Predestination vs. Free Will

[Nirvana-Eld]

My understanding is this.

(I'm going to say God "is" for this topic to end confusion.
God is omnicient. He knows how everything is going to turn out. So wether we like it or not, God predestened everything. So in what way do we have a free will and does it even count in the face of obvious predestination? That's it in a nutshell.

[Curious]

At 8:43 PM I am still undecided about my dessert choice. However, at 8:43 PM God already knows that I will order the creme brulee. When the waitress returns at 8:45 PM, is there any possible way that I can order the tiramisu?

If no, please explain how my choice is truly free.
If yes, please explain how God knew my choice prior to 8:45 PM.
Either way, how would I know if that was not the case? That is, what empirical data would falsify either hypothesis?

Regards,
mrmufin

Omniscience is the faculty of unlimited knowledge or understanding. To be omniscient, one must know all things. Omniscience does not require knowledge of things that are not, but of things that are. At 8:43 PM the choice of dessert is as yet non-existent. At 8:45 PM, the choice is made. An omniscient being would have the knowledge when the knowledge existed. To be omniscient, a being requires only the sum total of all knowledge, not the sum total plus some additional amount. The ability to see all time simultaneously would come more into the realm of omnipotence. An omnipotent, omniscient being could see the outcome of an event as it happens and still allow free will to be the driving force of the outcome.

[harvey1]

Omniscience is the faculty of unlimited knowledge or understanding. To be omniscient, one must know all things. Omniscience does not require knowledge of things that are not, but of things that are. At 8:43 PM the choice of dessert is as yet non-existent. At 8:45 PM, the choice is made. An omniscient being would have the knowledge when the knowledge existed. To be omniscient, a being requires only the sum total of all knowledge, not the sum total plus some additional amount. The ability to see all time simultaneously would come more into the realm of omnipotence. An omnipotent, omniscient being could see the outcome of an event as it happens and still allow free will to be the driving force of the outcome.

It seems you hold a similar position as myself where you reject PAP (the principle of alternative possibilities) as a condition of free will, right? The basic idea of rejecting PAP is that one can have free will as long as one's actions are not a consequence of coercion or supplanting their will.

It's amazing to me how entrenched PAP is in the free will argument. Why do you think that is?

[Curious]

It seems you hold a similar position as myself where you reject PAP (the principle of alternative possibilities) as a condition of free will, right? The basic idea of rejecting PAP is that one can have free will as long as one's actions are not a consequence of coercion or supplanting their will.

It's amazing to me how entrenched PAP is in the free will argument. Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is the result of attaching undue significance to our individual actions. If I were to throw a pebble into the ocean, the ripples would be short lived and have little or no bearing on the next tide. Whether I choose tea or coffee as my morning drink is unlikely to alter the coming of the next ice age or solar eclipse.
Perhaps free will is a sort of randomisation of data similar to throwing dice. Give enough people a die to throw and bingo, you get the same number of 1's, 2's etc. but each one is thrown in the way chosen by each caster. Given sufficient understanding of humanity and the environment, it should not be too difficult to work out the outcome given any situation (for an omniscient being that is).

[McCulloch]

As far as science has been able to determine, there are only two types of fundamental actions for particles in the universe. The first is completely determined. If you flip a coin or toss a die, and you know with sufficient precision all of the forces at play and the all of the relevant attributes of the environment that it is in, with enough computational power, you could accurately predict the outcome. In the Newtonian universe, there is no room for free will. We, like all other objects in the universe, are composed of particles operating in space and time subject to forces. It is only impossible to accurately predict our actions due to the complexity of the interactions involved. An omniscient being, would have to be able to overcome these complexities, if such a being were to exist, if the universe existed only according to Newtonian laws.
The other, discovered by physicists last century, is the random, probabilistic actions of quantum particles. There are problems with trying to link quantum physics to free will. Roger Penrose, a brilliant scientist, has tried, but I believe has failed to do so. The problem is that quantum particles are very very incredibly small. The random activity of a single quantum particle, cannot make much of an effect. But once you start looking at a significant number of quantum particles, they behave together in a very predictable way. So quantum mechanics seems to have failed to explain free will.
Is there a source of free will in chaos theory? Chaos theory is the idea that sometimes even simple systems, with non-linear processes can become over time, completely unpredictable. The problem is that chaos theory still deals with deterministic situations. The initial conditions and the forces of the environment still completely determine the results, although paradoxically in an unpredictable way.
So, where does that leave us? Unless someone can show that there is a part of my being that exists outside of the known laws of physics OR until someone discovers some kind of exception to those laws, I must conclude that all of our actions are determined and free will is an illusion.
I don't know what my choice of dessert will be. I make a choice. That choice is made by a process not fully understood by anyone, but one that is subject to the laws of physics. The choice, therefore, is knowable in advance by an omniscient being.

