47615 - omniscience vs agency

[361]

Nope. I've determined that through personal and shared experience, and would suggest that is the only way to know.

OK, so what are the clues that tell you that some things have free will and some don't? What is the evidence you look for, one way or the other. I'm arguing that a deterministic predictability of response is a good indicator that something doesn't have free will. Do you agree? Do you have another methodology?

Well... Considering that all matter is intelligence of some level or another, all matter has a choice in how to behave.

The reason we know the outcome of a rube goldberg device is because, even though complex... We know that all matter involved will _choose_ to follow God's will with exactness. Therefore it is predictable. Just because we can see the future doesn't mean the choice has been taken away from it.

[vorpal blade]

Let me see if I can explain the position of those who are uncomfortable with the idea of agency coexisting with omniscience. Then I’ll try to explain why it is not a problem for me.

Let’s say I am faced with a decision. I need to pick a marble from the jar. Let’s say I can freely choose any color available. Let’s say further that God knows that I will pick the red color. If God is omniscient then how can I could pick any other color? I can’t. The green marble in front of me is not really an option since picking that one violates the premise that I must pick red. So, either in reality I have no choice but to do as God has foreseen, which negates agency, or God does not really know which marble I will pick, which negates omniscience.

That’s stating the dilemma as best as I can. Now, here is the answer as I see it.

Let’s say that I have many choices of marbles, but I choose red. There are no constraints at the time I chose red, I could have chosen green, but I didn’t. Now that I have a red marble in my hand my choice is history, and history cannot be changed. So I write it up in a little history book. Clearly the red marble I have is the result of my choice, it is not the cause of my choice. In no way did my little history book force me to choose red.

Suppose, though, that we discover that a history book was actually written before I ever picked a marble. How did that happen? Let’s say, we don’t know. The point is, does the existence of a history book before the events occurred change anything about my freedom to choose any marble? I don’t see that it changes anything. It is just really mind-boggling trying to understand how that history book could have been written.

You might ask, suppose I had picked the green marble instead? Well, then the history book would faithfully reveal that I had chosen green. The history book reveals exactly what I did. I choose exactly what I want to choose. The history book does not cause history, it is the effect of choices made in history.

The difficulty is in understanding how the history book came into existence before the history happened. That part we probably need to accept on faith. Possibly the explanation is that God knows us and everything else so well that he could predict with 100% accuracy what would happen. Or possibly because God stands outside our dimension of time and reads our future as history because for him it has already occurred. In my mind neither theory negates our agency.

While I don’t really know how God knows the future, it is essential to my faith to know that he does know it. I could never have complete faith and trust in a person who wasn’t completely sure he could fulfill all his promises due to “unforeseen events.”

Likewise, agency is essential to my faith. Without agency there is neither fairness nor purpose in life.

[Fredjikrang]

Nope. I've determined that through personal and shared experience, and would suggest that is the only way to know.

OK, so what are the clues that tell you that some things have free will and some don't? What is the evidence you look for, one way or the other. I'm arguing that a deterministic predictability of response is a good indicator that something doesn't have free will. Do you agree? Do you have another methodology?

I have been thinking about this through the day, and I think I have come to where the sticking point is. You are trying to say that if there is only one choice, there isn't really a choice, correct? But I think that the real question is, if someone knows beforehand what you are going to do, is there really only one choice, and so no choice?

So, it seems like you are trying to determine an answer without requiring that God exists, or, in other words, independent of the existence of God, and in my opinion, there is no answer unless he does.

Here is what I am thinking.

Assume that God exists, and that he is an omnipotent, omniscient, being who can not lie, and is unfailingly good.

Because he is omniscient he knows everything that has, and ever will happen.

Assume that God creates man, and gives him the ability to choose. Now it would seem that this is the origin of the present conundrum. Does man really have the ability to choose if God already knows everything that he will do. I would say that, yes, he does. Why? Because there is no set of natural laws that defines what a person would do. Think about it from the perspective of the pre-mortal existence. God created all of his children, cared and loved them all in the same way, and eventually gave them all the same choice. One third chose to rebel against his plan, while two thirds upheld it. Why? Because they had the power to choose. There is no law determining that those created at a certain time, or any other "physical" pattern rebelled and the others did not. It was because of their own choice. Or, in other words, it was because they are not bound by the laws of nature. They made the choice even though it was known by God beforehand what their choice would be.

