# Does the existance of an omniscient being prove that free will is non-existant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806 "2006-09-23T03:06:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/61 "2006-09-25T20:00:36Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Maybe we dont have free will but god does. [/QUOTE] I prefer to think we do, but God doesn’t. Vox populi. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/62 "2006-09-25T20:09:43Z")
Well, then. It’s time to go to the videotape! Er. Wikipedia. What the heck is this Free Will stuff, anyhow? Even if it’s not the most accurate definition, it’s a starting place… which is all you can trust Wikipedia to be. Wiki has two seperate articles on it. One on theology, one not. > **[Free will in theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology)** > > Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible. The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Calvinistic circles: if God knows exactly what will happen (right down to every c... Theology > [@Wikipedia](#): > > n Christian theology, God is described as not only omniscient but omnipotent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination. Other branches, such as Methodists, believe that while God is omnipotent and knows the choices that individuals will make, he still gives individuals the power to ultimately choose (or reject) everything, regardless of any internal or external conditions relating to the choice. For example, when Jesus was nailed on the cross, the two murderers, one on each side, were about to die. Only one asked Jesus for forgiveness while the other, even at the end of his life with nothing else to lose, mocked Jesus. In the view of Methodists and others who believe in free will, this was a free choice of everlasting death over everlasting life. So, the ability to choose outside of, but influenced by, external conditions. Not a bad example, too. > **[Free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)** > > Free will is generally understood as the capacity or ability of people to either choose between different possible courses of action, exercise control over their actions in a way that is necessary for moral responsibility, or be the ultimate source or originator of their actions. There are different theories as to its nature, and these aspects are often emphasized differently depending on philosophical tradition, with debates focusing on whether and how such freedom can coexist with p Free will i... > [@Wikipedia](#): > > The problem of free will is the problem of whether human beings exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various positions taken on the problem therefore differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and differ on whether freedom can co-exist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible. > … > The basic philosophical positions on the problem of free will can be divided in accordance with the answers they provide to two questions: 1) Is determinism true? and 2) Does free will exist? Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, non-determinism, are positions in the debate about free will.[1] > > Compatibilism is the view that accepts both the existence of free will and the truth of determinism, claiming that they are compatible with each other. Incompatibilism is the view that there is no way to reconcile a belief in a deterministic universe with a belief in free will.[2] Hard determinism is the version of incompatibilism that accepts the truth of determinism and rejects the idea that humans have any free will.[3] Metaphysical libertarianism agrees with hard determinism only in rejecting compatibilism. Since libertarians accept the existence of free will, they must reject determinism and argue for some version of indeterminism that is compatible with freedom.[4] Hm. I’ve got a game tonight, but I’m going to be thinking about this. And I’ll read it more later. Guys? Looks like we wandered into the high points here, especially insofar as determinism counts. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/63 "2006-09-25T20:27:03Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Well, then. It’s time to go to the videotape! Er. Wikipedia. What the heck is this Free Will stuff, anyhow? Even if it’s not the most accurate definition, it’s a starting place… which is all you can trust Wikipedia to be. Wiki has two seperate articles on it. One on theology, one not. > **[Free will in theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology)** > > Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible. The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Calvinistic circles: if God knows exactly what will happen (right down to every c... Theology So, the ability to choose outside of, but influenced by, external conditions. Not a bad example, too. > **[Free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)** > > Free will is generally understood as the capacity or ability of people to either choose between different possible courses of action, exercise control over their actions in a way that is necessary for moral responsibility, or be the ultimate source or originator of their actions. There are different theories as to its nature, and these aspects are often emphasized differently depending on philosophical tradition, with debates focusing on whether and how such freedom can coexist with p Free will i... Hm. I’ve got a game tonight, but I’m going to be thinking about this. And I’ll read it more later. Guys? Looks like we wandered into the high points here, especially insofar as determinism counts. [/QUOTE] I thought about doing this too. At least the non-theological part. But it really struck me as a non-definition. It’s too indirect. