How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Are We Omniscient?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Are We Omniscient?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 01-01-2009 07:40 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
You can't have it both ways. Your future also is as certain as if it had already happened regardless of your psychological state.


Iíve no idea which two ways you think Iím trying to have it, Iíve no problem accepting that my future is a predetermined effect of proceeding causes. Iím simply pointing out that god canít be god if she has anything other than a read only knowledge of the outcome.

quote:
But the fact remains that if you've chosen spaghetti, and therefore know what you'll be eating for lunch, it doesn't therefore follow that you are not free to do otherwise.


So you are free to choose anything you like as long as itís spaghetti - are you related to Henry Ford?

quote:
since choosing is the essence of free will.


So if you know the future and know that you have spaghetti for lunch tomorrow youíre claiming free will because thereís five alternatives on the menu you could have chosen? As soon as you know the future you lose the ability to choose and along with it the essence of free will - you cannot have anything for lunch EXCEPT spaghetti even if you wanted to. Put it another way Stephen, if you know that youíre going to eat spaghetti tomorrow and choke to death on a meat ball are you saying youíre choosing to die, freely and willingly?

quote:
do you admit you are a determinist


Yes.

So do you if you claim that your god can see the future.

quote:
you've theoretically deconstructed your own humanity, and undermined human knowledge, reason, and choice.


How?

As far as I can see my humanity, human knowledge, reason and choice arenít negatively affected one iota simply because I accept causality. In fact this particular automaton functions reasonably well accepting that notion, why do you see it as such an anathema?

quote:
Historians will unanimously say that empirical proof is not part and parcel of their field.


Well Iíve never met one. Every historian Iíve every read or spoken to adheres firmly to one of the principles of the scientific method - before claiming anything as historical fact you supply empirical proof thatĎs judged by your peers before being accepted.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


26 posted 01-01-2009 08:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If you or any other entity has the omniscience to know what you have for lunch tomorrow then thatís what youíll have for lunch tomorrow, you canít use your free will to change your mind and still claim omniscience.

Free will has nothing at all to do with changing your mind, Grinch. It only addresses the ability to make up your mind.

quote:
If the entity could interact in this universe the entity would also require omniscience in her own universe - to know her own future actions and interactions in this universe - and if she knows her own future, as I pointed out above, the future is pre-determined and she loses free will.

Grinch, your argument rests on the thesis that God can exist outside of time -- something you seemingly can't escape in trying to argue your points.

You talk about lunch tomorrow, when you've already presupposed there is no tomorrow. Did you have free will to choose your lunch yesterday? You can't change your mind about that, either, you know. That doesn't obviate either your absolute knowledge of what you had or your free will in originally choosing it. To God, standing outside time, your lunch tomorrow is no less certain and your ability to freely choose it no less profound.

Similarly, you talk about God knowing His "own future actions and interactions in this universe" when you've already posited there are no constructs to call past, present and future. It is your own language, I think, and indeed your own temporal entrapment, that is creating paradoxes.

Remember that old book, Flatland?

You're acting like a two-dimensional square, trapped in a world of width and length, without the ability to either see or even think in a third dimension of height. You can't see the sphere, but rather, when it chooses to interact in your two-dimensional universe, you see it only as a circle, that tiny part of the sphere that touches the infinitely paper-thin boundaries of your own awareness.

In spite of what you seem to see, Grinch, God is not a circle.

Of course, all you're really arguing is that absolute knowledge and absolute power, either together or separately, inevitably create paradoxes. I thought we already agreed on that? I think several years ago we even agreed it was a mathematical necessity?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


27 posted 01-01-2009 09:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

the problems of free will aside, I'm having problems with free time to respond to ya Grinch.  I'll get back when I can.  You an' Ron go at it in the meantime.  

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 01-01-2009 09:56 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I agree with Grinch. Knowing all the shapes the universe came from and shall go to doesn't change anything.  We are still limited to the same evolution of ourselves and universe around us, and therefore the same choices.  But nevertheless we all have different extents to which we know about everything, and therefore these extents are adjusted and improved, and the things we know about differ in their extents as from our knowledge of them as well. Therefore the extent to which we know everything does not equal the extent to which everything happened, happens or shall happen.  The extents are unequal.  And in that inequality is where there is still room for surprise.   Knowing one point directly is still knowing every other point indirectly, which is a different extent, for every thing is just a variation of the same thing, the same universe.  One thing is everything: the universe.  And we know that thing, everything, just to varying extents.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


29 posted 01-02-2009 06:35 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Ron,

It was a previous conversation we had regarding free will that sparked my thinking with regard to an omniscient entity. In that conversation we got to the point where a future decision in a temporal and causal universe was fixed and unchangeable but free will, or the impression of the existence of free will, was unaffected - similar to where we are in this discussion.