So, I guess that basically I would say that free will is manifest in actions that are not demanded by the laws of nature, and that the fact that as a whole, people make different decisions when presented the same choice is evidence that they can make choices.

Now let's say that God may or may not exist, so trying to determine an answer independent of the existence of God. First of all, there is a major problem. How can someone else know what you are going to do? If there is no omniscience, then the debate is automatically dead, as you can not even get to the point where you could say that there is only one choice.

I'll admit that my logic isn't perfect, but considering that as we, as humans, have an extraordinarily difficult time understanding time as anything but linear, I think it is a decent explanation.

[361]

Perhaps choice is a artifact of living in a limited dimensional state?

Perhaps choice only exists because we can only comprehend 3 dimensions (4th being time, but that's a special case)

Mabye that's why it's so important for us to shape who we are now while we have a choice... i.e. Alma 34:33,35

Because once we progress to the next plane of existence choice ceases to be an option and although we can progress through other means... We cannot change who we _are_ (i.e. the essence of what makes you you... The factors that determine the choices you make, etc...)

------------

i.e. I'm a potato... And this "life" represents the time I'm given to aim my potato cannon. When I die... The trigger is pulled and I no longer have control over my trajectory...

Repentance is the Lord's way of making up for my terrible aim...

And although the aiming of the gun is very important... It is but a few seconds compared to the eternal potato flight following...

(Yes a potato-gun / plan of salvation analogy... I am _awesome!_ )

[Unit of Energy]

We still have choice in the postmortal life. We may not be able to change our natures, but we do have choice. We had choice before we were mortal and there is no reason to think that we won't have choice after. I was always taught that those we do baptisms for choose whether or not to accept. This definitely implies choice. If they accept it or not will depend on the path they were going down, but it is still a choice.

[vorpal blade]

So, I guess that basically I would say that free will is manifest in actions that are not demanded by the laws of nature, and that the fact that as a whole, people make different decisions when presented the same choice is evidence that they can make choices.

Very good, Fredjikrang.

Going a little bit further, can we explain why individuals make the decisions they do, if it is not demanded by the laws of nature? What makes our behavior predictable? Could not each individual's actions be demanded by some sort of law?

[361]

We still have choice in the postmortal life. We may not be able to change our natures, but we do have choice. We had choice before we were mortal and there is no reason to think that we won't have choice after. I was always taught that those we do baptisms for choose whether or not to accept. This definitely implies choice. If they accept it or not will depend on the path they were going down, but it is still a choice.

Well I suppose if the potato had fins it could alter it's trajectory in-flight...

But that still wouldn't make up for gross errors in aim

[Katya]

Let me see if I can explain the position of those who are uncomfortable with the idea of agency coexisting with omniscience. Then I’ll try to explain why it is not a problem for me.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with the idea of them coexisting. However, it's a classical theological conundrum because it appears logically inconsistent, and most of the explanations which people throw out to resolve that paradox don't actually do so. That's what I object to. I hate poorly thought-out, logically inconsistent explanations more than I hate the existence of the conundrum, itself.

[vorpal blade]

Let me see if I can explain the position of those who are uncomfortable with the idea of agency coexisting with omniscience. Then I’ll try to explain why it is not a problem for me.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with the idea of them coexisting. However, it's a classical theological conundrum because it appears logically inconsistent, and most of the explanations which people throw out to resolve that paradox don't actually do so. That's what I object to. I hate poorly thought-out, logically inconsistent explanations more than I hate the existence of the conundrum, itself.

I know that you previously said, "(For the record, this isn't actually a personal issue with me, I just don't like seeing simplistic answers to complex problems.)" I think I was just trying to clarify what the issue was, for those who didn't see any kind of problem.

I've debated this issue before with people who could not understand how it is possible that God is omniscient and we have agency. If you probe deeper than the typical response you do make people think, and you find that there are some questions for which we do not have answers.

[vorpal blade]

OK, so what are the clues that tell you that some things have free will and some don't? What is the evidence you look for, one way or the other. I'm arguing that a deterministic predictability of response is a good indicator that something doesn't have free will. Do you agree? Do you have another methodology?

I'd like to suggest that desire and opportunity are two important elements to having free will. You have to have a desire to make choices, and you have to have choices to make. When you make a decision, and what you wanted made a difference in the choice you made, then you have free will.

Some might say that you always choose to do what is highest on your priorities of desires. In a sense this looks like a deterministic predictability of response - once you know what an individuals desires are, and what is most important to him. You can then accurately predict his behavior. It would seem we are the slaves to our desires, and therefore lack free will. But I'm saying that we have free will if we can act according to our desires. Which brings up the question of where do our desires come from.

