Does God have free will?

[harvey1]

This is a topic that Bugmaster and I have started to discuss, so I want to open it up for a wider debate. If God is conforming to certain laws (e.g., logical, mathematical, physical laws, spiritual laws, etc.), then in what way is God's actions free since God must conform to those laws? On the other hand, if God doesn't have this freedom, then in what way is God omnipotent?

[Curious]

I'm willing to provide definitions and clarifications. But, I think it is better to deal with the argument provided by the person making the argument.

I need to understand what you mean, and how your premise differs from my understanding of it. Are you saying that propositions are not logical entities?

Abstract objects (or logical entities) are either abstract propositions, or they draw their existence from abstract propositions.

Abstract objects? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Or, that propositions exist independently of the material reality, but other logical entities do not?

Abstract propositions exist independent of material reality, and any other abstract object that exists would exist as a result of an abstract proposition.

If an abstract proposition exists independently of material reality, then all derived objects of such a proposition would be equally as valid/invalid.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proposition (universal)".

Abstract propositions (which I'll just label as "propositions") are called universals because the meaning of the proposition applies beyond just one concrete particular. So, for example, pi is a universal since it applies to a whole category of calculations which are all related by being calculations of pi. Pi is a proposition since its meaning can be expressed in propositional form (i.e., as an equation).

Pi is not a proposition. Pi is a relationship. A proposition may refer to a relationship but it is independent of the relationship. You may make the proposition that Pi is 16 times the radius of a circle but it would be incorrect. In this way you are correct that a proposition exists independently of the material reality. My proposition exists but has no real world validity. It is a false proposition but it is still a proposition.

What's the difference between "laws of physics are indeterminate to what must occur", and "laws of physics do not apply"?

The laws of physics can apply and still be indeterminate. For example, the laws of physics are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump off the ground when playing basketball, but the laws of physics certainly apply when I play basketball.

And the laws of physics determine whether you are on the ground in the first place. It is irrelevant whether or not you are going to jump or not jump, a gravitational force acts upon your body, it is up to you whether you wish to temporarily apply a force in another direction. The laws are not indeterminate although your perception of them might well be.

I have read through a number of posts so far and felt the need to address this one in the hope that by engaging the subject I might in some way gain some insight into whatever the hell you guys are talking about.

[harvey1]

Abstract objects? Isn't that an oxymoron?

If you assume that objects must be concrete to be objects, then I guess it is. However, that assumption must be justified. Yet, when we look at objects in the physical world (e.g., quarks and leptons), we see they follow the mathematical rules for abstract objects in group theory (see Gell-Mann's Eightfold Way). So, I think that an assumption that there are no abstract objects is hard to justify given theoretical successes such as the eightfold way theory.

Pi is not a proposition. Pi is a relationship. A proposition may refer to a relationship but it is independent of the relationship.

Pi is a mathematical proposition. For example, Machin's formula is a mathematical proposition that tells us what pi is. That's what propositions do, they are called truthbearers because their obtaining means some form of truth can be known by understanding the proposition, and their not obtaining tells us that there's no truth to be had by understanding the proposition--except that it's converse might be true. If a proposition refers to a relation, and the proposition is true, then we say that the relation (in some form) exists. Likewise, if the proposition refers to an object, and the proposition is true, then we say that the object (in some form) exists. Mathematical propositions refer to objects, relations, properties, etc., as (possibly) existing.

You may make the proposition that Pi is 16 times the radius of a circle but it would be incorrect. In this way you are correct that a proposition exists independently of the material reality. My proposition exists but has no real world validity. It is a false proposition but it is still a proposition.

That's right. If the proposition is not true, then nothing about the proposition obtains beyond the point where the proposition is found to be false. After that point is reached, it is as if the objects referred to by that false proposition had never been. The contents of that false proposition are sent into a mathematical hell if you don't mind that religious metaphor. Any objects in mathematical hell are tortured by finding themselves continually left to ridicule by future mathematicians who learn of their falsity in future history of math lessons.