That thread fizzled out before I got the chance to extend the logical argument to include an entity outside a temporal and causal universe - I thought this was a good point to put that right.

Flatland?

Thereís a couple of problems inherent in drawing parallels from that book Ron, the first is that you open up the possibility that the god that resides in spaceland is only omnipotent and omniscient when it comes to flatland and she has her own god in pointland on so on into other dimensions. The second problem is similar to the question I was addressing - could an omniscient entity outside our universe interact in ours. The book, as far as I understand, simply presumes that the sphere can interact with the square without explaining how.

Paradoxes?

I donít think you can use a paradox as a get out of jail free card Ron, the best outcome you can achieve by trying is simply to muddy the water or deflect the question

I believe that there are several types of paradoxes, some can be resolved, mostly by introducing a third or fourth truth value, by amending the question or by applying simple logic to the problem but some paradoxes describe things and situations that cannot exist. The problem is recognising what type of paradox youíre dealing with.


Stephen,

Iíve managed to take a day off today - unfortunately my wife has managed to fill it with things to do like fit a handrail on the stairs, fit an additional radiator to the existing central heating system, replace the garden fence and install cable television in one of the bedrooms.

Take your time - I may be a while.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 01-02-2009 01:43 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I have no doubt that just like us God doesn't know something unless it is present to know about.  If a square shall become a circle, it is still only present to know as a square.  You can't know that it shall eventually become a circle unless you know about it indirectly through another square that already became a circle, remembering the square even though it is a circle now and knowing something else that this present square has and that that one had, by which it shall do the same thing.   But knowing your memory is still only knowing what is present and aligning your knowledge of the present square with your memory, it is not knowing something that isn't even present to know about in the present square itself.  
 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


31 posted 01-03-2009 09:21 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It looks like I am bane unto this thread,
So let my name be Atropos instead.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


32 posted 01-03-2009 11:16 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
Me:You can't have it both ways. Your future also is as certain as if it had already happened regardless of your psychological state.

Grinch:Iíve no idea which two ways you think Iím trying to have it, Iíve no problem accepting that my future is a predetermined effect of proceeding causes. Iím simply pointing out that god canít be god if she has anything other than a read only knowledge of the outcome.


And I'm simply pointing out that by definition, God can't be God if he has nothing more than a read-only knowledge of the outcome.  

If you can't understand how, I'm also pointing out that you accept your own freedom of choice (in practice and moment-by-moment belief if not in philosophy) even though your own future is absolutely certain.

That's what I mean by your having it both ways.  You can't deny God choice, just because you can't demystify the divine "how", when your own obvious ability to choose is shrouded in the same kind of mystery, albeit smaller.

quote:
As soon as you know the future you lose the ability to choose and along with it the essence of free will - you cannot have anything for lunch EXCEPT spaghetti even if you wanted to.


The "even if you wanted to" phrase, is what your argument hinges upon.  But it defies the very nature of choice.  Since to choose invariably means to "want to", your strawman of constrained choice doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  The knowledge of a particular choice remains a secondary issue.  The mystery (but obviously real nonetheless) is choice itself divine, human, or otherwise.  You don't lose the essence of freewill by deciding, you affirm it.


quote:
Me:do you admit you are a determinist?

Grinch: Yes.

So do you if you claim that your god can see the future.


If to see and to cause were the self-same thing, then why does language itself differentiate?  Ron brought up a good point about the past.  Does seeing the past necessarily mean to have caused it?  If not, then the future can be no different than the past in this regard.

quote:
Me: you've theoretically deconstructed your own humanity, and undermined human knowledge, reason, and choice.

Grinch: How?

As far as I can see my humanity, human knowledge, reason and choice arenít negatively affected one iota simply because I accept causality. In fact this particular automaton functions reasonably well accepting that notion, why do you see it as such an anathema?


I didn't say that your knowledge, reason and choice were affected ... since in reality, you are not grid-locked by material causation.  What I mean is, philosophically you have deconstructed your own humanity, and undermined human knowledge, reason, and choice.  Thankfully this inconsistency and error in your thinking does not change the fact that you have a spark of a miraculous ability to transcend mere cause and effect and to make real choices in the world of time and space.  

