Free Will

[Polymath257]

I can't find the exact article, but it goes along these lines..

1. God knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. It is now necessary that C.
3. If it is now necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

This is your argument, right?
It is wrong, due to a modal fallacy.
In particular, the argument assumes that if C is true, it becomes necessary for C to be true, which is incorrect as C is contingent. Otherwise, one can argue that the future is set already regardless of his actions.
Modal_logic

Well, I find modal logic to be problematic in many ways, including the difficulties with 'possible world' ontology. In general, the distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' events gives me hives.

So, there are two options: either there is only one possible world (and so one future at each point) and ALL events are necessary.

OR

There is more than one possible world and, in fact, more than one possible future at several points. In this case, a choice determines which future a person finds themselves in. And, in this case, the God of your argument would know that *if* a certain choice was made, then the person would find themselves in a particular possible world, but there would still be several possible futures at some points and thereby knowledge of which choice is made is impossible (since there is a possible world for each choice).

So, while this is close to my argument in many ways, it is NOT my argument. I say that knowledge implies necessity at that point. So, if an event is known 'outside of time', then it *is* necessary.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, I find modal logic to be problematic in many ways, including the difficulties with 'possible world' ontology. In general, the distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' events gives me hives.

Are you saying that you do not see the modal fallacy?
..or that you disagree with modal logic .. or what?

So, there are two options: either there is only one possible world (and so one future at each point) and ALL events are necessary.

OR

..forget the OR .. let's just stick to simplicity.
ALL events are necessary, but not one particular choice.
There is a subtle difference.

So, while this is close to my argument in many ways, it is NOT my argument.

I do not see where your argument differs.
You say that ALL events are necessary, as if that infers we have no choice..
..which is a modal fallacy.

I say that knowledge implies necessity at that point. So, if an event is known 'outside of time', then it *is* necessary.

..and now you are just "passing the buck"..
Known by what? Known by who?
It does not alter the issue in the slightest.

The mechanism of how knowledge is known is irrelevant to the issue..
..unless it is known for a fact that it determined the choice.
..as I say .. Did the chicken come first or the egg?

Which one CAUSED the other?
You claim that "the knowledge" determined the choice,
whereas I claim that it is not necessarily true.

Your perception relies on the fact that "it is known in advance" of the choice.
That is dependent on the passage of time, so not applicable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

ALL events are necessary, but not one particular choice.

That's self-contradictory.

Did the chicken come first or the egg?

The egg. Eggs existed before birds. If you mean did the first chicken or first chicken egg come first, it would be the egg again, which hatched the first chicken, assuming that you can define a chicken genetically and distinguish between chickens and non-chickens in order to identify that first chicken, whose parent didn't meet the criterion for being a chicken if its offspring was the first chicken.

Your perception relies on the fact that "it is known in advance" of the choice.

That's what omniscience means.

That is dependent on the passage of time, so not applicable.

Everything that exists or happens occurs in time. Existing outside of time doesn't become possible simply because believers need it to be and so claim it is possible. It's no more possible than a married bachelor, and for the same reason - internal inconsistency, self-contradiction, incoherence, mutually exclusive qualities - they all refer to the same thing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's self-contradictory.

No .. it is not.
If you claim that a person has "no choice" because the future is determined, it is incorrect.
It is a modal fallacy.

It's no more possible than a married bachelor..

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility,
whereas an agent that is responsible for creating the perception of time is not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you claim that a person has "no choice" because the future is determined, it is incorrect.

Not because you say so. Your reply consisted of an expression of dissent ("No .. it is not") and a comment that doesn't rebut the claim that verbs referring to actual objects and processes imply the passage of time ("It's a modal fallacy"). I don't see a falsification there, just dissent.

Thinking means thinking in time. Acting means acting in time. Existence means existence in time. All include passing through a string of consecutive instants. Let's compare something that exists, say a wolf, with something that doesn't exist, like a werewolf. What's the difference between these two? Things that exist do so in time and space and interact with other things that exist in time and space. There is a time and place where one can experience a wolf passing through a series of moments at a certain location, and have a physical interaction with it. If you tell me that werewolves exist out of time, you're telling me that they don't exist.

Whenever anybody tells me that they are referring to something that can't be found anywhere, I understand that they are referring to their imaginations. That is the definition of the nonexistent - can't be experienced anywhere at any time. That's true about werewolves, but also about vampires, leprechauns, brownies, elves, pixies, sprites, fairies, nymphs, satyrs, fawns, changelings, ghosts, goblins, spirits, giants, doppelgangers, demons, devils, angels, gods, djinns, succubi, incubi, zombies, mummies, banshees, gnomes, trolls, imps, gargoyles, dragons, mermaids, unicorns, sea serpents, furies, harpies, fates, muses, minotaurs, medusae, gremlins, warlocks, sirens, angels, phantasms, poltergeists, specters, zombies, djinns, spooks, demons, wraiths, revenants, phantoms, ghouls, apparitions, and eidolons.

