Free will and omniscience

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Well gosh. Anything is possible with magic. Why would you be interested in logic or evidence at all?

I figured this was another attempt at bait-and-switch rhetoric.

I invoke Clarke's Third Law. There's nothing inherent about defining something as "magic" that means it is impossible or defies logic -- simply that the mechanism is far enough beyond human understanding to defy explanation.

Powered flight is "magic" in any context where the physics concepts underlying aerodynamics are unknown. So if we were in ancient Greece, I would agree that talking about human flight was "magic", but I would disagree that it therefore defied logic or was self-contradictory.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I figured this was another attempt at bait-and-switch rhetoric.

I invoke Clarke's Third Law. There's nothing inherent about defining something as "magic" that means it is impossible or defies logic -- simply that the mechanism is far enough beyond human understanding to defy explanation.

Powered flight is "magic" in any context where the physics concepts underlying aerodynamics are unknown. So if we were in ancient Greece, I would agree that talking about human flight was "magic", but I would disagree that it therefore defied logic or was self-contradictory.

Time travel breaches several well-know physical laws. It breaches logical rules, as logic relies on causality. We're not talking about unknown mechanics. We're talking about things which would overturn everything we know about the universe if they were true.

But really, even human flight wasn't considered magic even back in ancient Greece. The story of Icarus was one case where the Greeks believed human powered flight was quite possible, given the right tools. Indeed, scientists have been attempting human-powered flight throughout the ages. Because they knew flight was possible. They'd seen things fly.

Now, have you seen anything travel backwards through time? Has anyone? Does it involve reversing the spin of the planets and the motion of atomic particles?

I think it is clear who is doing the "bait and switch" here.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You certainly did not.

Here is your claim:

I'll ask the question again: precisely what fact does an omniscient being, according to my definition, not know?
If you can't actually provide one, explain how a being that knows everything is "not-all-knowing".

Any fact that your magical omniscient being doesn't know with certainty it doesn't know. And if there's anything it doesn't know, it's not omniscient. You stated above...

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You've defined "certainty of event X at time A" as "negating, at time A, any possibility or capability of acting other than according to event X".

Based on that definition of "certainty", I claim that omniscience doesn't imply "certainty". Atemporal omniscience knows the outcome of events; that doesn't in any way constrain the possible outcomes.

The omniscient being, to those of us who aren't making up definitions to support an otherwise unsupportable position, knows the outcome of events with certainty. So it does constrain the possible outcomes to the outcome it knows will occur, with certainty, because of its omniscience. Again, in the spirit of cooperation and helping to educate you, your failure comes from your error in redefining terms.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Any fact that your magical omniscient being doesn't know with certainty it doesn't know.

So you're conceding that my omniscient being knows every fact, but you're claiming that a being that knows every fact but doesn't force that fact to occur isn't actually omniscient?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So you're conceding that my omniscient being knows every fact, but you're claiming that a being that knows every fact but doesn't force that fact to occur isn't actually omniscient?

Since I haven't made any such claim, I'm sure you agree it would be dishonest of you to suggest that I am. I, like most others in this discussion, have been trying to help you understand why you're failing so completely to support your position.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Since I haven't made any such claim,

How have you not? I just connected the dots for you.

We defined "certainty of event X at time A" as "negating, at time A, any possibility or capability of acting other than according to event X".

I denied that certainty, under this definition, was required for a being to be omniscient.

You claim that anything that an omniscient being doesn't know, in this way, it doesn't know.

In other words, you're begging the question, and trying to redefine "knowledge" in order to support your claim that my omniscient being doesn't have any.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

How have you not? I just connected the dots for you.

We defined "certainty of event X at time A" as "negating, at time A, any possibility or capability of acting other than according to event X".

I denied that certainty, under this definition, was required for a being to be omniscient.

Yes, you denied that. You tried to redefine certainty to mean something other than certainty and omniscience to mean something other than omniscience. Here's a bit of helpful advice, which I and other people have already offered by the way. Stop insisting on redefining perfectly good words. It's not an honest way to engage in a discussion.

Omniscient means all-knowing, as in knowledge, which in the sense of omniscience, means certainty. You don't get the luxury of an omniscient being that doesn't know everything. You don't get the luxury of a lack of certainty in that being's knowledge. If it knows you'll have a tuna salad sandwich for lunch next Tuesday, you will. If it doesn't know what you'll have for lunch next Tuesday, it's not omniscient.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll ask the question again: precisely what fact does an omniscient being, according to my definition, not know?
If you can't actually provide one, explain how a being that knows everything is "not-all-knowing".

If it's possible that Y will happen in the future, then the omniscient being doesn't know that X will happen in the future, where X and Y are mutually exclusive choices.

It's like he's looking at my painting and can't tell if it's blue or green.