[Cephus]

I don't know what my choice of dessert will be. I make a choice. That choice is made by a process not fully understood by anyone, but one that is subject to the laws of physics. The choice, therefore, is knowable in advance by an omniscient being.

Nope, sorry. That might work for things that are entirely determined by the forces upon them, such as flipping coins or dice, but human thought does not operate that way. You might be able to measure all the options and come up with the most logical choice to make, but as we all know, humans are hardly logical. We do things that are not in our best interests. We do things that are bad for us. We are products of our environments and histories and often do things that are self-destructive. No amount of physics is going to allow us to determine human thought patterns beforehand, therefore no being, no matter how advanced, is going to be able to accurately predict any and all decisions made by those thought patterns.

It just doesn't make logical sense.

[McCulloch]

I don't know what my choice of dessert will be. I make a choice. That choice is made by a process not fully understood by anyone, but one that is subject to the laws of physics. The choice, therefore, is knowable in advance by an omniscient being.

Nope, sorry. That might work for things that are entirely determined by the forces upon them, such as flipping coins or dice, but human thought does not operate that way.

Aren't you begging the question? What is it about human thought that does not fall under the laws of physics? Do we have particles that behave in a way so far unknown to science? Is there a ghost in the machine to account for our will?

You might be able to measure all the options and come up with the most logical choice to make, but as we all know, humans are hardly logical. We do things that are not in our best interests. We do things that are bad for us. We are products of our environments and histories and often do things that are self-destructive. No amount of physics is going to allow us to determine human thought patterns beforehand, therefore no being, no matter how advanced, is going to be able to accurately predict any and all decisions made by those thought patterns.

Yes, we and other species with brains, make illogical choices. But those choices have been made by a process entirely contained in the brain. The brain is composed of particles which obey the laws of physics. It is only unpredictable due to the extreme complexity of both the process and the environment. If an omniscient being exists, it would be able to overcome that limitation.

[harvey1]

Hey McCulloch,

I haven't talked to you in a while. How are you buddy?

As far as science has been able to determine, there are only two types of fundamental actions for particles in the universe. The first is completely determined. If you flip a coin or toss a die, and you know with sufficient precision all of the forces at play and the all of the relevant attributes of the environment that it is in, with enough computational power, you could accurately predict the outcome. In the Newtonian universe, there is no room for free will.

Again, this assumes PAP (principle of alternative possibilities). If I choose to have coffee in the morning, it is my choice unless unbeknownst to me I intended to have coffee, but someone by remote control were able to change my intentions to drink water instead. It doesn't matter if my thoughts are predictable as long as it is my choice.

The other, discovered by physicists last century, is the random, probabilistic actions of quantum particles. There are problems with trying to link quantum physics to free will. Roger Penrose, a brilliant scientist, has tried, but I believe has failed to do so. The problem is that quantum particles are very very incredibly small. The random activity of a single quantum particle, cannot make much of an effect. But once you start looking at a significant number of quantum particles, they behave together in a very predictable way. So quantum mechanics seems to have failed to explain free will.

For many years a number of researchers have said that there's good reason to believe that quantum chaos is the underpinning of classical chaos. Recent experiments have even given strong weight to the notion that there is quantum chaos (i.e., non-linear behavior which is not accounted for in the deterministic evolution of the quantum hamiltonian: Schrodinger's time-evolution equation).

Is there a source of free will in chaos theory? Chaos theory is the idea that sometimes even simple systems, with non-linear processes can become over time, completely unpredictable. The problem is that chaos theory still deals with deterministic situations. The initial conditions and the forces of the environment still completely determine the results, although paradoxically in an unpredictable way.

If the classical chaos is a result of quantum chaos, which seems to be the case, then classical chaos has inherent unpredictability to it. We don't need Penrose's quantum gravity ideas applied to the human brain to suggest that determinism isn't necessarily the case with regard to thinking.

The choice, therefore, is knowable in advance by an omniscient being.

The choice is knowable with or without determinism (for thought) being true for an omniscient being. If flow of time itself is an illusion, that is there is no actual flow of time, then from God's perspective everything happens in an infinitesimal period, there is no restriction in waiting for the future to happen before God acquires certain knowledge of our decisions. Everything happens at the same time. It is like our experience of space. Everything is in front of us at the same time. The reason that everything is not in one spot is because there is a spacetime metric where things can be spread out. Similarly, for God, the events are separated by a spacetime metric, and within that spacetime, people are able to make their own freewill decisions, etc., but they are all our decisions which God knows because the flow of time is an illusion in the first place.

