Bertrand Russell's Argument - Freewill

[Zeppelin DC]

If someone has free will, then at any point in time they may either choose to do a certain thing or choose not to do it. An omniscient God knows everything that will happen in the future, including all of the choices he will make at any future point in time. By the definitions of "knowledge" and "choice", if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice. Omniscience and free will are logically contradictory. Either nobody has free will, or nobody is omniscient.

---

Do you agree with this argument?

Why, why not?

I'll weigh in later.

[iahag]

Well first you would have to define what on earth free will is, and whether it even exists.
You would also have to consider the theologocial, scientifical and psychological argument.
Well Im going define free will as the result of an undeterministic apparent conscience that is not physical, yet has the power to change the undeniable result of an apparent deterministic brain. And of course, Im assuming free will and conscience exists.

Well given that, an omniscient god and free will are contradictory, because the conscience is assumed to be undeterministic (neccesary for free will), yet is has an effect on the apparent deterministic physical world, thus rendering it undeterministic (provided brains exist).

I personally dont believe in free will, I believe that the universe is completely deterministic. Scientific arguments against this will involve uncertainty principles, quantum mechanics and probability statistics. Well, this may very well be true, but if so, it be logical to extrapolate this argument and say we are based on probablity stastitics. You then have to ask yourself whether free will is free will when you can know the odds between an event happening and event not happening.

However, I, like some others, believe there are 'hidden variable theories' behind quantum mechanics and the like.

Well, thats my scientific view.

Im afraid this is likely to turn into a 'does free will exist' debate. I suggest you read this first Wikipedia - Free will, edit your post and state assumptions accordingly.

But yeah, If you couldnt be bothered to read my post, I do agree that it is logically contradictory.

[CoffeeSaint]

I think free will and omniscience are only contradictory if we assume that time is linear. If it is possible for lives to branch into different timelines according to our choices, in other words, if it is possible for free will to change the future, then it is entirely possible that an omniscient being simply knows every possibility of where those choices could lead, to an infinity of possible outcomes.
Now, if it is impossible for one being, even a theoretical being, to contain an infinity of knowledge, then the two are contradictory. But if we suppose omniscience is possible, then it doesn't necessarily preclude free will; we just have to rethink how much a being would have to know to be omniscient.

[Technosoul]

No one can use free will to become perfectly "sinless" relative to the standards set froth by Bible based religions. They claim they cannot even pray prefection of that type into exsistence. To claim perfect rightiousness would be "telling a fib" according to that dogma. So if you are a Christian then free will would be taboo. No choice can be made to be perfect in all respects, because they say "we are only human". So if you are "only human" then the concept of free will goes out the window. Which leaves only the reality of being "somewhat bad" (sometimes).

The point is that free will has to do with what standards you set forth as our factual limitaitons as beings. You do not have the free will to fly off the ground like a bird because you got no wings. You do not have free will to stay underwater for long because you got no gills. However with technology we can extend our sense of realistic potential. We can use an airplane or sub at free will. But without such technology we are back to the basic limitations as so noted.

Needless to say we have limited free will. You wake up and make a choice what shirt to put on from a selection of choices in your wardrobe. I doubt if God or destiny has predetermined that choice for you. But without complete and total knowledge about the nature of destiny and/or God you do not have the free will to know if such is true or not.

If you select to get drunk your choice making might be different then if you remained sober, so here we can see that free will can be influenced by other factors. Which would be a scientific clue, I would think. And if free will is influenced by other factors then it is not so free, now is it.

At any rate, as I have clearly outlined for you, you got the free will not to be confused about free will. Right?

I need some time off to meditate. OM.....

[Osborn F Enready]

Zeppelin said: (from quote of Russel) If someone has free will, then at any point in time they may either choose to do a certain thing or choose not to do it.

I say:
I agree.

Zeppelin said: (from quote of Russel) An omniscient God knows everything that will happen in the future, including all of the choices he will make at any future point in time.

I say:
What is a "god"? Can a god be a star as in a "star" in outer space?
What is it to "know" something? Is to know, to (be), or to enunciate on command the future?

