Omniscience, free will and time travel.

[CoffeeFiend]

Well, I am not too keen on philosophy, but while drinking my morning coffee, thoughts about time travel and the paradoxes associated with it lurked into my mind. Suddenly, I realized that the problem with time travel and free will is very similar to the problem of omniscience and free will (in the context of Christian theology).

In this case, I'll only deal with the free will aspect of time travel.

First of all, I was thinking about time travel in the case where there are no multiple universes and no way you can actually change the future, even if it is your desire when you decide to go back in time. The future is already set and you choosing to do what you do when you go back in time is apart of it. And no, even if you plan to kill your grandmother, it will not happen.

In the case of an omniscient god and free will, the situation is similar. Christian theology, as I understand it, tells us that the future is set, because god knows what will happen and what you and everybody else chooses to do with their free will.

Of-course we are still left with the question what exaclty is "free will" ? Is it really "free" when your choices are determined even if you make them yourself ? Christian theology seems to indicate that they are. But to be honest, I think I have never quite wrapped my head around the concept of free will.

But in any case, people who accept the solution provided to the problem of omniscience and free will by Christian theology should have no problem with the paradox of free will in the case of time travel. Or am I missing something ?

[student738]

"Is it really "free" when your choices are determined even if you make them yourself ?"
I enjoy this question. Often when we say "free", and plead, "if such and such, then is it really free?", making an appeal to intuition, I believe the more appropriate appeal is, "In the event that this is so, is it fair to be held accountable, or perhaps synonymously, morally responsible?"

While I do not suggest that the following example is an answer to the question of foreknowledge and free will, I hope perhaps it suggest that the answer to your question I have quoted above is not without its ambiguities.

Suppose that I get into my car, and use significant quantities of perception-altering drugs and alcohol. I have had a bad day; I want nothing more than to drink myself into a stupor. Immediately thereafter I begin driving through the parking lot of a shoping center. Suppose that I lose consciousness in the midst of this, and shortly thereafter impact and kill an elderly woman.

Did I freely choose to kill the elderly woman?

Did I freely choose to bring about the death of the elderly woman?

Am I morally responsible for one or both?

Note that for me to be morally responsible in this example, it does seem that I must freely choose to drink myself into a stupor, which it seems I have done.

[Nowhere357]

student738
I enjoy this question. Often when we say "free", and plead, "if such and such, then is it really free?", making an appeal to intuition, I believe the more appropriate appeal is, "In the event that this is so, is it fair to be held accountable, or perhaps synonymously, morally responsible?"
I enjoy this question too. In my view, the more appropriate appeal is "are our decisions predetermined"; that is, are we able to choose from among the choices presented by our minds or not? "Not" leads to inaccountablitity, and imo incomprehensibility (how could we decide that the answer is "not", unless we can make decisions?). :)

Did I freely choose to kill the elderly woman?
Did I freely choose to bring about the death of the elderly woman?
Am I morally responsible for one or both?
You freely choose to drink and drive. At the point where you made a decision, "kill the woman" was not one of the options. I would say that you are morally responsible to the extent that you were aware of the dangers of impaired driving.

[Nowhere357]

CoffeeFiend
First of all, I was thinking about time travel in the case where there are no multiple universes and no way you can actually change the future, even if it is your desire when you decide to go back in time. The future is already set and you choosing to do what you do when you go back in time is apart of it. And no, even if you plan to kill your grandmother, it will not happen.
How could the future (of the past) not be different? There is a new person in it! Occupying space (pushing the air out of that space), moving things, consuming. So I don't understand the premise. If you shoot your grandmother, what strange new force deflects the bullet or keeps her alive?

In the case of an omniscient god and free will, the situation is similar. Christian theology, as I understand it, tells us that the future is set, because god knows what will happen and what you and everybody else chooses to do with their free will.
If the future cannot be changed, then "making decisions" has no meaning. Choices exist only if the outcomes are different. Iow, the situation as you describe it completely eliminates free will.

But in any case, people who accept the solution provided to the problem of omniscience and free will by Christian theology should have no problem with the paradox of free will in the case of time travel. Or am I missing something ?
Foreknowledge is not of necessity the cause of the predetermined decision/choice. But if the foreknowledge exists, then of necessity so does the predetermination, whatever the cause is. There is no valid solution; foreknowledge contradicts free will.

[CoffeeFiend]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
How could the future (of the past) not be different? There is a new person in it! Occupying space (pushing the air out of that space), moving things, consuming. So I don't understand the premise. If you shoot your grandmother, what strange new force deflects the bullet or keeps her alive?


There is no stange force. Like in the case foreknowledge, everything is set. The whole universe would be deterministic, with circular causal loops in time to boot. For example, you could be your own long lost grandfather(although it's genetically so unlikely that it would be almost impossible) or a clone of your-self (for example, your mother volunteeres for a human cloning experiment and you happen to provide your own genetical material, so she gives birth to a young version of you who grows up and goes back in time and... ect.). No free will really, just an illusion of it. The whole thing goes against intuition, but since when does the universe cater to our intuition ? Personally, I don't think that the universe is deterministic and allows causal loops in time, but who knows.