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/64 "2006-09-25T20:47:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Stalky and CalMeacham, both of you have mentioned chaos, and it sounds like both of you believe chaos theory describes non-deterministic systems. It’s important to note that chaos theory merely states that systems can appear to be non-deterministic. The systems in question are still deterministic. If you read closely, you’ll see that I didn’t merely mention “chaos”, as if throwing out a buzz-word to “explain” indeterminacy. I pointed out that Sensitive Dependence Upion Initial Conditions has been shown to derail even the most carefully managed of calculations. Without perfect knowledge of the situation, even in a classical system with no quantum terms or portions unknown for other reasons – exactly the sort of thing that determinists seem to assume – it is extremely easy for the situation to blur out knowledge of the initial state so that you effectively 'can’t go home again". See the Sci. am. article on Time’s Arrow and references therein. And it’s just as hard to go forward to a predictable future as it is to retreat to a known past. Even with a physical system that effectively contains all the “seeds” of that past state, you can’t gp backwards to that state because even what seem to be trivially unimportant factors – the gravitational pull of the moon and planets, for instance. Brownian motion and thermal effects, fior more realistic inputs – can disturb that perfect knowledge needed to recover the initial state. Even with a perfect computer, unless you really can include all the effects of all things to the last decimal place, you’re not going to be able to reproduce the past exactly or predict the future. And if you could, quantum uncertainty and the other things I mention will be more tha enough to destroy that absolute determinism. I seriously doubt that any physicist views the universe as deterministyic and predictable to that degree. Einstein to the contrary notwithstanding, we live in a probabilistic universe, even at the macroscopic scale. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/65 "2006-09-25T22:23:53Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] If you read closely, you’ll see that I didn’t merely mention “chaos”, as if throwing out a buzz-word to “explain” indeterminacy. I pointed out that Sensitive Dependence Upion Initial Conditions has been shown to derail even the most carefully managed of calculations. Without perfect knowledge of the situation, even in a classical system with no quantum terms or portions unknown for other reasons – exactly the sort of thing that determinists seem to assume – it is extremely easy for the situation to blur out knowledge of the initial state so that you effectively 'can’t go home again". See the Sci. am. article on Time’s Arrow and references therein. And it’s just as hard to go forward to a predictable future as it is to retreat to a known past. Even with a physical system that effectively contains all the “seeds” of that past state, you can’t gp backwards to that state because even what seem to be trivially unimportant factors – the gravitational pull of the moon and planets, for instance. Brownian motion and thermal effects, fior more realistic inputs – can disturb that perfect knowledge needed to recover the initial state. Even with a perfect computer, unless you really can include all the effects of all things to the last decimal place, you’re not going to be able to reproduce the past exactly or predict the future. [/quote] But, barring quantum uncertainty, what you describe above only relates to our ability to predict the future, not whether it is deterministic or non-deterministic. Just because it is too difficult to calculate does not make it non-deterministic. Whether we can predict it or not, if our environment is deterministic, then we don’t really have “free will” (at least based on what I think we mean by “free will”) > [@](#): > > And if you could, quantum uncertainty and the other things I mention will be more tha enough to destroy that absolute determinism. Quantum uncertainty is the only thing you mentioned that influences determinancy. But the problem with quantum uncertainty, is that it’s random. This is still a problem for “free will.” > [@](#): > > I seriously doubt that any physicist views the universe as deterministyic and predictable to that degree. Einstein to the contrary notwithstanding, we live in a probabilistic universe, even at the macroscopic scale. While it’s clear we do at the quantum level, are you saying that physicists believe that has an impact at the macro level? I thought I had read that most believed that the effects of quantum randomness were isolated to the quantum level and did not influence our environment. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/66 "2006-09-26T00:05:58Z")
[QUOTE=Stalky] Well why don’t you illuminate us for the purposes of informed discussion? One more thing, I think i’ve changed my mind on whether determinism plays an important role in our free will. Even if the entire universe were unordered semi-chaos, intelligence is an emergent complex ordered system, and therefore responds to external stimuli in a predictable way. Even in an infinate number of infinite universes (to use a ludicrous example straw-man analogous to certain quantum theories) it seems that we would still be a slave to stimuli. Can any of you “Free-Willies” explain objectively why we wouldn’t. Oh, and i’m copyrighting the term “Free-Willies.” Use at risk of severe civil suits, or burns to the anus. 🆒 [/QUOTE] [pedant] I don’t believe the term “Free-Willies” is copyrightable, but you are free to apply for a trademark if you plan to use it in..um..trade. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/67 "2006-09-26T01:02:45Z")
[QUOTE=RaftPeople] I thought I had read that most believed that the effects of quantum randomness were isolated to the quantum level and did not influence our environment. [/QUOTE] If God is Omniscient, he knows the origin and fate of every electron, the path of every neutrino to the end of time. I don’t know where he would keep all that information, but there clearly isn’t enough room for it in _this_ universe. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/68 "2006-09-26T01:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] If God is Omniscient, he knows the origin and fate of every electron, the path of every neutrino to the end of time. I don’t know where he would keep all that information, but there clearly isn’t enough room for it in _this_ universe. [/QUOTE] He keeps it in the glove compartment. ---
**Author:** ![JoeSki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b487fb/32.png) [@JoeSki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeSki)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/69 "2006-09-26T03:52:34Z")
If you were to ask me I’d tell you that everything is part of the innerworkings of God’s mind, and that it works off of itself to keep it going. Particles pop in and out of existence and bump into each other as a constant means of keeping track of everything. But this is just a crazy crap shot at guessing how the universe works. But it’s always _felt_ right to me. Assuming there is a God that is. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/70 "2006-09-26T13:22:31Z")
