The Unchangeable Nature of the Future

[sofyst]

Hello all, I am new to this board; therefore you must be kind to me!

The question is dealing more so with determinism and free-will. While I understand it is a question that usually finds its home within Christian debate, it is nonetheless a question that can step out into the realms of secular thought, as it has quite often.

I do not know anyone here, save perhaps one, therefore I do not now the philosophies of most here. Therefore let me just shed light on my views.

I am a Christian, a reformed Southern Baptist (go ahead think of all the evil connotations involved with all of these labels...). I am a determinist, yet a soft-determinist as the label has been drawn. Given the idea that I believe God to be simple and perfect, knowing all that is to be known, I would likewise say that the future is as the future will be...therefore fixed and unchangeable.

I was just interested in a topic being started dealing with arguments for or against the nature of the future. Moreso interested in those who do not believe in the issue of free-will, strictly from an atheistic (or non-Christian) viewpoint.

Any takers?

[mrmufin]

Welcome to the Debating Christianity & Religion forums, sofyst!

Hello all, I am new to this board; therefore you must be kind to me!

Ha! Which kind?

I am a Christian, a reformed Southern Baptist (go ahead think of all the evil connotations involved with all of these labels...).

I am, for all practical purposes, an atheist (go ahead, think of all the evil connotations)...

I am a determinist, yet a soft-determinist as the label has been drawn. Given the idea that I believe God to be simple and perfect, knowing all that is to be known, I would likewise say that the future is as the future will be...therefore fixed and unchangeable.

Yeah, I'm sort of a soft determinist myself, though a sorta predictablist might be a more accurate description. Some things can be predicted rather well, such as Halley's Comet, the orbit of Jupiter, and sunrise time tomorrow. Yet some things, like turbulence, beta decay, and tomorrow's winning lottery numbers appear to be rather unpredictable.

I was just interested in a topic being started dealing with arguments for or against the nature of the future. Moreso interested in those who do not believe in the issue of free-will, strictly from an atheistic (or non-Christian) viewpoint.

Well, I'm an atheist, but I haven't a clue as to what the proper atheistic viewpoint might be on the issue of free will. I must have misplaced my copy of the Atheist Handbook...

As I stated above, some things are predictable (at least within a probability spectrum), other things appear to be random. So what does that tell us about free will and/or determinism? Does uncertainty preclude or limit determinism? Though predictability does not confirm determinism, uncertainty may rule it out.

How would we ever know for sure if an event is random or predetermined? Information that may be known about a particular outcome, but is unavailable, is, for all practical purposes, useless. If the gods know tomorrow's winning lottery numbers but do not communicate that information to anyone, it's as good as the numbers being unknown. That the winning numbers are not known (by the players) does not mean that nobody will win, of course...

As to the will part of free will, I certainly appear to have the capacity to decide many of my actions, and that's good enough for me. For example, I have not yet decided whether I'll have pork chops or chili for dinner; both choices are available and the decision appears to be mine. How could I tell if my meal choice was free-willed or pre-willed, anyway? If free will is just illusion, then maybe the illusion is sufficiently convincing. Frugality leads me toward something like: we appear to have (at least some) free will, therefore we probably do have (at least some) free will. If free will is an illusion, then we do not have the means to discern illusion from reality.

Regards,
mrmufin

[sofyst]

Thank you for your kindness, it is well received.

I would like to discuss just one aspect of your reply. Although all of it is very helpful and should be brought up at a later time. I would just like to say that the majority opinion of most Christians is that the Atheist handbook is none other than Darwin's Orgin of the Species. Therefore if it is an Atheist handbook you are looking for, look to Darwin .

Does uncertainty preclude or limit determinism? Though predictability does not confirm determinism, uncertainty may rule it out.

I want to address this question. I would say that uncertainty does not limit determinism.

Let us define determinism for the pupose of common understanding. When I say determinism I mean that the future is as the future will be. I believe the 'time-line' not to be a diverging branch of possibilities existing as potential until the present should touch them transforming one possibility into actuality therefore turning the line into another direction with another complete set of branching possibilities. Rather I believe the 'time-line' to be a straight line consisting of all the actual events that have, are and will take place. The possibilities that are potential remain potential and are not there with the potential of becoming actual.

I believe free-will to be existent only in the sense that the human will is free from control from outside influences, being controlled only by itself, self-determination if you will. I believe a better term is free moral agency. Yet that is of course when we are dealing with issues of morality. Free agency for all general practical purposes. I do not believe that when I come to a decision I have two equal opportunities with the abilities to do either of the options so set before me. I believe that I have just one ability, to do just one thing, and that thing is that which was determined for me to do.