[Fredjikrang]

Very good, Fredjikrang.

Going a little bit further, can we explain why individuals make the decisions they do, if it is not demanded by the laws of nature? What makes our behavior predictable? Could not each individual's actions be demanded by some sort of law?

Perhaps, but even then, you have the same results. Two individuals are given the same choice, and they choose differently. I don't see any way that that could be reduced to some natural law. That would be like letting go of two rocks in a vacuum on Earth and having one float and one fall.

[vorpal blade]

Very good, Fredjikrang.

Going a little bit further, can we explain why individuals make the decisions they do, if it is not demanded by the laws of nature? What makes our behavior predictable? Could not each individual's actions be demanded by some sort of law?

Perhaps, but even then, you have the same results. Two individuals are given the same choice, and they choose differently. I don't see any way that that could be reduced to some natural law. That would be like letting go of two rocks in a vacuum on Earth and having one float and one fall.

First, no two individuals are alike. One could be like a rock, while the other is like a helium balloon. One falls, the other floats. There is no reason to believe that applying the same law to different individuals would yield the same results. It doesn't prove whether or not things have agency.

Second, I don't see why it has to be a natural law as opposed to a spiritual law. If you give two individuals the law of tithing, one may obey it and be blessed by it, the other may reject it to his condemnation. Same law, different results. If you knew the spirits of both individuals really well, you could probably predict which one was going to live the law and which one is going to reject it. What if there was some measure of the heart or spirit that unfailingly predicted who would keep the law and who wouldn't?

[361]

Very good, Fredjikrang.

Going a little bit further, can we explain why individuals make the decisions they do, if it is not demanded by the laws of nature? What makes our behavior predictable? Could not each individual's actions be demanded by some sort of law?

Perhaps, but even then, you have the same results. Two individuals are given the same choice, and they choose differently. I don't see any way that that could be reduced to some natural law. That would be like letting go of two rocks in a vacuum on Earth and having one float and one fall.

First, no two individuals are alike. One could be like a rock, while the other is like a helium balloon. One falls, the other floats. There is no reason to believe that applying the same law to different individuals would yield the same results. It doesn't prove whether or not things have agency.

Second, I don't see why it has to be a natural law as opposed to a spiritual law. If you give two individuals the law of tithing, one may obey it and be blessed by it, the other may reject it to his condemnation. Same law, different results. If you knew the spirits of both individuals really well, you could probably predict which one was going to live the law and which one is going to reject it. What if there was some measure of the heart or spirit that unfailingly predicted who would keep the law and who wouldn't?

Kind of like transcendental / irrational numbers like Pi...

If we each are a number like so... And the next digit in our representation is our next action it is likewise unpredictable since such numbers never repeat digits or have patterns... Neither do they have an end.

However if you know the equation that generates the number then you also can predict what the next digit in the sequence will be.

And why is everyone ignoring me?

[yellow m&m]

And why is everyone ignoring me?

I'm not ignoring you. I just don't know what to add.

I think you've made several good points, but I'm not as nit-picky as others.

I also LOVE your potato-gun / plan of salvation analogy. It makes sense to me...

[vorpal blade]

Kind of like transcendental / irrational numbers like Pi...

If we each are a number like so... And the next digit in our representation is our next action it is likewise unpredictable since such numbers never repeat digits or have patterns... Neither do they have an end.

However if you know the equation that generates the number then you also can predict what the next digit in the sequence will be.

And why is everyone ignoring me?

It's a disturbing thought, 361. It sounds very much like predestination. An irrational number has no say in it's digital representation. It is what it is, and nothing the number might think, desire, or hope for makes the slightest difference. It can never be anything other than what it is.

What would be the point of all our efforts to be the best we can, if we cannot alter our destiny, one way or the other, no matter what we do? Why choose to do good? Why choose to do anything difficult, if in the end it makes no difference?

[Fredjikrang]

First, no two individuals are alike. One could be like a rock, while the other is like a helium balloon. One falls, the other floats. There is no reason to believe that applying the same law to different individuals would yield the same results. It doesn't prove whether or not things have agency.

Second, I don't see why it has to be a natural law as opposed to a spiritual law. If you give two individuals the law of tithing, one may obey it and be blessed by it, the other may reject it to his condemnation. Same law, different results. If you knew the spirits of both individuals really well, you could probably predict which one was going to live the law and which one is going to reject it. What if there was some measure of the heart or spirit that unfailingly predicted who would keep the law and who wouldn't?