The laws of physics can apply and still be indeterminate. For example, the laws of physics are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump off the ground when playing basketball, but the laws of physics certainly apply when I play basketball.

And the laws of physics determine whether you are on the ground in the first place. It is irrelevant whether or not you are going to jump or not jump, a gravitational force acts upon your body, it is up to you whether you wish to temporarily apply a force in another direction. The laws are not indeterminate although your perception of them might well be.

If the laws are not indeterminate with respect to me jumping, then my jumping is decided by the laws. But, I doubt that I am made to jump by any law (for example, I don't ever jump when I didn't myself wish to jump). However, the laws are determinate with me arbitrarily deciding to walk on walls. The laws determine that I cannot do so without proper gear (e.g., ropes, and climbing gear). In the case of symmetry breaking events of phase transitions, the dynamical laws in question don't determine how the symmetry is broken. If God were to decide how to break the symmetry to achieve a certain result, there is no violation of those particular dynamical laws.

[Curious]

Pi is not a proposition. Pi is a relationship. A proposition may refer to a relationship but it is independent of the relationship.

Pi is a mathematical proposition. For example, Machin's formula is a mathematical proposition that tells us what pi is. That's what propositions do, they are called truthbearers because their obtaining means some form of truth can be known by understanding the proposition, and their not obtaining tells us that there's no truth to be had by understanding the proposition--except that it's converse might be true. If a proposition refers to a relation, and the proposition is true, then we say that the relation (in some form) exists. Likewise, if the proposition refers to an object, and the proposition is true, then we say that the object (in some form) exists. Mathematical propositions refer to objects, relations, properties, etc., as (possibly) existing.

A proposition may equate to a truth concerning Pi but this does not make Pi a proposition. You might as well say that the mass of a particular object is a proposition or that the speed of light is a proposition. Pi is a static ratio and to call it a proposition is to say it is equivalent to a random value. Sure, some random value will be equivalent to Pi but this hardly makes Pi a random value. The proposition concerning Pi might be true but this is not the same thing as saying Pi is the same thing as the proposition concerning it, which it obviously isn't. That would be like saying my opinion of you is the same thing as you.

You may make the proposition that Pi is 16 times the radius of a circle but it would be incorrect. In this way you are correct that a proposition exists independently of the material reality. My proposition exists but has no real world validity. It is a false proposition but it is still a proposition.

The laws of physics can apply and still be indeterminate. For example, the laws of physics are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump off the ground when playing basketball, but the laws of physics certainly apply when I play basketball.

And the laws of physics determine whether you are on the ground in the first place. It is irrelevant whether or not you are going to jump or not jump, a gravitational force acts upon your body, it is up to you whether you wish to temporarily apply a force in another direction. The laws are not indeterminate although your perception of them might well be.

If the laws are not indeterminate with respect to me jumping, then my jumping is decided by the laws. But, I doubt that I am made to jump by any law (for example, I don't ever jump when I didn't myself wish to jump). However, the laws are determinate with me arbitrarily deciding to walk on walls. The laws determine that I cannot do so without proper gear (e.g., ropes, and climbing gear). In the case of symmetry breaking events of phase transitions, the dynamical laws in question don't determine how the symmetry is broken. If God were to decide how to break the symmetry to achieve a certain result, there is no violation of those particular dynamical laws.

The laws of physics determine whether you are able to jump at all. You talk about symmetry and God's input into such a thing but I doubt whether God would intervene in the symmetry of this universe for obvious reasons. Your idea of symmetry breaking events prior to the inception of this universe is quite appealing though. An asymmetry in the zero point field is one explanation of cosmogenesis and does overcome the problem of energy creation. The ZPF is quite likely the observable remnants of the pre existing energy field that this universe arose from.

[harvey1]

A proposition may equate to a truth concerning Pi but this does not make Pi a proposition. You might as well say that the mass of a particular object is a proposition or that the speed of light is a proposition.