Back to the discussion. I do not believe uncertainty limits determinism because the issue of who is uncertain must be taken into account. If I am uncertain about what tomorrow may bring, or the winning number of tomorrow's lottery, it is just an ignorance within me. My knowledge of past, present or future events in no way influences those events. Just as if I were to have uncertainty about whether or not Abraham Lincoln was really shot this would in no way influence the fact that Abraham was shot by Boothe and there is nothing anyone anywhere anytime can now do about it.

I would also like to comment on your idea of useless knowledge. That is knowledge possessed by the gods. I would say God, or the fates, but that is a trifle matter for our practical discussion. If God knew tomorrow's lottery numbers, and yet did not share it with anyone it would be a useless fact known by God used uselessly (if that makes sense). However doesn't that make it even more pantamount when that knowledge is actually shared with those in whom it can affect. In, oh I dunno, perhaps a written means of communication...

[mrmufin]

Thank you for your kindness, it is well received.

You're quite welcome.

I would just like to say that the majority opinion of most Christians is that the Atheist handbook is none other than Darwin's Orgin of the Species. Therefore if it is an Atheist handbook you are looking for, look to Darwin .

There are quite a few Christians who disagree with you regarding The Origin of Species.

As a matter of fact, we don't have a copy of Origin here at the mufin residence. We do have assorted Roald Dahl titles, some Dr. Seuss, and loads of books about mathematics, physics, and computer programming. Heck, we even have a book of Raymond Carver stories somewhere.

(Mrmufin scratches his head and wonders if he's being a bad atheist by not keeping a Darwin book handy at all times... He also wonders what atheists read prior to 1859... C.F. Volney? Thomas Paine? Epicurus? Hmmm...)

Does uncertainty preclude or limit determinism? Though predictability does not confirm determinism, uncertainty may rule it out.

I want to address this question. I would say that uncertainty does not limit determinism.

Some folks might disagree with you. Physicists, for example, have this theory known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which kinda rules out strict determinism.

Let us define determinism for the pupose of common understanding. When I say determinism I mean that the future is as the future will be.

I'm not sure if it could be any other way, or how we could tell the difference between what the future might be and what it should be. What will be pretty much sums up what the future is.

I believe the 'time-line' not to be a diverging branch of possibilities existing as potential until the present should touch them transforming one possibility into actuality therefore turning the line into another direction with another complete set of branching possibilities. Rather I believe the 'time-line' to be a straight line consisting of all the actual events that have, are and will take place.

Nah. Actually, I'm partial to this type of world line. Based on our coordinates in four dimensional spacetime, certain outcomes are possible, some impossible, and time isn't quite as straight and constant. To a sufficiently distant observer, Abe Lincoln hasn't been born yet. Think about it...

The possibilities that are potential remain potential and are not there with the potential of becoming actual.

I'm not sure which part of that sentence, if any, makes sense.

I do not believe that when I come to a decision I have two equal opportunities with the abilities to do either of the options so set before me. I believe that I have just one ability, to do just one thing, and that thing is that which was determined for me to do.

And it doesn't even feel like you're deciding? See, that's what makes me think I really truly have got some free will: it certainly feels to me like I am the one actually making a decision. That just seems like less mental gymnastics for me: the choice appears to be mine because it is mine. Is that unreasonable?

Back to the discussion. I do not believe uncertainty limits determinism because the issue of who is uncertain must be taken into account. If I am uncertain about what tomorrow may bring, or the winning number of tomorrow's lottery, it is just an ignorance within me.

It's not an ignorance at all; the winning numbers are not common knowledge. If the winning numbers could be known (by a player), it wouldn't be a lottery anymore, would it? If the neighbor's dog could successfully pick the lottery numbers it would be just as useless without the means to communicate the information.

I would also like to comment on your idea of useless knowledge. That is knowledge possessed by the gods. I would say God, or the fates, but that is a trifle matter for our practical discussion. If God knew tomorrow's lottery numbers, and yet did not share it with anyone it would be a useless fact known by God used uselessly (if that makes sense). However doesn't that make it even more pantamount when that knowledge is actually shared with those in whom it can affect. In, oh I dunno, perhaps a written means of communication...

Perhaps we need a globally simulcast TV appearance in which all the gods can make predicitons about tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Maybe we could settle this thing once and for all, huh? May the best god prevail!

Regards,
mrmufin

[sofyst]

There are quite a few Christians who disagree with you regarding The Origin of Species.

Oh no, I never said I was one of the ones who believed as such. Actually I would probably be more inclined to agree with Darwin's theory than most Christians.

Some folks might disagree with you. Physicists, for example, have this theory known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which kinda rules out strict determinism.

I must read this principle, give me time.

I'm not sure if it could be any other way, or how we could tell the difference between what the future might be and what it should be. What will be pretty much sums up what the future is.

I'm glad we agree.

Nah. Actually, I'm partial to this type of world line. Based on our coordinates in four dimensional spacetime, certain outcomes are possible, some impossible, and time isn't quite as straight and constant. To a sufficiently distant observer, Abe Lincoln hasn't been born yet. Think about it...