Your idea that "it's certain that X" doesn't not mean "it's not possible that not-X" is just redefining certainty to mean not certain. If something is certain to happen, it will happen, which means its negation will not happen. I really can't understand how you can dispute that.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by dlorde

OK, well that just avoids answering the question I asked. In my scenario he doesn't lie and he does tell you which way you'll turn. If you don't like that variation, what about the one where you somehow manage to catch a sight of what he wrote before you make the turn?

You've missed my point. In some cases he can't tell you in advance without "lying" because telling you would change the outcome to other than what he tells you (a self-defeating prophecy), making what would have been a true statement into a lie. We're only talking omniscience here, not omnipotence.

Sure, in cases where the same outcome occurs regardless of whether or not he tells you, he can tell you. And if he wants to be a smartass there may be some situations where he can cause an outcome to occur by telling you what the outcome will be (self-fulfilling prophecy).

But there will always be come circumstances where correctly telling you what's about to happen is logically impossible, because telling you would prevent it from happening (such as when you're annoyed at him for being infallible, and deliberately do the opposite of what he says you'll do just to make him wrong).

However, I'm assuming that this knowledge of future events is derived from calculating what the future will be from the state of the present universe. If the situation you're describing is supposed to come from someone observing the events and traveling back in time, then the answer to your question is unknowable. (Of course, this doesn't stop people from simply making up whatever answer they find most appealing.)

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

If it's possible that Y will happen in the future, then the omniscient being doesn't know that X will happen in the future, where X and Y are mutually exclusive choices.

Nope. I'm saying the chance of X happening may still be 50%, even though the oracle knows X will happen.

Actual probability 1/2, Bayesian probability 1.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope. I'm saying the chance of X happening may still be 50%, even though the oracle knows X will happen.

Actual probability 1/2, Bayesian probability 1.

I may just be slow (it happens relatively often), but the above makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could give an example of something that fits that scenario?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I may just be slow (it happens relatively often), but the above makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could give an example of something that fits that scenario?

Sure.
I flip a coin.
While the coin is in the air, the Oracle says:
"The chance of that coin landing heads is 1/2.
"Also, that coin will land tails."

[jond]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sure.
I flip a coin.
While the coin is in the air, the Oracle says:
"The chance of that coin landing heads is 1/2.
"Also, that coin will land tails."

Then, there is a 1/2 chance that the oracle will be wrong. Unless, of course, the Oracle already knows how the coin will land. In which case, he is lying when he says there is a 1/2 chance of the coin landing heads.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sure.
I flip a coin.
While the coin is in the air, the Oracle says:
"The chance of that coin landing heads is 1/2.
"Also, that coin will land tails."

The last sentence negates the second to last.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by tsig

The last sentence negates the second to last.

You forget, it's magic. The oracle doesn't know it until it happens. Then it goes back in time and knows it in advance. It is amazing what you can do if you are not constrained by physical laws.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Tricky

You forget, it's magic. The oracle doesn't know it until it happens. Then it goes back in time and knows it in advance. It is amazing what you can do if you are not constrained by physical laws.

That's why oracles always travel in pairs. One from the present to observe, and one from the future to tell you what it observed first time around. It's true, have you ever met an infallible oracle that traveled alone?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

It's true, have you ever met an infallible oracle that traveled alone?

Come to think of it, NO!!!!

Okay this thread is going to be moved into Conspiracy Theories.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson 75

Let's say god is going to create a man who will walk down a street and at some point will be given the ability to make a choice on his own to turn either left or right. God has decided on this scenario that there are multiple things he can do. Before god pulls the ethereal trigger to create he has to decide if he will create the man with free will. Once god makes his choice the man can make any choice. Can god choose to allow free will?

Your missing the point. This god knows every detail of the universe from beginning to end (which is silly enough if you stop and think about it but I digress).

The fact that this god already knows the outcome means that the person this god created came with a predetermined set of choices from cradle to grave. This god already knows the outcome of the right or left decision so by default the person he creates will already come with a predetermined choice when approaching the intersection.

I can choose to plead ignorance to the speed limit but that doesn't mean the speed limit doesn't apply to me. If there is an omniscient god who knows the outcome of everything, even if I am ignorant of the outcome myself, that doesn't mean that outcome doesn't apply to me.

In this scenario your free will is only a mirage, you can THINK that you are free to do what you wish but your god created YOU with a predetermined chain of events you will accomplish in your life.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sure.
I flip a coin.
While the coin is in the air, the Oracle says:
"The chance of that coin landing heads is 1/2.
"Also, that coin will land tails."

Or alternately:

I flip a coin and look at it, seeing that it's heads, without showing you. I ask you, "heads or tails?"

From your perspective the chances that it's heads is 1/2, from mine it's 1.