First, I would like to point out that in my analogy, even if the helium balloon didn't burst first, it would still fall. In fact, no matter what you let go of in the situation I outlined, it would fall. (Well, at least anything that you could actually hold and then let go of.)

Again, just the fact that similar two entities, affected by the same laws and given the same choice, can choose differently is evidence of free will. Could it be predicted? Yes. In fact, it already has been by God, but that doesn't change anything.

[vorpal blade]

First, no two individuals are alike. One could be like a rock, while the other is like a helium balloon. One falls, the other floats. There is no reason to believe that applying the same law to different individuals would yield the same results. It doesn't prove whether or not things have agency.

Second, I don't see why it has to be a natural law as opposed to a spiritual law. If you give two individuals the law of tithing, one may obey it and be blessed by it, the other may reject it to his condemnation. Same law, different results. If you knew the spirits of both individuals really well, you could probably predict which one was going to live the law and which one is going to reject it. What if there was some measure of the heart or spirit that unfailingly predicted who would keep the law and who wouldn't?

First, I would like to point out that in my analogy, even if the helium balloon didn't burst first, it would still fall. In fact, no matter what you let go of in the situation I outlined, it would fall. (Well, at least anything that you could actually hold and then let go of.)

Again, just the fact that similar two entities, affected by the same laws and given the same choice, can choose differently is evidence of free will. Could it be predicted? Yes. In fact, it already has been by God, but that doesn't change anything.

I see I didn't notice before that you specified a vacuum. So, okay, if the balloon didn't break it would fall like the rock.

In your analogy the two rocks fall together. Does this mean that rocks don't have free will? If you drop two humans they will also fall, just like the rocks, except for the screaming and kicking. Yet we don't say the humans have no free will.

I like your idea that two similar entities, affected by the same laws and given the same choice, can choose differently and this is evidence of free will. I just think your idea needs some refinement. Obviously testing two individuals to see if they have free will by droping them along with the rocks will not prove anything if there is no difference in outcome for the two individuals. You must devise a test in which one individual behaves differently from the other.

So you devise the test, the two individuals choose differently, and you conclude there is free will. But wait, there is a problem. Suppose I take two rocks, which outwardly appear similar, and yet one has a high content of iron. Now, I devise a test involving these two rocks using some magnetic force. The magnet holds the one rock in place, but the other rock drops. Have I proved that the rocks have free will? No, I've just shown that I can distinguish between two types of rocks. Similarly, I might argue that your test in which the individuals choose differently did not indicate free will, it indicated a fundamental difference between the individuals. Perhaps one individual was no more free to choose what it did then the rock with iron was free to choose.

[Fredjikrang]

Yes, that is the difficulty. And it is one that I don't think I really have an answer to.

[vorpal blade]

Yes, that is the difficulty. And it is one that I don't think I really have an answer to.

Here is another way to express the difficulty. There are some people who believe that God created us out of nothing. He then programmed us differently. Some of us he programmed to believe and be saved, and others he programmed to be damned. You could ask for a change of program, but only if you were programmed to ask for it.

If you look at humanity and see that they act differently, you could believe it is because they have free will. But, how do you know it isn’t because they were merely programmed differently? God could even program a person to respond erratically, giving the impression that he had free will. He could give the mind the capacity to invent false explanations for its own behavior. To my mind if you are simply following a complex computer program, and you cannot think out of the box or act contrary to your programming, then free will is just an illusion. Sometimes I think my computer has a mind of its own, but I really know better. But how would I know whether I have a mind of my own?

If we were all programmed, then it would be easy to create a gigantic program which had our individual programs as input, and then could predict the outcome. Except, if there are totally random events things might get complicated.

I think our theology helps us to see that we have always existed. We were created by God in the sense that we were organized into our present form and powers, but our fundamental will, desires, and ego have not been violated. We have free will because of our core intelligence. For me, free will is being able to act according to the desires of my core essence, which has always existed.

[Portia]

I always believed that only humans have free will . . . or consciousness, for that matter. I think plants are alive, and animals have an even higher intelligence, but I don't think they experience consciousness in any meaningful way. I think human beings are far less likely to behave rationally than any other entities, and that seems to prove their free will to me.

If you could show me an instance when a bowling ball defied the laws of physics, that might convince me it had free will.