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility,

Yes, it is, which is why I introduced the subject. Anything described in self-contradictory and mutually exclusive terms such as extratemporal existence is a logical impossibility.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Anything described in self-contradictory and mutually exclusive terms such as extratemporal existence is a logical impossibility.

That's it .. you believe that time is "King" .. time is a fundamental part of reality.
..and so you disbelieve that time could be in control of another .. such as God.

That is not a logical impossibilty .. it's an impossibilty BASED ON YOUR WORLD VIEW.
There is a difference.

A miracle, for example, is not a logical impossibility, but one that defies physical laws.
If you do not understand the difference, then I can't help you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you believe that time is "King" .. time is a fundamental part of reality.

Yes. I defined real and unreal for you. Real things exist in time and space and interact with other real things. Unreal things do not. It's incoherent to claim that something that actually exists could have only one or two of those qualities, or that something that doesn't exist could have even one. It's all or none - something exists in time, in space, and interacts, or none of those apply, and it doesn't exist.

Why don't you have gremlins and incubi with your deity? Let's make it a party. The also "exist" outside of time.

so you disbelieve that time could be in control of another .. such as God.

I didn't say that. I said that existence outside of time was oxymoronic.

A miracle, for example, is not a logical impossibility, but one that defies physical laws.
If you do not understand the difference, then I can't help you.

I don't think you can help me anyway after reading that comment. You want to grandfather internally contradictory in on the basis of an unrelated claim not containing an internal contradiction, one that I don't recall anybody making.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think you can help me anyway after reading that comment..

OK .. bye then.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Anything described in self-contradictory and mutually exclusive terms such as extratemporal existence is a logical impossibility.

In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if it is not possibly false (i.e. true and necessarily true);
• contingent if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true);
• impossible if it is not possibly true (i.e. false and necessarily false).

Are you OK with that?

 

[Polymath257]

In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if it is not possibly false (i.e. true and necessarily true);
• contingent if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true);
• impossible if it is not possibly true (i.e. false and necessarily false).

Are you OK with that?

Quite briefly, no.

Yes, I am familiar with what classical modal logic talks about. I just think it is incoherent. It neglects to address in what sense a proposition is possibly true or false and what it means to be necessarily true or false. In fact, the whole necessary/contingent dichotomy seems to me to be deeply misguided.

So, in *modern* modal logic, a proposition is

• possibly true if it is true in some possible world​
• necessarily true if it is true in all possible worlds​
• possibly false if it is false in some possible world​
• necessarily false if it is false in all possible world​

Further, a possible world is any consistent set of propositions.

The obvious problem is that this assumes that every possible world actually exists in some relevant sense. And I find that to be incredibly unlikely. There are also deep problems in how the 'possible' and 'necessary' operators work. Having a possible worl be any consistent set of propositions allows for many systems that *nobody* would consider to actually be possible (ex: is it possible that water is not H2O?).

So, yes, I have deep problems with modal logic, especially the classical versions of it. The modern versions are more coherent, but ultimately deeply problematic. For this reason, I don't consider 'logic' to go beyond propositional and quantifier calculus.

​

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that you do not see the modal fallacy?
..or that you disagree with modal logic .. or what?

I have deep reservations about modal logic, especially its classical version.

For one thing, as opposed to propositional and quantifier logic, there are many different sets of modal axioms to choose from an no agreement about any of them:

Modal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Hence, there is not such a thing as 'modal logic', but rather there are many different 'modal logics'. That alone makes me very skeptical of what *any* of them conclude.

Now, if you want to set up a modal logic that is applicable to our discussion, please describe the possible worlds, the accessibility relation, and the relevant semantics and we can see if your position goes through.

 

[Polymath257]

That's it .. you believe that time is "King" .. time is a fundamental part of reality.
..and so you disbelieve that time could be in control of another .. such as God.

Control is a strange thing in this discussion. Time doesn't 'control' anything, but all things that exist are in space and time.

That is not a logical impossibilty .. it's an impossibilty BASED ON YOUR WORLD VIEW.
There is a difference.

Is it? What alternative world view do you propose? How can we test which is the better world view?

A miracle, for example, is not a logical impossibility, but one that defies physical laws.
If you do not understand the difference, then I can't help you.

Yes, it actually *is* impossible because it is impossible to violate the *actual* laws of physics (as opposed to our approximations of those laws).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now, if you want to set up a modal logic that is applicable to our discussion, please describe the possible worlds, the accessibility relation, and the relevant semantics and we can see if your position goes through.

I don't.
The compatibilist argument is a simple case .. you are only trying to confuse the issue, imo.

As far as I'm concerned, a determined future is compatible with free-will,
AS LONG AS IT IS OUR CHOICES that determine it.

..so as I say .. it is not an automatic case of free-will being LOGICALLY impossible in a determined future.
You may argue that it is not possible to know what choice a person will make until they make it..
That is another argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..all things that exist are in space and time.

How do you know this?
Isn't that only an assumption?