Originally posted by Nowhere357

If the future cannot be changed, then "making decisions" has no meaning. Choices exist only if the outcomes are different. Iow, the situation as you describe it completely eliminates free will.


Yes it does, but it would still leave the experience of free will, which is all we can really be sure of. You or I really don't know if I could have not written the this post.

Originally posted by Nowhere357

Foreknowledge is not of necessity the cause of the predetermined decision/choice. But if the foreknowledge exists, then of necessity so does the predetermination, whatever the cause is. There is no valid solution; foreknowledge contradicts free will.

I agree complitely. At least free will that is not an illution. But some still insist that free will an omniscience are compatible. I was just wondeing if I could provide them with the time travel example and see if they still think that free will can exist with foreknowlege. If they do, I can call them hypocrites :D

[Amos]

Originally posted by CoffeeFiend



I agree complitely. At least free will that is not an illution. But some still insist that free will an omniscience are compatible. I was just wondeing if I could provide them with the time travel example and see if they still think that free will can exist with foreknowlege. If they do, I can call them hypocrites :D

Yes it can because we are predetermined only by our subconscious mind and since both minds are ours we, as dual identities, are free to chose and must be held accountable for our actions.

We are omniscient in our subconscious mind but since we, as humans beings, are in oblivion to this insight both omniscience and free will exist but not always work in harmony with each other.

It should also be noted that foreknowledge does not mean that our actions are entirely predetermined. We are free agents in our conscious mind to some extent and can take a detour to get to our predestination.

[Nowhere357]

CoffeeFiend
Personally, I don't think that the universe is deterministic and allows causal loops in time, but who knows.
My view is that "now" is the existing state of matter/energy and the associated vectors. The past is our memory of previous states, and the future is knowledge of potential states. Iow, the past and future do not exist. This simplifies the resolution of many conundrums - such as reverse time travel.

Yes it does, but it would still leave the experience of free will, which is all we can really be sure of. You or I really don't know if I could have not written the this post.

Yes, but that argument annoys me, since I can't refute it. :)

If they do, I can call them hypocrites
In my experience, folks who claim free will and omniscience are not in contradiction are arguing from a presupposed conclusion. They won't change their opinion simply because logic demands it. Probably most religious views fall into this category - that they don't make sense is simply besides the point.

[Nowhere357]

Amos
Yes it can because we are predetermined only by our subconscious mind and since both minds are ours we, as dual identities, are free to chose and must be held accountable for our actions.
We are omniscient in our subconscious mind but since we, as humans beings, are in oblivion to this insight both omniscience and free will exist but not always work in harmony with each other.
From my view this doesn't work. The quality which distinguishes a mind is awareness. The "sub-conscious mind" is a misnomer, because we are not aware of it. The brain can process information without our awareness, and that is the sub-conscious.

It should also be noted that foreknowledge does not mean that our actions are entirely predetermined. We are free agents in our conscious mind to some extent and can take a detour to get to our predestination.
But aren't each of the detours subject to foreknowledge also? Sort of pushing the problem back without solving it?

[CoffeeFiend]

I think that the crux of the problem is that omniscience and free will are completely hypothetical concepts. Omniscience is like the largest integer and the only thing we can say about free will is that we have an experience of it, wether it's an illusion or not. So, it's kind of like a math problem. We have these abstract constructs, we play with them and see what we can do. The only solutions to the problem of foreknowledge and free will existing together that in my case do somewhat compute, involve somehow redefening or warping one or the other

[Amos]

Originally posted by CoffeeFiend
I think that the crux of the problem is that omniscience and free will are completely hypothetical concepts.

Not true. According to the bible omniscience is to know and understand "the depth width and breadth of the Lord your God" and this amounts to knowing all we as individuals can have knowledge of. In other words, it is to know your own mind and this equals to having the mind of God . . . who is omniscient and free to do his own thing because he is no longer divided in his own mind.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Amos
Not true. According to the bible omniscience is to know and understand "the depth width and breadth of the Lord your God" and this amounts to knowing all we as individuals can have knowledge of. In other words, it is to know your own mind and this equals to having the mind of God . . . who is omniscient and free to do his own thing because he is no longer divided in his own mind.
Then God's omniscience is simply his knowing of his own mind. Unless his mind IS the universe, his omniscience doesn't include the rest of reality. This goes against any definition of "omniscience" I've heard of. What value is there in your definition?

Btw, Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

[Magic Primate]

We are free because the future has not happened yet. It has not been computed. And it cannot be predetermined because there is no mind great enough. Even excluding the uncertainty principle, if the universe is the set of all things, then no mind can include all things, because that mind would have to fully include itself in the picture, and the 'perturbations it would cause its environment,which would lead to an infinite calculation. The effects of any unkowns would spread chaotic perturbations across the univers at the speed of light.

Human morality is a macroscopic property of human systems, with the purpose of attributing a sense of responsibility for particular decisions. Subatomic determination (even if it exists) has no bearing on it. We don't have freewill in an absolute or metaphysical sense because our minds do not stand outside the universe. As part of the universe we really neither have true freewill nor do we lack it.