I too accept causality Grinch.  I just happen to accept that there is something that transcends mere cause/effect, so that the ground/consequent relationship involved with knowledge and choice can be real as well.  If you don't accept this philosophically, you are merely fluxing chemistry with the illusion of individuality and will.  I'm just arguing that you're more than your philosophy allows, being made (in some sense) in the very image of God.  


quote:
Me:Historians will unanimously say that empirical proof is not part and parcel of their field.

Grinch: Well Iíve never met one. Every historian Iíve every read or spoken to adheres firmly to one of the principles of the scientific method - before claiming anything as historical fact you supply empirical proof thatĎs judged by your peers before being accepted.


You need to read up on scholarly method, historical method, and historicism if you think they are synonymous with the scientific method.  Of course similar principles of inference are involved, but they are much less rigorous, and empirical reproduction is not an option.  

It is interesting to note also the effects of one's philosophy of history (as well as philosophy of science).  As there is methodological naturalism in science which, as Richard Lewontin put it, cannot allow a divine foot in the door, there is also historical naturalism which a priori says that miracles can't happen.  This kind of approach would conclude, for example, that the text where Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem had to have been written after 70 A.D. because it simply couldn't have been known, whatever other evidence may be.  At least you can see how presuppositions can make history (like science) more arbitrary than observational.  The question when examining the gospels, (which the historians of "The Jesus Seminar" missed) should have been whether or not the miracles happened, not whether or not they could have according to 19th century philosophy.  


If you really think an orthodox view of the New Testament amounts to mythology that can safely and easily be discarded as non-historical, you should consider the works of N.T. Wright or Gary Habermas.


Hope your projects are going well Grinch,

Later,

Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 01-03-2009 11:37 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

I don't think Grinch is arguing that a God outside of time can't be God .... but that a God outside of time cannot interfere/ intervene within our universe and still be God.  You seem to be explaining the transcedence of God quite well to Grinch, but can you also explain how you think the immanence of God can fit in also with the notion of omnipotence / omniscience?  I myself would suggest to Grinch that to reject insoluble mysteries offhand, would mean to deny his own humanity (for pardoxes abound), and so he ought to simply be more open on the grounds of the mysteries he already takes for granted.  But from an apologetics standpoint, I'm curious how you would answer him.  Any thoughts?


Thanks,

Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 01-03-2009 11:43 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

It's not that you are bane unto this thread
or unto us as long forgotten dead
but rather that your ominscience demands
we dare not joust such high and mighty hands.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


35 posted 01-04-2009 01:23 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

For such a "seperation" thoughts have spun,
They see no longer how all things are one,
And past and future are unotherwise
Than all the present near or far from eyes,
The change of shape divides things not all,
Some squares are now just circles in the hall,
While some are far less changed unto this day,
However changed, we know them in some way.
All things exist forever in this place,
One head, but with an everchanging face.


rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


36 posted 01-06-2009 04:31 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
You can't deny God choice, just because you can't demystify the divine "how", when your own obvious ability to choose is shrouded in the same kind of mystery, albeit smaller.


I like that. I couldn't say it, but I know that's close to what I would have tried to say. I hope I can remember it, because it's the first thing I've read in a while about choice that makes sense to me, between God and humans and between the objective and subjective and the unknown.


I can have all three.


Awesome.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


37 posted 01-06-2009 06:52 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
And I'm simply pointing out that by definition, God can't be God if he has nothing more than a read-only knowledge of the outcome.


Bingo!



quote:
You can't deny God choice, just because you can't demystify the divine "how", when your own obvious ability to choose is shrouded in the same kind of mystery, albeit smaller


I believe that my ďobvious ability to chooseĒ is only an illusion Stephen, that all future events are the culmination of a multitude of unavoidable causes made mysterious because itís a physical impossibility to calculate all the variables and predict the inevitable.

What I choose to eat for lunch tomorrow is as unavoidable as what I ate for lunch yesterday, the only difference being that I canít know what tomorrows lunch is until- well, lunch tomorrow. Is that free will?

Lets say I can see the future and know for a fact that I have chicken for lunch tomorrow, what happens to my ability to choose and where is free will once I know I canĎt choose anything but chicken?

