Is the abrahamic God omniscient, and does that conflict with free will?

[Skwim]

I know you believe that, but there is no evidence for it.

It's a matter of picking the most reasonable explanation.

How stuff happens comes down to one of two reasons:

1) It was caused

OR
​

2) It was utterly random

I pick 1) because it makes the most sense. However, if you can make a case for 2) I'm all ears. OR, if there's a third option I'd like to hear about that as well.

 

[Willamena]

If I save money, am I not trying to choose a future in which I am not broke/homeless?

Sure it is a imagined future I am choosing which may or may not come to pass. I am choosing an imagined future which may become actual enough.

You can spin it any way you like, but the choice to save is already made.

 

[Willamena]

It's a matter of picking the most reasonable explanation.

Reason requires evidence.

How stuff happens comes down to one of two reasons:

1) It was caused

OR
​

2) It was utterly random

I pick 1) because it makes the most sense. However, if you can make a case for 2) I'm all ears. OR, if there's a third option I'd like to hear about that as well.

If it's a choice between two options neither of which have evidence, it's okay to abstain.

 

[Skwim]

Reason requires evidence.

No it doesn't. As pointed out in Wikipedia,

"Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information."
​

It takes no evidence to reason that 1 + 1 = 2.

If it's a choice between two options neither of which have evidence, it's okay to abstain.

No it isn't. Posing silly dodge doesn't let you off the hook. But hey, if you can't think of why stuff happens or than being caused or as a result of utter randomness don't feel alone. Neither can I or anyone else. Which leaves you back at square one. What's it going to be dear Willamena, cause or randomness?

 

[Willamena]

No it doesn't. As pointed out in Wikipedia,

"Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information."
​

It takes no evidence to reason that 1 + 1 = 2.

Mathematics is evidenced.

No it isn't. Posing silly dodge doesn't let you off the hook. But hey, if you can't think of why stuff happens or than being caused or as a result of utter randomness don't feel alone. Neither can I or anyone else. Which leaves you back at square one. What's it going to be dear Willamena, cause or randomness?

I am a proponent of a variation of nondualism that renders an ontological model superfuous. Everything brings about everything else. Nothing is independent. Everything brings about nothingness. Effects bring about causes as much as causes bring about effects. I don't think it would be helpful in this discussion.

 

[serp777]

I don't think that there is a contradiction, independently from the neurological origins of free will, that we can neglect for the moment.

Knowing our choices in advance does not entail hat we were forced to take them. I can anticipate most of my husband's choices, but I doubt that this statistically influences his free will.

Ciao

- viole

If all of the choices are known 100% no matter what, then the everything is deterministic, which defeats free will. The choices are known before we've made them An omniscient God would know all of our choices.

 

[Skwim]

Mathematics is evidenced.

How?

Exactly what is the evidence that 1 + 1 = 2?

1 + 1 = 2 is an equality, an expression of a relationship. One thing and another thing are two things. Any "evidence" of this relationship would be nothing more than a reiteration of the equality: the evidence that 1 + 1 = 2 is that 1 + 1 = 2. It's axiomatic: essentially self evident. Evidence is inapplicable.

I am a proponent of a variation of nondualism that renders an ontological model superfuous. Everything brings about everything else. Nothing is independent. Everything brings about nothingness. Effects bring about causes as much as causes bring about effects. I don't think it would be helpful in this discussion.

Then I gather that you do believe that stuff happens because it's caused.

 

[Willamena]

How?

Exactly what is the evidence that 1 + 1 = 2?

1 + 1 = 2 is an equality, an expression of a relationship. One thing and another thing are two things. Any "evidence" of this relationship would be nothing more than a reiteration of the equality: the evidence that 1 + 1 = 2 is that 1 + 1 = 2. It's axiomatic: essentially self evident. Evidence is inapplicable.

Your elementary school teacher didn't show you the apples, did they?

Then I gather that you do believe that stuff happens because it's caused.

I do believe that stuff happens and that we assign causation. I'm just not a hard determinist and of course I've supported free will in these arguments, and that non-causality is a straw man that fails to represent free will.

 

[Skwim]

Your elementary school teacher didn't show you the apples, did they?

I do believe that stuff happens and that we assign causation. I'm just not a hard determinist and of course I've supported free will in these arguments, and that non-causality is a straw man that fails to represent free will.

 

[idav]

It's a matter of picking the most reasonable explanation.

How stuff happens comes down to one of two reasons:

1) It was caused

OR
​

2) It was utterly random

I pick 1) because it makes the most sense. However, if you can make a case for 2) I'm all ears. OR, if there's a third option I'd like to hear about that as well.