I think here you making the de re/de dicto confusion. De dicto is a special case of de re in that it is about the truth of a proposition of a thing, whereas de re is about the truth of the thing itself. De re modality are about things in the world, and de dicto modality are about the truth of a proposition defined by their properties. We can form propositions that refer to this de re distinction of an object (e.g., the mass of that object is X), but that does not equate a de re proposition to a de dicto proposition (e.g., the mass of that object is X, and X is necessarily X).

In the case of pi, a mathematical proposition having a de dicto distinction has been formed which tells us what pi actually is. You can tell us what pi is multiple ways (i.e., through multiple formulas), but none of them are any less true than the other. Presumably all the propositions can be shown to be equivalent, but even if they cannot be shown to be equivalent, this does not mean that they are not equivalent.

Pi is a static ratio and to call it a proposition is to say it is equivalent to a random value.

If we said it is a de re proposition (i.e., versus a de dicto proposition), then I would agree. But, I am not making that false distinction.

The laws of physics determine whether you are able to jump at all.

That's right, they do. But, they are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump or not.

You talk about symmetry and God's input into such a thing but I doubt whether God would intervene in the symmetry of this universe for obvious reasons. Your idea of symmetry breaking events prior to the inception of this universe is quite appealing though. An asymmetry in the zero point field is one explanation of cosmogenesis and does overcome the problem of energy creation. The ZPF is quite likely the observable remnants of the pre existing energy field that this universe arose from.

Why do you doubt that God intervenes in the world (at least without violating the laws of physics)?

[Curious]

A proposition may equate to a truth concerning Pi but this does not make Pi a proposition. You might as well say that the mass of a particular object is a proposition or that the speed of light is a proposition.

I think here you making the de re/de dicto confusion. De dicto is a special case of de re in that it is about the truth of a proposition of a thing, whereas de re is about the truth of the thing itself. De re modality are about things in the world, and de dicto modality are about the truth of a proposition defined by their properties. We can form propositions that refer to this de re distinction of an object (e.g., the mass of that object is X), but that does not equate a de re proposition to a de dicto proposition (e.g., the mass of that object is X, and X is necessarily X).

In the case of pi, a mathematical proposition having a de dicto distinction has been formed which tells us what pi actually is. You can tell us what pi is multiple ways (i.e., through multiple formulas), but none of them are any less true than the other. Presumably all the propositions can be shown to be equivalent, but even if they cannot be shown to be equivalent, this does not mean that they are not equivalent.

You are confusing the issue here. Pi is not a proposition in any of these arguments. You are referring to propositions relating to pi. This is not the same thing as pi being a proposition. A proposition concerning pi might be true or it might be false, it does not make it true by its proposition. I find it difficult to understand how you think it is that pi is set by opinion.

Pi is a static ratio and to call it a proposition is to say it is equivalent to a random value.

If we said it is a de re proposition (i.e., versus a de dicto proposition), then I would agree. But, I am not making that false distinction.

Indeed, it seems you make few distinctions at all.

The laws of physics determine whether you are able to jump at all.

That's right, they do. But, they are indeterminate with respect to whether I jump or not.

The laws of physics determine whether you can jump at all so are not indeterminate. The laws determine that if you are strong enough you are able to jump. The laws determine your ability to perform a jump and so are completely deterministic in regard to you jumping. If you jump, it is due to the leeway given you. You might think you have some control over whether or not you jump but this is not the case. You might want to jump and are able... this is due to the laws determining you are able to jump. You might want to jump and are unable... also determined by the laws.
If I said the laws of physics are indeterminate as to whether or not I could travel faster than the speed of light you would likely think me insane. If I tried such a feat I would fail. Yet if I never attempted to travel at this speed would I be be being reasonable in assuming that the laws were indeterminate concerning this. Of course not.