[McCulloch]

How are you buddy?

Could be better but can't complain. I've decided that I am going to have another stab at the more philosophical debates and make a liar out of those who thought that I was a really good debater.

As far as science has been able to determine, there are only two types of fundamental actions for particles in the universe. The first is completely determined. If you flip a coin or toss a die, and you know with sufficient precision all of the forces at play and the all of the relevant attributes of the environment that it is in, with enough computational power, you could accurately predict the outcome. In the Newtonian universe, there is no room for free will.

Again, this assumes PAP (principle of alternative possibilities). If I choose to have coffee in the morning, it is my choice unless unbeknownst to me I intended to have coffee, but someone by remote control were able to change my intentions to drink water instead. It doesn't matter if my thoughts are predictable as long as it is my choice.

So you chose a particular action, it may have been entirely and accurately predictable but it was still your completely free choice?

The other, discovered by physicists last century, is the random, probabilistic actions of quantum particles. There are problems with trying to link quantum physics to free will. Roger Penrose, a brilliant scientist, has tried, but I believe has failed to do so. The problem is that quantum particles are very very incredibly small. The random activity of a single quantum particle, cannot make much of an effect. But once you start looking at a significant number of quantum particles, they behave together in a very predictable way. So quantum mechanics seems to have failed to explain free will.

For many years a number of researchers have said that there's good reason to believe that quantum chaos is the underpinning of classical chaos. Recent experiments have even given strong weight to the notion that there is quantum chaos (i.e., non-linear behavior which is not accounted for in the deterministic evolution of the quantum hamiltonian: Schrodinger's time-evolution equation).

Yes, but is it not so that quantum behaviour is random and probabilistic? If quantum chaos is the underpinning of classical chaos, why is it that I can create classical chaos on my computer with the right starting conditions and a simple non-linear equation without any quantum effects?

Is there a source of free will in chaos theory? Chaos theory is the idea that sometimes even simple systems, with non-linear processes can become over time, completely unpredictable. The problem is that chaos theory still deals with deterministic situations. The initial conditions and the forces of the environment still completely determine the results, although paradoxically in an unpredictable way.

If the classical chaos is a result of quantum chaos, which seems to be the case, then classical chaos has inherent unpredictability to it. We don't need Penrose's quantum gravity ideas applied to the human brain to suggest that determinism isn't necessarily the case with regard to thinking.

I am still not convinced that quantum chaos causes classical chaos. But even if it were, we are still a long way from identifying will. The human brain, due to chaos (classical or quantum or a combination) has inherent unpredictability. Is that free will?

The choice, therefore, is knowable in advance by an omniscient being.

The choice is knowable with or without determinism (for thought) being true for an omniscient being. If flow of time itself is an illusion, that is there is no actual flow of time, then from God's perspective everything happens in an infinitesimal period, there is no restriction in waiting for the future to happen before God acquires certain knowledge of our decisions. Everything happens at the same time. It is like our experience of space. Everything is in front of us at the same time. The reason that everything is not in one spot is because there is a spacetime metric where things can be spread out. Similarly, for God, the events are separated by a spacetime metric, and within that spacetime, people are able to make their own freewill decisions, etc., but they are all our decisions which God knows because the flow of time is an illusion in the first place.

Yes, I have long thought that an omniscient being could not exist within the limits of our temporal experience.

[harvey1]

How are you buddy?

Could be better but can't complain. I've decided that I am going to have another stab at the more philosophical debates and make a liar out of those who thought that I was a really good debater.

Hogwash. Great minds think great, so think away...

So you chose a particular action, it may have been entirely and accurately predictable but it was still your completely free choice?

Well, there's one caveat here. When I say predictable, I don't mean that we are computationally reducible (i.e., there's some other algorithm besides the Self that one could use to predict everything we do). What I mean is that we are computationally irreducible (i.e., there's no algorithm but the Self which can predict our actions). If we know the "Self algorithm" (i.e., God knowing the hearts of men and women), then we can still have free will and yet be 100% predictable.

If quantum chaos is the underpinning of classical chaos, why is it that I can create classical chaos on my computer with the right starting conditions and a simple non-linear equation without any quantum effects?

