Why would omniscience and free will be mutually exclusive?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wynn, Jul 17, 2011.

  1. Pierre-Normand Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    I studied music in college, did undergraduate studies in mathematical-physics and pursued graduate studies in philosophy. No, I haven't had the chance to know many big-names apart from the occasional exchange on Usenet and during university seminars. I attended one seminar with Hubert Reeves on the topic of recent advances in cosmology.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Understandable; that's what PM's are for...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I think another difficulty with the subject of free will vs omniscience, is that the use of first-order logic doesn't seem to lead to satisfactory conclusions.

    In particular, the concept of a universal history or of a universal moment of time appear to be inescapable to us, but omniscience would mean that time, and change, are redundant.
    In other words, we can't predict the possibility of omniscience, or connect it in a satisfactory way to our concepts of "being".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Woah. Was that a thread killer?

    I'm impressed.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Time and change being redundant to whom?


    Why not?

    One line of reasoning suggests that it is precisely because we are not omniscient that we can find meaning, purpose, satisfaction.

    Secondly, there are theological solutions to this that I find perfectly reasonable; I have mentioned some so far here.
     
  9. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    To a being who is omniscient, of course.

    Are you suggesting that we can connect omniscience to ourselves satisfactorily, using first or higher order logic, because we aren't omniscient?
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    One that doesn't bother Him.

    I realize my reply may sound naive, and so do some others I have made earlier about God and ourselves being pleasure-seeking entities.

    But to divorce philosophical efforts from how we actually go about life would be a mistake. Pleasure is important to us, in its various forms (including the pleasure we feel upon hearing a nice line of reasoning). So pleasure is something to take into serious consideration.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And how does that affect us who are not omniscient?


    I think that may be more in Sarkus' domain.


    But like I noted earlier, I see no reason why the existence of an omniscient entity would impinge on our free will, as I maintain that our choices and subsequent actions stem from our identity.

    I think that the omniscience vs. free will problem emerges when we operate within an impersonal(ist) framework, positing that personality/individuality/identity is illusory or a mere epiphenomenon, and that choice and action take place in way similar to how reactions take place in a container of chemicals.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Aww, Pierre-Normand is just too good for us!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm afraid we'll teach him to drink ere he departs!
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I don't know. How about you?
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    makes sense considering how many make an issue out of anything God does that does not create pleasure..
     
  15. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    Because omniscience implies that the universe is deterministic and that actions are predictable.

    Also an all-knowing God will know why people do the things they do, even if he did not create them.
     
  16. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Omniscience by itself does not imply that if we consider God to be without/separate from space-time.


    An all-knowing God could only be so by being omnipotent as well and by being omnipotent God would have to be the creator of all of creation.
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Why is that?
    Can you explain your "result"?

    --for extra marks.

    But what if omniscience doesn't imply that actions are predictable? What if an omniscient being doesn't predict any action at all, but simply observes everything--that is, they are aware (whatever that means) of everything at once?

    Aren't you making the mistake of assuming that omniscience means an awareness of the passage of time? Why does it mean that? Can you explain?

    It might look like I'm asking nicely, but I don't really believe for a second that either of you can explain.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2011
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Good point. And if such a being is omnipotent, then it doesn't really matter whether they can see into the future or not; because being omnipotent, their will will get done, come what may.




    Grrrrr!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page