You talk about symmetry and God's input into such a thing but I doubt whether God would intervene in the symmetry of this universe for obvious reasons. Your idea of symmetry breaking events prior to the inception of this universe is quite appealing though. An asymmetry in the zero point field is one explanation of cosmogenesis and does overcome the problem of energy creation. The ZPF is quite likely the observable remnants of the pre existing energy field that this universe arose from.

Why do you doubt that God intervenes in the world (at least without violating the laws of physics)?

I doubt that God intervenes in ways that would show that the universe is poorly constructed. I am not saying that God does not interevene at all, I just find it unbelievable that God would mess with the fabric of such a well cut suit. That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

[harvey1]

You are confusing the issue here. Pi is not a proposition in any of these arguments. You are referring to propositions relating to pi. This is not the same thing as pi being a proposition. A proposition concerning pi might be true or it might be false, it does not make it true by its proposition. I find it difficult to understand how you think it is that pi is set by opinion.

Propositions may have nothing to do with opinion. A mathematical proposition is the truthbearer in math. This raised one of the most profound questions at the beginning of last century when David Hilbert questioned the decidability of all math propositions:

The question, proposed by Hilbert, but transformed through the 1931 discovery of Kurt Gödel, was that of the decidability of mathematical propositions. Is there a definite method or procedure which can (in principle) be applied to a mathematical proposition and which will decide whether it is provable?

You might think you have some control over whether or not you jump but this is not the case. You might want to jump and are able... this is due to the laws determining you are able to jump. You might want to jump and are unable... also determined by the laws.

I don't think you meant to say what this statement in italics suggests. Are you saying that we have no control on whether we jump or not?? Surely you don't mean that.

If I said the laws of physics are indeterminate as to whether or not I could travel faster than the speed of light you would likely think me insane. If I tried such a feat I would fail. Yet if I never attempted to travel at this speed would I be be being reasonable in assuming that the laws were indeterminate concerning this. Of course not.

Of course there are boundaries to what we can freely do, but within those boundaries we are free to organize our efforts to produce space shuttles flying into space, etc..

I doubt that God intervenes in ways that would show that the universe is poorly constructed. I am not saying that God does not interevene at all, I just find it unbelievable that God would mess with the fabric of such a well cut suit. That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

But, if God slipped something into a pocket where the laws are determinate, then this would be a violation of the laws of physics.

[QED]

Why do you doubt that God intervenes in the world (at least without violating the laws of physics)?

I doubt that God intervenes in ways that would show that the universe is poorly constructed. I am not saying that God does not interevene at all, I just find it unbelievable that God would mess with the fabric of such a well cut suit. That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

Nicely put Curious, but can this really be so? I'm sure that plenty of people have deserved to pull something life-saving from their pocket only to be disappointed. The stability that Harvey seems to claim is the product of God's supervision is not perfect either. Perhaps Proton decay is telling us something about the way the universe is operating. If it is God that's keeping the plates spinning, he's not above dropping one now and then.

[Curious]

Propositions may have nothing to do with opinion. A mathematical proposition is the truthbearer in math. This raised one of the most profound questions at the beginning of last century when David Hilbert questioned the decidability of all math propositions:

All propositions are decided by opinion. A proposition is a tool for discerning truth but truth is truth whether discerned or not.

The question, proposed by Hilbert, but transformed through the 1931 discovery of Kurt Gödel, was that of the decidability of mathematical propositions. Is there a definite method or procedure which can (in principle) be applied to a mathematical proposition and which will decide whether it is provable?

And you believe that the provability of a proposition has any bearing on it's validity? Perhaps I propose a proposition concerning the nature of being to algae. If algae is unable to prove such a proposition does this make the proposition invalid. Does it even invalidate the truth of the statement?

You might think you have some control over whether or not you jump but this is not the case. You might want to jump and are able... this is due to the laws determining you are able to jump. You might want to jump and are unable... also determined by the laws.