Chaos is formed from autoplectic and homoplectic conditions. Quantum chaos would be an example of homoplectic conditions, whereas computer simulations (e.g., cellular automata) would be based on autoplectic (or internal) conditions. Autoplectic is completely a closed system, whereas homoplectic is an open system. In order to calculate a system (call it system A) affected by a system (call it system B) bringing on the homoplectic conditions (e.g., quantum noise), system B would have to be deterministic. If system B is not deterministic (e.g., quantum chaotic noise), then it would be impossible for system A to be fully determined even if it is a classical system. System B might be very slight influences, so system A is very predictable, but any slight and real amount of indeterminism in system B could very well make system A in principle an indeterministic system.

By stating that quantum chaos could underpin classical chaos, I mean that as a contributing factor to chaos (i.e., homoplectic contributions) it might allow the classical chaotic system to be an indeterministic system (not just in practice, but really an indeterministic system).

I am still not convinced that quantum chaos causes classical chaos. But even if it were, we are still a long way from identifying will. The human brain, due to chaos (classical or quantum or a combination) has inherent unpredictability. Is that free will?

Free will is the Self making the decisions versus some algorithmically reduced shortcut determining our actions. Notice, this is not the same as accepting PAP (principle of alternative possibilities). PAP states that there are real possibilities that even the Self algorithm itself does not entail. You can still be accountable for your actions because the Self is a self-generating algorithm that writes its own future based on not knowing what the final Self state is going to be. It makes its own future by making decisions for itself. If determinism is true (or at least true with regard to human behavior), then this changes nothing really. All that means is that the Self was pre-determined to be itself; which means that it was pre-determined to make decisions in a state of uncertainty as to the effect that those decisions would have. The Self can only blame itself for not making the right decisions (i.e., if there is something to regret or be held accountable for). Had the Self chosen different decisions, the Self could have averted the consequences of having chosen poor decisions.

On the other hand, if indeterminism is true (i.e., with respect to human behavior), then the Self chooses its decisions with not only uncertainty about the consequences of those decisions, but also real indeterminism with respect to its nature. In order to determine its nature, it must make decisions to actually determine its nature. One problem I see with indeterminism operating at this level is that it seems conceivable that even a decision does not decide the nature of the Self (since some indeterministic event could come along that makes the Self act differently then the previous decisions would indicate). However, it's not a serious concern since the indeterminism might be limited to undecided issues. That is, the Self might be wired like a stare decisis system where each decision reinforces previous decisions, and therefore indeterministic action within the nature of the Self simply has less impact.

Personally, I lean to there being quantum-chaotic induced indeterminism within our decision abilities. In addition to free will, there's also the issue of physical closure which states that any physical effect must be caused by a physical event. If determinism is true, then either closure is false, or every decision made by a human has a physical cause. Ultimately this means that every human decision is a consequence of the big bang, and hence, is a consequence of God's decision. As a Christian, I believe in not just free will, but also a separation between the Creator and the creation.

If determinism is true, then there is no real separation between us and God, and therefore our decisions are connected to God. They are still our free will decisions (as mentioned above) since the irreducible Self is the vehicle actually making the decision, but without the separation offered by indeterminism we would have to say that traditional Christianity has difficulty explaining how this separation can exist.

Btw, since we apparently live in a world that is perfectly balanced between indeterminism and determinism, this should be considered more evidence of God and Christianity since it is only in this kind of world where we could possibly see the value in this very delicate mixture. It's actually pretty miraculous that we live in a world living on such an edge. (I'm always amazed that there are any atheists at all.)

[McCulloch]

Great minds think great, so think away...

Thank you.

Free will is the Self making the decisions versus some algorithmically reduced shortcut determining our actions. ...

What is Self? Your whole discussion seems to hinge on there being in existence a decision making entity called Self, which exists independent from the physical universe.

Personally, I lean to there being quantum-chaotic induced indeterminism within our decision abilities. In addition to free will, there's also the issue of physical closure which states that any physical effect must be caused by a physical event. If determinism is true, then either closure is false, or every decision made by a human has a physical cause.

So why do you rule out the idea that every human decision has a physical cause? Does every decision made by an amoeba have a physical cause? Plant, spider, fish, bird, chimp?

Ultimately this means that every human decision is a consequence of the big bang, and hence, is a consequence of God's decision.

I am with you as far as big bang. I have not seen proof of God yet.

As a Christian, I believe in not just free will, but also a separation between the Creator and the creation.

A natural conclusion based on the assumptions of Christianity.

If determinism is true, then there is no real separation between us and God, and therefore our decisions are connected to God. They are still our free will decisions (as mentioned above) since the irreducible Self is the vehicle actually making the decision, but without the separation offered by indeterminism we would have to say that traditional Christianity has difficulty explaining how this separation can exist.

Then maybe the separation does not exist. A good number of theists hold to this idea, don't they?