From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 23:42:56 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: Signs

In article <1infdrINNkl1@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>In article <0Yf=kJB@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>In article <1ilj5cINN7dg@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>>[discussion of why omniscience denies free-will deleted]
>> I tend to disagree with this; I think that (in principle) omniscience and
>>free will can coexist. 
>[details deleted]
>> So, in principle, having a known, fixed sequence of events does not deny
>>free will, correct?
>
>This has much to do with the notion of god and time. Since you and I both
>subscribe to atheism, I may finally get to have a chance to talk this over
>intelligently.

 I have known theists who hold substantially the same opinion as I on this
point, to be fair... :->

>Let me have another go at it. I'll edit your text a bit to make some
>points. If I am way out of context, say so.
>The crux of this matter is stated by you as;
>
>> Now, as you stated in the bit I deleted, omniscience implies that history
>>could be laid out in front of a 'god' like a painting. 
>
>The difference of opinion stems from different notions of god, I think.
>
>In your writing I deleted, you compare this with time travel.
>The point I am trying to raise here is, to a omni-something god, the
>direction of time must not matter.
[details deleted]

 Ah. I think I see part of the problem; I am not necessarily arguing for
a creature that is absolutely omnisicent; just one that is capable of
seeing the future perfectly, and this not conflicting with free will.
This would be indistinguishable (from our point of view) from a 'completely
omniscient' being.

>Next you argues,
>
>>....My parents had free will then, I
>>have free will now, and my kids will have free will in the future; but my
>>choices are affected by the choices of my parents, and my kids choices
>>will be affected by my choices. I make choices based on what my parents
>>chose/'are freely choosing' in the past, and my kids will have to choose
>>based in part on what I'm freely choosing now.
>
>Are you sure you had free choice? How do you know you really had a choice,
>not the probability, when you cannot go back when the choice was not made
>and try another one? Does it sound like sophistry? It should.

 Unless I want to start doubting my own memories, yes, I had as much
free will then as I do now.

>                                                              However,
>suppose there exists our omni-something being who's "been there and back".
>Then for example, that being knows whether you will die as an atheist or
>finally convert to some religion and die as a theist. You may think you
>have a choice now. But since everything that happens both inside your mind
>and out side your mind must be known to the omni-something being, your
>thinking you have a choice itself is known to him, therefore a fixed event
>form the vintage point he is looking. Point is that your thinking that
>you have a choice and choosing your choice are LINEAR in time. 

 Yes, from that point of view, it *is* fixed. It has 'already happened';
I have already *made* those free choices in the future. In a sense, there
is no privileged 'present' where choices get made. The exact same moment
is 'future' from one perspective, 'present' from another, and 'past' to
yet another. This sounds weird, (indeed, it may well sound like sophistry,
though I hope not) but there *is* a valid concept in there, just one
for which there is no word in English.
 Really, some science-fiction stories illustrate this better than I am
doing here. Even the "Bill and Ted's" movies do this, to an extent. Try
to work out the absolute sequence of events for the stuff in those movies.
It's a good exercise in the warped way of thinking this idea demands.

>There is no branching point.
>Only when there are branching points, we can start to think about free
>will.

 Why? When I have a choice, there may be several possible branches...
but I only take one. The others are merely potential branches that
were not taken.

>      Unless the omni-being also follows the many-world interpretation,
>the sequence of events that leads you to a choice in your life is laready
>fixed, and if the omni-being knows about your future, the sequence of life
>that will yet to happen to you is already fixed. Including your thinking
>free will and omni-science can coexist, including my debating that
>point, if our omni-something exists at all.

 Fixed in the sense that that's what '*did* happen' but not in the sense
that 'that's the only thing that *could* *have* happened.' Shoot, I wish
I could express this better.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"