But the fact that you lack information about which way the coin came up doesn't mean that there's a chance that it's tails. That 1/2 is only a measure of your ignorance, not of the actually possibility of a different result.

[H'ethetheth]

So Avalon, in Myriad's terminology, you're saying that ~n is possible, even though it is knowable that n is true or
n ^ P(~n), correct?

Also, I'm pretty sure you have to redefine what "random" and "chance" mean in order to claim that an outcome is knowable, yet p(n) ≠ 1

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

That's why oracles always travel in pairs. One from the present to observe, and one from the future to tell you what it observed first time around. It's true, have you ever met an infallible oracle that traveled alone?

No, three. It's like the old joke about the Russian secret police. They always traveled in threes. One could read, one could write and the third kept an eye on the two intellectuals.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope. I'm saying the chance of X happening may still be 50%, even though the oracle knows X will happen.

Actual probability 1/2, Bayesian probability 1.

That's a really, really bizarre point of view. You seem to be suggesting, either that Bayesian probability isn't a description of reality, or that at best it's an add-on to reality that allows you to choose between "actual" reality and Bayesian reality. But it's not like that; Bayes' theorem provides a more accurate description of reality than the simple standalone probability of an event. Or, put differently, if simple probability analysis gives one result and Bayesian probability gives another result, then it's the Bayesian probability that's right. So, given that Bayesian probability is, not an alternative, but a better description of reality, then your statement above is tantamount to an admission that prescience negates free will. Or, put differently, in your terms Bayesian probability does automatically usurp the model that you erroneously refer to as "true" probability, but is in fact an inappropriate model that treats events in isolation. Since no system can be seen as isolated from an omniscient entity, the naive probability model can never be correct.

In effect, every time you claim that Bayesian probability suppports your position, you're mis-stating your claim; what in fact you are claiming is that your position is supported by rejection of Bayesian probability as a correct model.

Dave

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So you're conceding that my omniscient being knows every fact, but you're claiming that a being that knows every fact but doesn't force that fact to occur isn't actually omniscient?

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The omniscient being, to those of us who aren't making up definitions to support an otherwise unsupportable position, knows the outcome of events with certainty. So it does constrain the possible outcomes to the outcome it knows will occur, with certainty, because of its omniscience.

Please, Avalon. Give up.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Please, Avalon. Give up.

Or publish your own dictionary.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope. I'm saying the chance of X happening may still be 50%, even though the oracle knows X will happen.

Actual probability 1/2, Bayesian probability 1.

That flies against everything we know about probability. Once you KNOW the outcome, the probability of the outcome is 1, or 100%.

But since you seem to have knowledge of probability that trumps mine, perhaps you can explain that to me.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Belz...

But since you seem to have knowledge of probability that trumps mine, perhaps you can explain that to me.

God works in mysterious ways? He's omniscient except when he isn't?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In effect, every time you claim that Bayesian probability suppports your position, you're mis-stating your claim; what in fact you are claiming is that your position is supported by rejection of Bayesian probability as a correct model.

That's correct. I'm claiming that Bayesian probability is an evidential probability model. It's based around the idea that our information is incomplete, and calculates probabilities based on the evidence we have.

I already gave this example: if I select a ball and put it in my pocket without looking at it, the ball is actually a certain color (that is, the actual probability of the ball being blue is either 1 or 0). But the Bayesian probability of the ball being blue may be 1/4, because the Bayesian probability is based on limited knowledge.

The problem is that people conflate Bayesian evidential probability with the actual probability of truly random events, which is something different.

I am hypothesizing the existence of a being who, because it derives its knowledge atemporally, can exist at point A where the probability of an event is less than 100% but still have full knowledge of the outcome of that event at point B where the probability is 100% (because the event has happened).

My mechanism (thanks to Bill) is atemporal causality: the reason the Oracle knows the outcome at point A is that the outcome is determined and observed at point B, which the Oracle has access to. So the cause of the Oracle's knowledge is the future event.

In this way, I am asserting that the outcome is not restricted at point A. The electron really does have an even probability of being spin-up or spin-down and will interact accordingly until the states collapse. When the states collapse at point B, the Oracle will observe this and will therefore have the knowledge of the states available at point A.

Of course, all this is secondary to the actual point about free will, but if it can be understood how I explain and resolve the paradox with random events, the extension to nondeterministic nonrandom events should be more straightforward.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...the extension to nondeterministic nonrandom events...

You might want to provide some evidence for this class of events before you do that.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth

You might want to provide some evidence for this class of events before you do that.

I'm not planning on providing any evidence for it. I'm here in this thread to demonstrate that the concepts are consistent; not that they're real.

[H'ethetheth]

My problem is this. A usually defined, deterministic and random are complementary. In other words, in my understanding of the terms, you are describing an empty set.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's correct. I'm claiming that Bayesian probability is an evidential probability model. It's based around the idea that our information is incomplete, and calculates probabilities based on the evidence we have.

