rtris (04/11/83)
Don, I see your point very well. The line of reasoning that if a being KNOWS what I am going to do for the rest of my life, then it follows that reality is deterministic, is quite natural. It is something that causes endless debate in Christian circles as well! And the crux of the problem, of course, is our respective viewpoints on free will. It would seem to me that the most natural definition angle is: free will consists of the power to make choices. (This is approximately how Turing defined it anyway). It would also seem to me that a computer does not have this power, it is indeed a deterministic machine. Now, given this, I think to say that IF something is known, THEN it is controlled (by laws or someone or something), is a fallacy. I'll grant you that it is a compelling conclusion, since all of inanimate reality does seem to operate that way. One can only know a future event (such as the outcome of an experiment involving well known principles) with certainty, if there are physical, deterministic laws at work. But I don't see that there is a NECESSARY causation between the two statements "it is known" and "it is determined" in and of themselves. In particular, although determinism creates the possibility of foreknowledge, I don't think one can say that the reverse (foreknowledge implies determinism) is necessarily true. Let me try and illustrate with what I think is reasonable example. Suppose you know a person very well. In fact you know him/her so well, that in various situations you can know or predict with incredible accuracy what he/she will think or how he/she will respond. (I know various pairs of people like this (Peters and Glover come close)). Now given such a situation, are you compelled to say that the object of the knownness is deterministic? I think not. You could, of course, but I think it just as plausible to say that the person nevertheless chose, and thus excersised free will. What occurred is that you knew WHAT he/she would choose. To draw it out a little, suppose you know what he/she is going to do for the next twentyfour hours. Does he/she have free will? Again you could argue he/she doesn't of course, but on the other hand one could say, yes he/she does! You may know what he/she is going to do, but you can't (or won't) change it! He/She chooses, and it is completely in his/her hands. You can't (or won't) take control. So what it comes down to, I think, is that you reject my notion of free will. I don't think you can say God MUST be a controller. Of course, you could reply by explaining my example in terms of a deterministic LISP program. Yes, I have already agreed that that is a possibility. But ONLY if you reject my definition of free will. Sure you can consistently maintain that reality is deterministic. But one can also consistently postulate an omnipotent and omniscient God and free will (in my opinion). At least give me credit for my reasoning? Ralph.
rtris (04/18/83)
For reality to be deterministic I have stated that that implies that there are rules which, given the current state of the system, specify the next state of the system, and that the existence of free will is equivalent to the non-existence of such rules. Don replied that such rules must exist. They consist of the trivial rule: "ask myself" (God that is). I don't think "ask myself" qualifies as the current state of the system. It seems to me that as God created the system, He is outside of it. Ralph.
tim (04/20/83)
************************************************************************** For reality to be deterministic I have stated that that implies that there are rules which, given the current state of the system, specify the next state of the system, and that the existence of free will is equivalent to the non-existence of such rules. Don replied that such rules must exist. They consist of the trivial rule: "ask myself" (God that is). I don't think "ask myself" qualifies as the current state of the system. It seems to me that as God created the system, He is outside of it. Ralph. *************************************************************************** Wrongo, Ralph. If God intervenes in the sytem even once after its creation, It is inside it. If, however, you are willing to grant that God *never* intervenes in the system after its creation, therefore never allowing any accurate predictions, then no such rule exists, and from our point of view the system is not deterministic. (This is assuming that the only possible rule is asking God, which has been shown by Heisenberg.) I doubt that you're willing to accept this, since its corollary is that the Bible is false, since it states that God does intervene and predict. Therefore, you must accept determinism or revise your view of God. Stop trying to reason to conclusions that you've already decided on. That really makes me sick. You're not interested in solving questions, only in justifying your prejudices. If incontrovertible logical argument demonstrated your beliefs false (as it does), you'd still be frantically struggling to prove to yourself that you were right all along. Tim Maroney