I love those extremes but it is neither hard determinism or utterly random. All randomness are physical potentials that still fall under physical determinisms.

 

[Akivah]

Timelessness would mean no future to know, so no contradiction.

Fixating on one word and ignoring the context is weak.

My point is that a mortal person is subject to linear time and makes their choices.
G-d is outside of time and knows the choices that we chosen.

 

[Willamena]

Fixating on one word and ignoring the context is weak.

My point is that a mortal person is subject to linear time and makes their choices.
G-d is outside of time and knows the choices that we chosen.

Ah. I disagree with your point, then. I don't believe in an "out" side to time. No "in" side either.

 

[idav]

Ah. I disagree with your point, then. I don't believe in an "out" side to time. No "in" side either.

Time, the time we are used to, has boundaries that we are inside of. Awesome amounts of acceleration or mass get you outside that boundary. Problem is it takes an infinite amount of energy to get there, which we don't necessarily have readily available, nor can we survive such a state. However we are talking god surviving such a state.

 

[Skwim]

I love those extremes but it is neither hard determinism or utterly random.

So, what is it?

All randomness are physical potentials that still fall under physical determinisms.

Not according to some involved in quantum mechanics.

True randomness does not exist in classical physics, where randomness is necessarily a result of forces that may be unknown but exist. The quantum world, however, is intrinsically truly random. This is difficult to prove, as it is not readily distinguishable from noise and other uncontrollable factors. Now Pironio et al. present proof of a quantitative relationship between two fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics — randomness and the non-locality of entangled particles. They first show theoretically that the violation of a Bell inequality certifies the generation of new randomness, independently of any implementation details. To illustrate the approach, they then perform an experiment in which — as confirmed using the theoretical tools that they developed — 42 new random bits have been generated. As well as having conceptual implications, this work has practical implications for cryptography and for numerical simulation of physical and biological systems.
source
​

 

[Willamena]

So, what is it?

Not according to some involved in quantum mechanics.

True randomness does not exist in classical physics, where randomness is necessarily a result of forces that may be unknown but exist. The quantum world, however, is intrinsically truly random. This is difficult to prove, as it is not readily distinguishable from noise and other uncontrollable factors. Now Pironio et al. present proof of a quantitative relationship between two fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics — randomness and the non-locality of entangled particles. They first show theoretically that the violation of a Bell inequality certifies the generation of new randomness, independently of any implementation details. To illustrate the approach, they then perform an experiment in which — as confirmed using the theoretical tools that they developed — 42 new random bits have been generated. As well as having conceptual implications, this work has practical implications for cryptography and for numerical simulation of physical and biological systems.
source
​

So it's reasonable to choose 2) above?

 

[idav]

So, what is it?

Not according to some involved in quantum mechanics.

True randomness does not exist in classical physics, where randomness is necessarily a result of forces that may be unknown but exist. The quantum world, however, is intrinsically truly random. This is difficult to prove, as it is not readily distinguishable from noise and other uncontrollable factors. Now Pironio et al. present proof of a quantitative relationship between two fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics — randomness and the non-locality of entangled particles. They first show theoretically that the violation of a Bell inequality certifies the generation of new randomness, independently of any implementation details. To illustrate the approach, they then perform an experiment in which — as confirmed using the theoretical tools that they developed — 42 new random bits have been generated. As well as having conceptual implications, this work has practical implications for cryptography and for numerical simulation of physical and biological systems.
source
​

Yes I said that, true randomness does not exist. Choosing the extreme, hard determinism doesnt work. Quantum mechanics uses determnism against itself in a realm out of the bounds of time and causality.

 

[Skwim]

So it's reasonable to choose 2) above?

Nope.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition [which would be ruled by randomness] is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source
​

Yes I said that, true randomness does not exist. Choosing the extreme, hard determinism doesnt work.

Why not? And again, how does stuff happen?

 

[Willamena]

Nope.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition [which would be ruled by randomness] is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source
​

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[idav]

Why not? And again, how does stuff happen?

Hard determinism and newtonian physics dont allow for an object to be in two physical places at once as allowed in qm. In hard determinism you have one determining variable but in qm all variables exist as if even its prior cause was something different simultaneously.

For example you see a ball will go a certai number direction if it spins left or right. In qm the ball is spinning both left and right so going to the left or right are simultaneously possible.

 

[idav]

Nope.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition [which would be ruled by randomness] is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source
​

That may be but consciousness and memory is what has evolved fighting that decoherence. We cant have streamed consciousness if our memories were fading out as fast as we could process it.