What if space and time are an illusion created by a higher intelligence?
They would seem very real to us, but that does not NECESSARILY mean that it is all that exists.

Yes, it actually *is* impossible because it is impossible to violate the *actual* laws of physics (as opposed to our approximations of those laws).

..and your point is?
I said that it was not a LOGICAL impossibility .. as in a logical fallacy.
..as is a married bachelor or a square circle.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know this?
Isn't that only an assumption?

No, it is the definition of the term 'there exists'.

What if space and time are an illusion created by a higher intelligence?
They would seem very real to us, but that does not NECESSARILY mean that it is all that exists.

And how would you determine the existence? By interacting with it *in space and time*.

..and your point is?
I said that it was not a LOGICAL impossibility .. as in a logical fallacy.
..as is a married bachelor or a square circle.

A circular square is NOT a logical impossibility. So maybe you need to learn a bit about logic?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it is the definition of the term 'there exists'.

This statement is more about your world view than anything else.
We know the universe exists .. and your idea of the term "exists" excludes any other possible universe.

And how would you determine the existence? By interacting with it *in space and time*.

See above..

A circular square is NOT a logical impossibility.

..tell us more..
What about a married bachelor? Is that also not a logical impossibility?

"Something is logically impossible if it is contradictory, or against the laws of logic. Thus a round square is a logical impossibility, and it is logically impossible to be a tall man without being tall."

 

[Polymath257]

This statement is more about your world view than anything else.
We know the universe exists .. and your idea of the term "exists" excludes any other possible universe.

No, it does not. But they do have to be detectable through observation.

See above..


..tell us more..
What about a married bachelor? Is that also not a logical impossibility?

"Something is logically impossible if it is contradictory, or against the laws of logic. Thus a round square is a logical impossibility, and it is logically impossible to be a tall man without being tall."

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility since a bachelor is *defined* to be a man who is not married.

A square circle is not. Here, a circle is defined as the set of points some fixed distance from a given point, called the center. In particular, you need a concept of 'distance' and a center point.

Next, you need to define what it means to be a square. So, a square is a figure with four equal sides and equal angles between them. Among other things, that requires being able to measure angles and lengths of line segments.

The problem is that distance isn't a logical notion. It is a very complex notion based on many definitions and assumptions. So, for that matter, is the notion of a square. You also used to notion of 'round' which is actually a very complex thing to define. And then you assumed that all circles are round. And that does not follow.

For example, suppose you are in the xy plane. The distance between two points is defined to be the sum of the distances along the x axis and that along the y axis between the points. This is often called the taxi-cab metric. And, with this notion of distance, the circles are, indeed, squares.

For your education:

Taxicab geometry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for being tall without being tall, that is ALSO not a contradiction since 'tall' is a relative notion, not an absolute one. I can be tall when compared to one person and not tall when compared to another.

 

[Polymath257]

..tell us more..
What about a married bachelor? Is that also not a logical impossibility?

I actually re-thought this one as well. Yes, it is possible to be a married bachelor. Consider a gay man who is married in one jurisdiction but moves to another jurisdiction where gay marriage isn't recognized. This man is both married and non-married at the same time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it does not. But they do have to be detectable through observation.

I completely disagree with you.

You are confusing what we KNOW to exist, with what MIGHT exist, but is not observable..

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility since a bachelor is *defined* to be a man who is not married.

We can agree on that then.

A square circle is not. Here, a circle is defined as the set of points some fixed distance from a given point, called the center. In particular, you need a concept of 'distance' and a center point.

Next, you need to define what it means to be a square. So, a square is a figure with four equal sides and equal angles between them. Among other things, that requires being able to measure angles and lengths of line segments.

The problem is that distance isn't a logical notion. It is a very complex notion based on many definitions and assumptions.

..as I thought .. you are taking the definitions beyond the limits of common language.
..and we are straying from the topic of the OP.

It seems, that you derive your opinion of incompatibility from believing that "all things that exist are in space and time.",
and refuse to accept any other possibility.
I do not.

 

[Polymath257]

I completely disagree with you.

You are confusing what we KNOW to exist, with what MIGHT exist, but is not observable..

If something is unobservable, even in theory, then it does not exist.

Think of it like this: how can we show something does not exist? The *only* way is to try to observe it in a situation where it should be observable and fail to detect it.

We can agree on that then.

See my next post.

..as I thought .. you are taking the definitions beyond the limits of common language.
..and we are straying from the topic of the OP.

Yes, it is away from common knowledge because it looks at the assumptions underlying common knowledge and shows they are not *logically required*. Taxicab geometry is a legitimate way to talk about distances and thereby square circles.

It seems, that you derive your opinion of incompatibility from believing that "all things that exist are in space and time.",
and refuse to accept any other possibility.
I do not.

Well, I allow for the *limited* notions of existence in formal systems like mathematics. But that is more an aspect of language as opposed to actually claiming that, say, the number 2 actually exists (which I do not).

So, what is *your* definition of the term 'exists'?