I don't think you meant to say what this statement in italics suggests. Are you saying that we have no control on whether we jump or not?? Surely you don't mean that.

I think you are finding some difficulty in my argument. I suggest that the laws of physics determine whether or not you can jump while you are arguing about whether or not you may jump. This is understandable as human laws relate to may while physical laws relate to can.

Of course there are boundaries to what we can freely do, but within those boundaries we are free to organize our efforts to produce space shuttles flying into space, etc..

Yes, we are free to do within the realm of can.

I doubt that God intervenes in ways that would show that the universe is poorly constructed. I am not saying that God does not interevene at all, I just find it unbelievable that God would mess with the fabric of such a well cut suit. That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

But, if God slipped something into a pocket where the laws are determinate, then this would be a violation of the laws of physics.

I really don't see how. I am sorry but please read again my statement and explain why this would be the case. Perhaps my statement was too ambiguous.

[harvey1]

All propositions are decided by opinion. A proposition is a tool for discerning truth but truth is truth whether discerned or not.

As long as we are talking about propositions as "abstract objects that exist," they shouldn't be treated as purely human cognitive structures (e.g., opinion). In that case, the abstract object doesn't exist as a result of opinion, it exists because it expresses a possible situation or an actual situation.

And you believe that the provability of a proposition has any bearing on it's validity? Perhaps I propose a proposition concerning the nature of being to algae.

This is out of context, Curious. The quote I provided were for mathematical propositions, and that was limited to what Hilbert proposed to be conceivable (which was later disproven by Godel).

I suggest that the laws of physics determine whether or not you can jump while you are arguing about whether or not you may jump. This is understandable as human laws relate to may while physical laws relate to can.

But, then that only goes to say that the laws are indeterminate with what I may do in a particular instance. In spontaneous symmetry breaking situations, the dynamical laws are indeterminate with respect to what may be the symmetry breaking result. This is what I and Bugmaster were talking about (and the reason why I objected to his language saying that the laws of physics don't apply when they apply to what can happen).

That's not to say that God doesn't slip something into a pocket for someone to find now and again.

But, if God slipped something into a pocket where the laws are determinate, then this would be a violation of the laws of physics.

I really don't see how. I am sorry but please read again my statement and explain why this would be the case. Perhaps my statement was too ambiguous.

Well, the laws of physics almost always determine what occurs naturally in the world. For example, if a gold rock were falling down the hill and God zapped the rock into someone's pocket to find later, then there's numerous conservation laws that would be violated in that instance.

[Bugmaster]

So, God is the satisfaction relation upon which everything else is logically contingent. God itself is not logically contingent upon anything. Is that accurate?

God's existence is not logically contingent, rather God exists as a lack of any other logical possibility. ...Contingency suggests that it is possible that something couldn't exist, but this is not what a se necessity means. It means that any conception of reality involves the reality of God. If you can conceive it, then you are dealing in terms where we must first assume an a se God.

I think that, basically, you're still saying: "God is not logically contingent upon anything". You are explaining why this is so, but the basic premise is the same.

Your not using proper argument form. You need to use 1), 2), 3), in your arguments.

Remember: I am trying to build up a map of Harvey-verse; this argument is just a single piece of the puzzle. Hence, labeling propositions in some globally unique way is called for. I realize that formal philosophical journals probably don't do this, but I'm not a formal philosophical journal.

I'm not a condensed matter physicist, therefore I can only speculate, but I imagine that the symmetry breaking process begins at the critical point which is the bulk melting transition... If the ice is a vast floating piece of ice in the Arctic, and a polar bear were chasing you, then how the symmetry broke would be of importance (assuming the polar bear didn't swim after you after your ice broke off from where the polar bear was approaching).

Ok, I think I understand the basic idea behind your symmetry-breaking premise. I think it's completely false, but I do understand it. So, if you ratify the premise I mentioned above, I'll issue an updated list of premises (just for clarity), and proceed to refuting your argument. Yey !