Now letís re-introduce an omniscient entity into the equation, lets say that the entity knows that Iím going to have chicken tomorrow but I donít. The reality is that I still donít have any choice - Iím having chicken for lunch - but not knowing the future gives me the illusion of choice and free will. So far the entity only needs read only access to my future to be omniscient but what happens if he has more access? If the entity knows I have chicken tomorrow because she removes everything else from the menu or sends an angel to tell me to have chicken, once she knows that she canít do anything other than tamper with the menu or despatch an angel. She loses the ability to choose and in essence her free will in the same way that I would as soon as the future is known.

You could try to get around this by suggesting that there are multiple possible futures and that the entity knows them all and every cause, including her own interventions, required to achieve each. In that scenario sheíd be able to retain free will but, trust me, that introduces even more problems that it solves.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 01-06-2009 07:07 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I believe that my ďobvious ability to chooseĒ is only an illusion Stephen

Then there's nothing more to say Grinch.  If you really believe this, then your belief and mine are predetermined and fixed by impersonal forces, and it is only foolishness to go on acting like distinctions like right and wrong, logical and illogical, animate and inanimate make any sense whatsoever.  Any persuasive tone you would use, is drowned in your own assertion of absolute fatalism.  

The advantage of my argument is that my description of human will is more fitting with how you (anybody, come to think of it) actually act and think outside of a speculative philosophy skirmish ... and even how you argue within.

And if this belies your own (practical at least) belief in human will, then your seemingly logical disavowal of God is in shambles.  Kind of reminds me of Zeno, the Elatic Philosopher who argued that he could logically prove that a flying arrow could never reach its target.  

Before you reply to me again, or not, ask yourself whether you really have a choice.  Your responses must be constrained by the hermetic tyranny of the whole, since you surely can't be compelled by strength of argument.  

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


39 posted 01-06-2009 07:50 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Grinch,

quote:
Lets say I can see the future and know for a fact that I have chicken for lunch tomorrow, what happens to my ability to choose and where is free will once I know I canĎt choose anything but chicken?


When you do the equation 5 + 5 = 10, you always do the equation, and it is the equation regardless of whether you know the answer.  Likewise for eating the chicken.  The equation including your knowledge doesn't take away the equation, you still choose to do it.  The limitation is not that you don't have the choice, but that a choice can only be one choice at a time and it is that particular choice at that particular point.  Only being able to be one choice at a time doesn't stop it from being a choice anymore than your ability only to be a human at this time stops you from being a human

That doesn't mean that you aren't being forced to eat the chicken, but it means that your power is the one that is predominately at work in the "force", moving your body to choose the food, rather than some other body moving you to it.  Gravity influences you, but it does not force you to eat the chicken, the laws of the country influence you, but they don't force you to eat the chicken, the chicken influences you, but it doesn't force you to eat it.  It is you that moves yourself most with voluntary "force" and eats the chicken: that is, you make the choice.  And you do that regardless of how much you may foreknow it.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-06-2009 09:01 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


40 posted 01-06-2009 08:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Before you reply to me again, or not, ask yourself whether you really have a choice.



Well thatís fairly simple to answer - no - I was always going to reply, this reply is evidence of that.

If thatís not enough your omniscient entity could have told you that because she knew before you asked.

quote:
I too accept causality Grinch.


Then you understand why free will is simply an illusion.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


41 posted 01-06-2009 09:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

How reductionistic of you Grinch (I'm sidestepping for a moment the temptation to treat your reply according to your own philosophy, as white noise).  Accepting causality does not demand that I disbelieve free will, unless causality has no modifier ... unless it is the only principle at work.  Zeno's arrow still hits the target.  


G'nite.

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


42 posted 01-06-2009 10:09 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It is not bondage to the rest of the universe , but the the opposite that would deny choice: that is, being in some void detached from the universe.  For the whole universe is what accomodates and gives us the power to be what we are in the first place and thereby also the power to have power over things, especially over ourselves, and thereby move ourselves and make choices.  Bondage to the causality of the universe is what enables us to be humans and make choices in the first place, not what disables it.  

  

  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 01-07-2009 12:05 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant, I'm not refuting causality.  I'm refuting causality and nothing more ... or if you prefer, a pedantic insistence that causality rules out free will.

Stephen  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


44 posted 01-07-2009 06:54 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos,

I don't distinguish believing in a complete causality as being much different from the kind of determinism I believe in.  A complete determinism or causality, in which every part partly gets to determine the whole is no problem, for that would mean will and choice partly determine the whole too.  The problem is when you selectively choose out only the rest of the universe as getting to determine and cause things, and say that choice/willpower are the sole exception to the determinism/causality of the universe.  If everything is deterministic and causal, that is a good thing, because then choice also determines and causes too, but if only some things are determining and causing (such as only God, gods, or only the rest of the universe), then we would not have choice, for the determinism would then not be whole (including us) but segregated to only (a) select other part(s).