[QUOTE=JoeSki] If you were to ask me I’d tell you that everything is part of the innerworkings of God’s mind, and that it works off of itself to keep it going. Particles pop in and out of existence and bump into each other as a constant means of keeping track of everything. But this is just a crazy crap shot at guessing how the universe works. But it’s always _felt_ right to me. Assuming there is a God that is. [/QUOTE] Well, it does seem like it would be the only way for him to be truly omnipresent, omniscient, ect. If this is the case however, what is the difference between believing in This God and being a theist, and trusting in Science and Epistimology and being an athiest. Seems like the Universal “theist” just has an extra arbitrary bit of nomenclature. Also Joeski, are you a Free Willy? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/71 "2006-09-26T15:49:07Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] If God is Omniscient, he knows the origin and fate of every electron, the path of every neutrino to the end of time. I don’t know where he would keep all that information, but there clearly isn’t enough room for it in _this_ universe. [/QUOTE] “I have a map of the United States…actual size. It says, ‘Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile.’ I spent last summer folding it. I also have a full-size map of the world. I hardly ever unroll it.” -Steven Wright ---
**Author:** ![JoeSki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b487fb/32.png) [@JoeSki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeSki)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/72 "2006-09-28T01:10:04Z")
[QUOTE=Stalky] Well, it does seem like it would be the only way for him to be truly omnipresent, omniscient, ect. If this is the case however, what is the difference between believing in This God and being a theist, and trusting in Science and Epistimology and being an athiest. Seems like the Universal “theist” just has an extra arbitrary bit of nomenclature. Also Joeski, are you a Free Willy? [/QUOTE] I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking in the first half of your post here, but I do not believe in free will. Whether or not there’s a God, I do believe in a future that’s set in stone, and that while we may feel like we can choose to do whatever we want, this is an illusion and everything is spoken for. If there is a God, I don’t believe he has made everything in an order we’d call “perfect”, but something that makes sense to him for whatever reasons a God might have. People are born to live, die, and have happy and misersable times in between. Or not. Your mileage may vary greatly one way or the other. Any “God made us in his image” nonsense is just an attempt to anthropomorphsize a perfect being. Or a very powerful being anyways. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/73 "2006-09-28T15:04:03Z")
Is there contradiction in the religious believing we were created with free will and then explaining a tragedy they survived as gods will. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806/74 "2006-09-28T22:42:37Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] If the being living outside of time can see all future actions, maybe that just means the _being_ doesn’t have free will. As we make our decisions, we affect possible future events. I randomly choose from a cans of peas and if I take can _A_ (tainted with botulism), I’ll die shortly after tomorrow’s dinner. The helplessly omniscient creature sees my gory vomit-spewing demise. Spontaneously, though, I choose botulism-free can _B_. My revised future now involves becoming the first casualty of a tragic space elevator accident in 2059. The omniscient being sees the new future, and as far as it is concerned, that future is and always has been the only one (if concepts like “is” and “has been” have any meaning at all to a creature living out of time). Our free will causes destiny to perpetually rewrite itself. God is at our mercy, not the other way around. [/QUOTE] I didn’t see a response to this in all the quantum stuff, other than **gonzomax** ’s post back there, which didn’t seem to address the issue (and which made my brain hurt with its syntax). Anyway, if this has already been addressed, then I apologise in advance. For the purpose of this post, I’ll assume that if you had/have no other option than to carry out the actions you did/will, then you do not have free will. This covers most of the definitions of the term, I think. If one wishes, this can be expanded to include unintentional, unwilled, and quantum effects, without damageing the arguments. The problem with your ‘spontaneous’ decision to pick can B, is that it invalidates the knowledge that the omniscient creature had back before you changed your mind. If they ‘knew’ you would choose can A, and you turned out not to, then they were wrong. By definition, an omniscient being cannot be wrong about anything. So, your scenario cannot occur. The omnisicent creature is similarly unable to alter its own predicted choice of actions; to do so would demonstrate that it is not an omniscient creature. You could speculate about the existence of a creature that knew at all times what the state of the world would be after any set of actions on its own part, wherein it could make choices, and nobody else could; but that’s another matter entirely. A creature that can predict only itself is barely worthy of note as knowledge goes, except to note that contradictions would probably occur if that being should happen to interact with, including by observation, anything with “free will”. As a final note, a creature that _can_ inerrantly know the future disproves free will, even if the creature is not bothering to predict the events in question. The prediction is not the thing that eliminates free will, after all; it merely demonstrates that the free will was already absent. If there was free will, then prediction/omniscience would never be possible, by definition. [QUOTE=gonzomax] Is there contradiction in the religious believing we were created with free will and then explaining a tragedy they survived as gods will. [/QUOTE] There is no contradition there. If we were created with free will then God must not be omniscient, and at that point God can save whoever it wants with impunity. (Unrelated questions for the quantum folks: it is the knowledge of, or the observation of, all the quantum states at once that’s impossible? And is it possible to know all the quantum information about a particle at some later point?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-existance-of-an-omniscient-being-prove-that-free-will-is-non-existant/373806.md?page=3)