If a star can be a god, and to (be) is to know, then in fact a star could be an omniscient god, since a star creates matter, and we, and EVERYTHING we know in the physical world are ALL forms of matter and know that all matter was at one time created by stars.

Zeppelin said: (from quote of Russel) By the definitions of "knowledge" and "choice", if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice.

I say:
That is because they made the choice upon learning the knowledge.

Zeppelin said: (from quote of Russel) Omniscience and free will are logically contradictory. Either nobody has free will, or nobody is omniscient.

I say:
I contend that NOBODY is omniscient that lives in the physical world, unless as I described above.


That is what I think.

[Technosoul]

Okay, back from meditation.

Free will is currently limited by our physical and mental abilities.

Free will is something new that has been recently added in evolution as part of our human resource. In other words, free will is something new relative to other evolutionary events.

Being new it is not yet well developed but can become an important part of our survival kit as human beings. We need to better develope this new addition in our abilities. Use it or loose it.

Before people believed they were stuck in whatever job destiny so provided, but we are waking up to the concept of free will, and self-determination, and some are finding out they are not stuck, but can move on to a better potential in life. That is free will in aciton.
Or at least the "idea" of having free will, put into action.

The future might not turn out as we imagine it would, but for some folks it does. That is because free will is still in it's early stage of developement relative to evolution. The more we employ free will the stronger it becomes and that will add to the evolutionary potentials of that ability as a useful tool for the purposes of human survival. I think that free will evolved from another ability called wisdom. It goes hand in hand with logical thinking.
And mixed into that would be the motivations stiring in our imagination. Imagination and concentration results in free will being manfested according to the will of our wisdom.

I noted wisdom because free will should agree with the overall momentum of nature to seek balance and not contrary to that objective.

Free will is about "thinking for your self" and so it would be the enemy of organizations or governments that wish to control how you think and what you should or should not do.

If free will should seperate from wisdom then things could get rather "troublesome". And so it should be used correctly and in conformity with other more evolved states of conscioius knowing.

The other idea about being omniscient would suggest total free will that is not limited by any other ability or lack of abilities. I do not think that limited free will should be viewed as non-realistic just because we have not evolved into how we imagine that a God would be like. I see those ideas as two different topics, and if this is a debate about "the nature of God" then count me out, not my department. But can only speculate on free will as being part of our evolutionary progress relative to mental abilities. Again this somewhat goes hand and hand with technology because we can "imagine" some new technology that can give us a new advantage and then via concentration can build it - and it becomes part of the future, which would by then be here and now.

Other examples could be added but why create a long list?

[Osborn F Enready]

Nice post techno.

I like your argument.

[Zeppelin DC]

The quote above assumes that we have arbitrary, libertarian freewill and can, at any billionth of a fraction of a second, make a choice or choose to not make that choice.

Indeed, the libertarian would say we do it every second subconsciously.

My problem with the quote above is that using its model of freewill, then the answer to the question that Dr. Russell posed is "There is no freewill"

If freewill must be arbitrary and reversable at any point then we have a gross problem of logic because it is impossible to do given our brain/body function.

I mean to say, try suddenly moving a part of your body. Okay now try moving that same part suddenly with using your will or affection to do so. You cannot move anything randomly, humans are not creature of randomosity.

In that fraction of a second between you deciding to move your hand and you moving your hand you are locked in that single pattern, what you're about will happen.

I don't believe in libertarien freewill for that reason.

[5010]

Now even though I consider Russell's logic ok according to his concept of free will and omniscience, my experience of my own will doesn't seem like that at all. It is more me choosing one particular option based on what I want, which is based on the current state of my mind, which is based on the influence of information vs my thoughts. The former from memory and senses, the latter from a processing train that started in the past directed by what my mind did just before each moment of choice. So I prefer to use a concept of the will I experience both in myself and percieve in other objects.

That said, what I am offering to the thread doesn't really address Russell's point, because I am on different semantics which I find more practical.

I say free will is all about influence within a relationship within a scope. So If I say A's will is free from B's influence, I am speaking only of the relationship between A and B within present scope.