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


45 posted 01-07-2009 10:27 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant, I still think you're minimizing the mystery.  Try asking yourself whether your will is itself caused.  If you say yes, then Grinch has to be right about there being no free will.  Human will has an element of freedom involved which transcends mechanistic causation.  Gravity causes a ball bearing to fall.  Human will can jump off of a limb or climb down, and its decision can never be "caused" in the same way the path of the ball bearing is.

In this conversation, like in the original question about omniscience, you can only make your case by changing the definition of the word.  "Causation" has a distinct meaning which doesn't fitly describe the phenomenon of human decision.  That's why the word isn't used that way ... except by defense lawyers perhaps.     

Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


46 posted 01-07-2009 10:49 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Lets say I can see the future and know for a fact that I have chicken for lunch tomorrow, what happens to my ability to choose and where is free will once I know I canĎt choose anything but chicken?

You can't see the future, Grinch. To do so would require (and essentially be the same thing as) traveling faster than the speed of light. It may seem arbitrary, even perhaps capricious, but our universe won't let anything do that.

quote:
I believe that my ďobvious ability to chooseĒ is only an illusion Stephen, that all future events are the culmination of a multitude of unavoidable causes made mysterious because itís a physical impossibility to calculate all the variables and predict the inevitable.

That's what Newton thought, too, Grinch. He was wrong. Heisenberg showed us that even infinite calculating power couldn't track the cumulative careening of billiard balls because, at the quantum level, those billiard balls are intrinsically unknowable.

It almost seems like this universe has conspired to guarantee your continued free will? Fancy that.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


47 posted 01-07-2009 11:31 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I would also remind Grinch that Newton was a devout Christian.  And as someone who understood causation much better than most, its notable that he didn't see the implications you're suggesting.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


48 posted 01-07-2009 03:01 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
You can't see the future, Grinch. To do so would require (and essentially be the same thing as) traveling faster than the speed of light. It may seem arbitrary, even perhaps capricious, but our universe won't let anything do that.


I know that Ron - I pointed it out in my very first post.

I wasnít suggesting that I could see the future I was simply pointing out the effect of being able to do so has on the illusion of free will.

quote:
Heisenberg showed us that even infinite calculating power couldn't track the cumulative careening of billiard balls because, at the quantum level, those billiard balls are intrinsically unknowable.


Did he? Heisenbergís theory put very simply states that the act of measuring alters the measurement, which makes perfect sense if the observer has the ability to interact with this universe. For an entity with read only access that exists outside our universe to know the future sheíd require far less calculating power. Granted sheíd have to be unrestricted by time but it is theoretically possible.

Or, if that doesnít convince you, maybe like Newton before him, Heisenberg could simply be wrong.



quote:
I would also remind Grinch that Newton was a devout Christian.


I would remind Stephen that, as Ron pointed out, Newton had a history of being wrong.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


49 posted 01-07-2009 03:48 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch, if he's wrong about the question of God, he's can't possibly be wrong about that based upon the very thing he was wrong about in physics!  He simply didn't see anything in his science that ruled out God; And now with the advent of quantum phsyics, how much less?  Does Newton have to be perfect in order to know something?  And anyway, it's not that Newtonian physics was all wrong, it is just incomplete ... just as Quantum Physics most definitely is incomplete.  On the whole, I would be inclined to not brush aside so easily his take on whether causation cancels Deity.


Besides, you keep launching us into a discussion of Divinity, when I've already shown that you haven't even squared the mystery of humanity.  Unless you can show how your interlocked universe can support a ground/consequent relation (as opposed to everything being a cause/effect relation), you can't possibly be "right" about anything.  Your beliefs are as fixed, necessary, and unrelated to truth as lichen that grows on a rock.

When you explain the mystery of humanity according to your same criteria (that is congruent with your actions here on the forum- and doesn't just keep asserting that you have no will, all the while acting like you do), then let's talk Divinity.  Until then you're stuck on first.  

quote:
Or, if that doesnít convince you, maybe like Newton before him, Heisenberg could simply be wrong.


So could you.  More ambitiously, I'll say that since your view makes any real knowledge illusory and impossible (which we intuitively know otherwise and act accordingly every day), you definitely are.

Stephen
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Are We Omniscient?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors