From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A brief essay on omniscience and free will
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:40:52 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Aug8.050308.29348@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.184439.28232@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>, djdaneh@pbhyc (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>>
>>>			Omniscience
>>>			Free Will
>>>			Logic
>>>
>>>			Pick *only* two!
>>
>>Oh, horse petunias.
>>
>>Omniscience does not logically exclude free will.  Here follow some cases; in
>>each, free will is presumed and logical contradiction sought.  It doesn't arise.
>
>[Interesting argument deleted]
>
>I think you're missing something fundamental here, though.  Consider the
>old chestnut "Is G-d so powerful that He can create a boulder that He
>Himself could not lift?"
>
>It seems like a meaningful question, that ought to have a meaningful answer.
>the trouble is, either way diminishes the most broad and literal meaning of
>"omnipotent".
>
>To answer this question, I would like to put forth an axiom:
>
>	G-d must operate under rules (even if they are rules of His
>	own choosing).
>
>If you accept this, and observe that any rule restricts to some extent any
>agent operating under it, the obvious conclusion is that any reasonable
>definition of "omnipotent" must realize this restriction.
>
>I think this applies in an obvious manner to omnicience (Is G-d so all-knowing
>that He could create a cypher so inpenetrable that He Himself could not
>crack it?).
>
>Now consider quantum mechanics.  (I'm not a physicist, but I pretend to
>know about the field on Usenet :-).  As I understand it, there are
>interactions at the sub-atomic level that result in unpredictable behavior.
>And not just "unpredictable" in the sense that we don't understand what's
>happening well enough; "unpredictable" in the sense that there us just flat
>no way to tell what's going to happen.  Not even by an "omniscient" entity.
----------------------
Not supportable by definition. The only thing preventing us from
knowing is time, and we often assert the possibility of a God which
exists outside of time.

>
>So I put forth another axiom:
>
>	There are some things that are unknowable, even by G-d.
>	One of these things is precisely what an agent acting under
>	"free will" will choose to do.
>
>This is the only definition of omniscient G-d/free will that makes sense
>to me.
-----------------------
Whatever is pulling your strings made you say that.

>Now as you point out, any such entity will have a profound understanding
>of how the universe works, as well as the ability to manipulate it at
>will (within whatever Rules apply).
>
>So whither prophecy?  Under the above axioms, the presence of agents
>acting under free will render a system fundamentally unpredictable.
>But perhaps not so unpredictable as it might seem.  If you drop a hammer
>in a positive gravity field, it falls downward, quantum mechanics and
>free will not withstanding.  It is clear then, that if free will does
>exist, it too must operate under rules that constrain its course.  An
>intimate knowledge of these rules, along with an intimate knowledge of
>the system in question could easily provide accurate knowledge of the
>future state of the system, at least in a broad sense.
>
>Moreover, the above-stated ability to manipulate the system could be
>used to guide the system towards a desired state.  Since (presumably)
>an omnipotent Being would face no opponents who could mount an
>effective resistance, this, too would provide accurate knowledge of
>the future state of the system.
>
>-- 
>Caught an internal error--.brainrc restored


-- 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200 *
* 515 Maple Street #1   To remain ignorant enter in your KILL file: *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060     /From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com/h:j    *
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:2743 rec.arts.books:15246