationary observer and a moving observer will not judge the same events as occurring simultaneously - one will judge the events as following one another, while the other will see them occur at the same time.

this is rock-bottom special relativity…

 

[ateista]

it follows simply and straightforwardly from special relativity and the absence of any preferred frame of reference, that an event viewed by observers in diffrerent inertial frames will perceive that event as occurring at different times.

for example, a stationary observer and a moving observer will not judge the same events as occurring simultaneously - one will judge the events as following one another, while the other will see them occur at the same time.

this is rock-bottom special relativity…

What you say is true, but what you imply is false. The time when the two events occurred will be different from differing points of reference, but they will have occurred already.

It does not follow that one event (and that is what we are talking about) has already occurred when viewed from one system, but has not occurred yet when viewed from the other.

 

[ateista]

this doesn’t follow: the future may very well not exist, but it may also very well be determined by the present (or the past); and, if we knew all of the initial conditions and the covering laws governing them, then we could know what the future would be like.

Yes, then we could, and then it would be a fully deterministic universe, where there is no freedom of action.

again, not true: the existence of the future doesn’t entail that there are no free choices, but rather only that we have already made them.

think about it this way: just because my ***past ***free choices have already existed and cannot be changed doesn’t make them any less free. if i freely chose to eat cornflakes when this morning was present, then the becoming-past of that free choice didn’t make it any less free.

so why, if the future exists in an analogous way to the past, would the choices made at future moments be any less free than the choices we have made at past moments?

This can be summarized as such: the freedom we had in the past was contingent upon the lack of existence of its future (our current present).

In other words: even though there were free choices in the past, there **are **no free choices in the past now.

If your morning self and your afternoon self would exist simultaneously then the fact that your afternoon self already chose cornflakes makes your morning self’s “choice” a foregone issue. In the morning you could not have possibly chosen anything else - even though you may have thought otherwise, you may have been under the illusion that you actually made a choice.

If you could have, then it would lead to a logical contradiction - namely that your afternoon self both chose and did not choose cornflakes in the morning. Since the contents of your stomach are the already digested molecules of cornflakes, they cannot be anything else.

 

[Sarpedon]

Simply because “time” does not exist in its entirety.

You are saying I am wrong. Can you explain why you are right? I think time cannot exist in its entirety for us, can you explain why it is impossible for the source and controller of temporal existence?

Interesting analogy, but incorrect. The sand above the mid-section exists simultaneously with the sand below. That is not how “time” is understood by science. Admittedly “time” is a very hard concept and our understanding of it far from “finished”. But as we understand it, the “future” does not “exist” as the present or the past.

Its not a perfect example. Suppose that we can only percieve those in the middle as existing, because we are inside the hourglass and cannot see up into the upper section. For us, only the present exists, because we are only capable of interacting with what is on the other grains in the middle. We can’t interact with the future yet, although we can influence what it will be when it reaches us. God, however, can see and interact with the entire hourglass.

Much of your argument rests on what you think time is being true. The whole issue is not understood very well, as you admit, so why do you take a position? You seem willing to construct elaborate theories on still evolving scientific theories, a change in which could change your entire argument from the ground up.

The past exists? How do you define “exist”. If you define it as only “what is”, then clearly “What was” does not exist. If you do not, how do you define it?

So the universe exists “apart” from God. As I understand it is also the Catholic view, which is somewhat similar to the deistic one, where God started the whole “shebang”, but otherwise does not interfere with it. In this sense God is an observer, who does not directly “tinker” with the creation.

He sustains it in its entirety, but rarely tinkers with the physical laws governing it. If He does, we call these instances miracles. He does choose to interact with us, and with creation to some extent.

Let’s not lose sight of where this side discussion started. The existence of something - in this case the “future” cannot depend on the “vantage point” of the observer. Existence is not a matter of “viewing” something from within the time of outside time. It is an absolute category, not a relative one.

How would you argue the truth of your proposition?

We are back to square one. If something (like existence) is absolute, then it is absolute for anyone, be it inside time or outside it. If it is not the same, then it is not absolute, it is relative.

Suppose it is relative. Now what?

Sure can, as a concept. Concepts are physical objects, yet they exist in this physical world as ideas, mental states.

If everything, including all concept and theories, are physical, we run into a form of the EAAN dilemma. Why should I trust your theory any more than I trust a rock?

 

[Sarpedon]

One cannot say that this apple has the attributes of red, delicious, without blemish and existence. While this other apple has the properties of green, tart, slightly bruised and non-existence.

I would call the other apple an imaginary apple that is green, tart, and slightly bruised. The fact that is is imaginary could be considered an aspect of it. When we say things are “real” or “imaginary” it seems to me that we are saying whether or not the thing in question has the attribute of existence.

 

[Sarpedon]

then who has decided how the “movie” of my life would go, if God made the choice then I have no free will and I am simply playing my part, much like Macbeth , and if I free will then I decide atleast some measure of how my scenes are played out.

We made it to a large degree. All examples will fall short to some degree because we have no experience of being transcendant of time.

what then does Catholicism teach?
I can see how God can decide to create, look at time as a whole seeing the beginning to the end and chosing to act at different points, to bring about his ultimate goal but he is still reacting to free will decisions.

That we have free will and determine the future in regards to this, but that God is transcendant of time and those able to see what we do and how it affects our future (God has no future, or past).

I think God’s goal for creation is to get us to freely love Him, and that this is His ultimate goal. This is only possible if He is willing to give us the choice of cooperating with His goal or not.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here is my analysis: it is possible that some suffering is necessary to achieve some “good”. We all can bring up examples to substantiate this.

You say that all the sufferings are necessary to achieve some unspecified greater good, to which we are not privy, but God is, and that is why he allows them. Naturally it follows that despite God’s omnipotence he would be unable to reach this greater good without the suffering. If he could then some of the suffering would not be necessary.

Of course, this greater good must happen to the very being who was subject to the suffering. Makes sense, I hope. To allow some suffering to being “A”, so that being “B” will gain some “good” is simply ridiculous.

Therefore all the suffering is necessary for whatever good will come out of them. Any lesser suffering would not bring forth the desired greater good. That presumes that the suffering involved is always commensurate with the good gained. After all allowing unnecessary or gratituos suffering would be evil.

I think the ultimate lesson we are to learn from all of the suffering is that suffering is the consequence of going our own way and rejecting God. For us to learn this, God has allowed us to go our own way to learn for ourselves.

We are all off on our own with our freedom and learning about this together. God has given us the free will to make our own decisions in this world, and that results in people harming each other. By God not interfering, he is letting us see for real what the consequences are of turning away from him. God doesn’t plan individual scenarios of suffering for each of us and force us to go through them, we are simply out on our own finding out what its like without God.

So the pain we inflict on each other is not specifically planned by God, and isn’t necessarily the exact amount that we each need to have. And since we’ve made our own choice to leave God, it is just for God to allow us to leave and harm one another and wait for us to turn back to Him.