So does the simple assumption of random outcome for a single event. Bayes's Theorem just uses more information.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I already gave this example: if I select a ball and put it in my pocket without looking at it, the ball is actually a certain color (that is, the actual probability of the ball being blue is either 1 or 0). But the Bayesian probability of the ball being blue may be 1/4, because the Bayesian probability is based on limited knowledge.

But you're getting it the wrong way round. You're using Bayesian probability to describe the situation in which everything is known; an omniscient entity, by definition, has unlimited knowledge.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I am hypothesizing the existence of a being who, because it derives its knowledge atemporally, can exist at point A where the probability of an event is less than 100% but still have full knowledge of the outcome of that event at point B where the probability is 100% (because the event has happened).

If it can exist at point A with full knowledge that the probability of an outcome at point B is 100%, then that is logically inconsistent with that probability being less than 100% at point A. You're suggesting that, at point A, the real probability is both 100% (because God knows the outcome) and less than 100% (because you want to preserve free will). You're then using Bayes' Theorem as an appeal to magic, because you've got some muddled idea that Bayes' Theorem can say that a single event has two different probabilities. It doesn't work that way; if the outcome of an event is known, then probability isn't applicable.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My mechanism (thanks to Bill) is atemporal causality: the reason the Oracle knows the outcome at point A is that the outcome is determined and observed at point B, which the Oracle has access to. So the cause of the Oracle's knowledge is the future event.

You're explaining away a contradiction by proposing a self-contradictory explanation. There is no such thing as atemporal causality. Causality is, pretty much by definition, temporal.

Dave

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Or alternately:

I flip a coin and look at it, seeing that it's heads, without showing you. I ask you, "heads or tails?"

From your perspective the chances that it's heads is 1/2, from mine it's 1.

But the fact that you lack information about which way the coin came up doesn't mean that there's a chance that it's tails. That 1/2 is only a measure of your ignorance, not of the actually possibility of a different result.

This is a more accurate representation of omniscience. It's also going to be handwaved away, because apparently ignorance of the result means that you still have a choice, even when there's only one option.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not planning on providing any evidence for it. I'm here in this thread to demonstrate that the concepts are consistent; not that they're real.

You're doing a very poor job of it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

But you're getting it the wrong way round. You're using Bayesian probability to describe the situation in which everything is known; an omniscient entity, by definition, has unlimited knowledge.

I hope you're not surprised that he doesn't know how probability works.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Bayes's Theorem

I'm not talking about Bayes' Theorem; I'm talking about Bayesian probabilities -- that is, probabilities assigned based on degrees of knowledge, which are often conflated with the actual probabilities of random events.

No wonder it sounds like we're talking past each other if you think I'm talking about a statement of conditional probabilities when I'm talking about Bayesian (evidentiary) probabilities generally.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I hope you're not surprised that he doesn't know how probability works.

That is an insult that I take very personally. I absolutely do know how probability works.

I also know, as I've been pointing out for several posts, that people confuse actual probabilities of random events with evidentiary (Bayesian) probabilities attributed to limited knowledge. I also know the statistical treatment that entails.

You don't like my metaphysics; fine. That's no reason to insult my mathematical understanding. I am certainly aware of, and quite competent with, these concepts.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Or alternately:

I flip a coin and look at it, seeing that it's heads, without showing you. I ask you, "heads or tails?"

From your perspective the chances that it's heads is 1/2, from mine it's 1.

This is a perfect illustration of Bayesian probability.

Objectively, the coin has already flipped heads. Its actual probability of being heads is 1.

However, our evidentiary probabilities for the coin having come up heads are different, because our knowledge is different. Yours is 1; mine is 1/2. This is based on our knowledge of an already-certain event; an event that is certain because it already occurred.

Now, extending this logic further, in the case of a being with foreknowledge, there may be a situation where the probability of the event is 1/2 (because it hasn't happened yet and there are no constraints on the possible outcomes), but a being has an evidentiary probability of 1 for the event (because of foreknowledge).

[AvalonXQ]

I'm quite bummed out by the insult of my mathematical abilities above, so I think I'll take my leave of this thread for a while.

Thanks for the excellent, and clearly sincere, analysis of a lot of these points.

[H'ethetheth]

Sorry to hear. In the mean time I'll try to be in a state of non-absent non-presence.

[Lithrael]

It still seems to me that for omniscience to even be possible, all events must be immutable. It's not even a matter of the universe being deterministic or not, it's a matter of all events definitely being immutable. In a reality where omniscience is possible, 'now' might as well be the position of the needle on the record, and "Comfortably Numb" is always gonna be the last track on side three, whether you've heard it before or not. And in that context free will doesn't seem to do much for you.