I don't think of "will" as something limited to people and gods. I consider the following statements meaningful according to how I think of "will":

"The will of Jupiter's weather is free from human influence."
"The will of George Bush is free from volconvo's influence."
"The will of a robot is free from human influence but a remote-controlled device is not" (assuming the former's sensors aren't getting information from humans)

Let's look at the 1st statement. If a weatherman were to solve Jupiter's weather and forecast jovial storms, is jovial weather no longer free from human influence? No.

Let's look into the last statement. Let's say the rc-device's will is controlled by its programmed responses to continuous human joystick input and the robot's will is controlled by its programmed responses to environmental sensors. Could we say that both wills are controlled by human design, and therefore by human influence? But the designers in the present aren't the same as they were when they designed it. They are older, with different knowledge and experience, or they may even be dead! The designer is not currently influencing the robot's design. So it is more accurate to say that their design was influenced by humans. And therefore neither's will was always free from human influence.

Do you find this way of thinking useful?

[-=Darkstar=-]

The point is that free will has to do with what standards you set forth as our factual limitaitons as beings. You do not have the free will to fly off the ground like a bird because you got no wings. You do not have free will to stay underwater for long because you got no gills. However with technology we can extend our sense of realistic potential. We can use an airplane or sub at free will. But without such technology we are back to the basic limitations as so noted.

hmm one flaw. we DO have the free will to try to fly. we also have the free will to try to breathe underwater. with this in mind, technology will do absolutely nothing for our free will which is completely seperate from what we can accomplish when using our free will to attempt something

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeppelin DC --- Do you agree with this argument? Why, why not? I'll weigh in later.

In some respects this is just a rephrasing of the ancient argument over the problems associated with the proposition of an all powerful, all knowling, supreme being. It is another paradox similar to the problem of evil that has bantered about since at least Epicurus.

[-=Darkstar=-]

*mumble* Epicurus......


obviously had too much time on his hands

[Yusuf]

Greetings of peace

It depends on your personal concept of God. I believe our Creator is immune to all the 'paradox' arguments. Since the Supreme Being's existence is a reality well beyond the scientific comprehension of the human, it therefore cannot and should not be humanized through this kind of logic.

Should we resort to an anthropomorphic style of theism, Russell's argument appears to have some validity. 'God' does possess free will and divine knowledge of His own "past, present and future," simulteneously. How so, one might ask? Of course, a physically divine entity does not fit the above description because it is subject to time, a well-known creation of God's. God Himself, I'm afraid, is not subject to time, therefore His divine attributes are very realistic in His own mind. The Lord has a past and a future only in the perception of time-subject beings; in reality, however, everything occurs to Him concurrantly. The creation, or those subject to the dimension of time, are incapable of forming a decent image of this idea in their heads. Can an ant understand what it is like to be a man?

The one God of the Bible and the Qur'an understands the mind of man, and therefore has revealed Himself in a way we are able to understand [i]Him/I], in order that we may attain prosperity in His worship. It is for the sake of simplicity that 'He' even refers to Himself as a 'God.'


All the best,

Yusuf

[Zeppelin DC]

Wow, I completely agree with Yusuf's statement above.

[iahag]

He just done what religion has been doing for a long long time. Made a reasonable sounding theory which cannot be touched by science or logic (inherently exclusive to our reality) to justify something there book dictated to them. This one just sounds more intellectual, when in fact it requires a whole of imagination, speculation and huge assumptions about this apparent god. I stress this is no more logically plausible than saying the moon is made of green cheese. Besides this, I commend you Yusuf, it takes some intellect to theistically and theoretically determine that bertrand russells argument cannot be applied to the god concept.

[-=Darkstar=-]

lol well it makes sense that if there was a God who created everything He would be beyond His creation...don't you think?

[Yusuf]

Peace iahag,

and thank you for the response, it is well appreciated.

I shall try to address your commments in my future post, as I have insufficient time today.

Regards,

Yusuf

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Technosoul Okay, back from meditation. Free will is currently limited by our physical and mental abilities.

Anyway, just for information; is your Meditation outcome of free will? I think nothing exists as free will. You may agree, your meditation is not out come as a free will. I would say not only "free will" but most of the actions including meditation are always limited by our physical and mental abilities on one end and sorroundings on the other, till we live and later in afterlife state by meta-physical mind guided by our past actions and its due reactions.

Rest of the essay on free will by Techno is simply fantastic, except that final and pure free will can not be evolved to perfection. To my mind, the only perfect free will a person has that he wants to exist eternally and that he actually exist life after life...which I won't be able to demonstrate!!! Except from few published stories of persons narrating their past lives memories!!!

The other idea about being omniscient would suggest total free will that is not limited by any other ability or lack of abilities. I do not think that limited free will should be viewed as non-realistic just because we have not evolved into how we imagine that a God would be like. I see those ideas as two different topics, and if this is a debate about "the nature of God" then count me out, not my department.

God is a stage of supra-consciousness which is beyond individual metaphysical consciousness of self Ego of individuality...beyond conception!!!:)

But can only speculate on free will as being part of our evolutionary progress relative to mental abilities. Again this somewhat goes hand and hand with technology because we can "imagine" some new technology that can give us a new advantage and then via concentration can build it - and it becomes part of the future, which would by then be here and now.

Yes, it is correct. But, free will would be evolved to a limit only but to perfection!!!:eek:

[Yusuf]

Greetings of peace

Quote by: iahag He just done what religion has been doing for a long long time. Made a reasonable sounding theory which cannot be touched by science or logic (inherently exclusive to our reality) to justify something there book dictated to them. This one just sounds more intellectual, when in fact it requires a whole of imagination, speculation and huge assumptions about this apparent god.

I have come to learn that a vast number of atheists suffer from the propensity to reject anything beyond their level of comprehension. My only question for the proponents of this most preposterous way of thinking is as follows: If our brains are capable of literally conceiving of some 'higher power,' then is not this form of higher power far from being the One we refer to as God? Quite simply, if you can picture it, it is no more than a creation.

Revelation suggests that God is necessarily above and beyond what humankind can grasp; otherwise He is no longer Divine. In addition, revelation calls upon man to reason with his Creator (through scripture). Divine inspiration is not merely a set of rules and teachings intended for the guidance of the human soul, rather it is an argument based on rationality and that which is manifest. The holy Qur'an, often referred to as the final testament, regards the follower of atheism as devoid of wisdom for daring to deny what the senses fail to perceive.

I stress this is no more logically plausible than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

As such, this approach to the ethereal is a means of misguidance.

I commend you Yusuf, it takes some intellect to theistically and theoretically determine that bertrand russells argument cannot be applied to the god concept.

I believe it takes time and patient cogitation to reach this inevitable conclusion. Also, individuals fairly familiar with the studies of physics, and other men of understanding, will find no difficulty in accurately construing this irresistible prophetic doctrine which typical Nihilists consider no more than a theoretical matter.

All the best,

Yusuf

[iahag]

I have come to learn that a vast number of atheists suffer from the propensity to reject anything beyond their level of comprehension.

Well, while I do know what your talking about, I dont think it can be put quite that way. Its not that it is out of our comprehension, its just that we do not follow the same line of thought as people like yourself. Its much like being better at maths than english. Im shocking at english, never understood it and couldnt write a story to save my life, though Im very good at maths. Its much the same with religion, you have your scripture as a base (assumptions and conditions) from which you can speculate reasonable outcomes where as I do not. The mind is very basic in that it shall not accept new ideas, if the old ones have worked fine in the past. Mine and your train of thoughts are the opposite outcomes of the two ways of seeing our world.

I find myself withdrawing what I said before. I think, in this case, it depends entirely how you view time. I dont know how you view it, but I know I dont know how to view it. Whether it is the 4th dimension, whether we can travel in it, whether time is treated as 'one' so that things that have happened in the past and future are always happening on some different level of time (Speculation: If this be the case you could say we our current 'conscieness has momentum through time', if indeed you believe in conscieness). So basically I dont know nothing about time, so I cant really form an argument for bertrands russells' argument, yet you can form one against, because you see it as a creation of a god not subject to it, and you can twist and turn all you wish.

Finishing notes, I dont know what you term an atheist, but I dont refute the idea of a divine creator at all - because I cant. It would be scientifically wrong for me to refute it because it stands as a theory that cannot be proved otherwise. However, there is literally an infinite number of things that cannot be proven/disproven, any belief in them is merely an emotional one.