I have not read this theory...just printed it out, will research it more. Although I would say from just an ignorant viewpoint. Thinking of God and His eternity, which I would think would coincide with the 'distant observer', it is not that Abraham Lincoln has not yet been born, but to God/'the distant observer' he is being born, living and dying simultaneously (to use temporal words).

I'm not sure which part of that sentence, if any, makes sense.

In my theory when one comes to a 'fork in the road' the only option that is truly an option (which still reeks of equal ability because having options or an option normally signify having more than one) the only possibility that can actually be taken is that which is determined, that which is the future. Therefore the others which appeared to be options were not actual, and never would have been actual. I guess I should have said not said potential. Sorry, I know what I meant I just did not express it adaquetly.

And it doesn't even feel like you're deciding? See, that's what makes me think I really truly have got some free will: it certainly feels to me like I am the one actually making a decision. That just seems like less mental gymnastics for me: the choice appears to be mine because it is mine. Is that unreasonable?

I think that it is not unreasonable in the sense that it is not completely illogical, certainly it does 'appear' to make sense. However I would say that it does appear that the stars are but tiny specks upon a black canvas, when in actuallity they are millions times bigger than us. Does that make sense. We cannot always judge what is off of what appears to be. Simply because it appears that you have just as much an ability to choose option A as you do option B, I do not think it wise to then formulate a doctrine based upon what appears to be.

Perhaps we need a globally simulcast TV appearance in which all the gods can make predicitons about tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Maybe we could settle this thing once and for all, huh? May the best god prevail!

I would probably vote for Athena, as I am most certain Yahweh would not play this man-made game...

[QED]

Given the idea that I believe God to be simple and perfect, knowing all that is to be known, I would likewise say that the future is as the future will be...therefore fixed and unchangeable.

Given this idea, then yes, unless he suffers from a form of infintie schizophrenia one would have to make conclusions along the lines you did.

Once again I see a conclusion that turns out to be untestable. Far beyond the determinism of the large-scale events we can all observe, if the result of every beta decay or collapse of every quantum wavefunction were indeed known by such a god - we'd never know it - unless god started telling us about such outcomes in advance. Then we'd have something we could test, but this is unlikely.

For me this type of conundrum reveals god to be no more than the inevitable result of certain untestable propositions.

The above sentence is not terse in order to be harsh or dismissive, but contains all the words needed to convey my own solution to the question of gods existence. Yes I know it might seem insensitive and has to be dismissed because surely such a simple explanation could not undermine such a collosal construct

Given that my observation here is dismissed without pause, my only further observation is that your god must be pretty bored already if he knows everything that comes next. Heck, he might as well take eternity off and hang out someplace else

[potwalloper.]

Quote:

Some folks might disagree with you. Physicists, for example, have this theory known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which kinda rules out strict determinism.

I must read this principle, give me time.

Hi Sofyst

This would probably be useful. Uncertainty appears to have removed any possibility not only of a deterministic universe with regard to the prediction of future events but also rules out the ability to know exactly what the state of the universe is at any moment in time at a quantum level.

To put it simply the more you know about the velocity of a sub-atomic particle the less you know about its location and vice versa. Heisenberg showed that the two are inextricably linked and that this is not simply down to the restrictions caused by human methods of measurement but is a fundamental reflection of the way the universe interacts at a micro level.

Whilst Uncertainty does appear to be linked to the arrow of time and as such may not apply when looking backwards rather than forwards in a temporal universe this does not allow for a reconciliation of the effects caused by a theoretical non-temporal God on the probabalistic nature of the quantum universe and as such any non-temporal explanation for God's knowledge is not valid in any real sense.

I feel that the implications of the Uncertainty Principle are wide-ranging with regard to the possibility of an omni god and do rule out omni in any sense that could be deemed logical. Perhaps omni needs to be re-examined by Christians and qualified to take this into account and allow for God's existence to be explained in a sense that does not contradict with physical effects as observed...

Regards


Pot

[sofyst]

Ok, I read the article concerning the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. While I think that I came to an understanding of what it said (or what I think it said ), I do not necessarily see how it rules out the kind of determinism that I am speaking of.

I do think that there is a miscommunication when we speak of determinism. I am saying we as you Atheist/Agnostics and I Christian. I have had a discussion with a guy concerning his idea of determinism. He was an Atheist. From what he conveyed I understood his idea of determinism to be that of every cause to have a necessary effect that will occur. And everything that is can be explained in reference to its cause. Likewise all that is, while being able to be defined in reference to its cause, can likewise define the effect that will naturally occur. Therefore all that is has a cause, and is a cause to all that will be; likewise all causes have an effect that will occur. Cause A will always result in effect X and so on...

Is this an adequate understanding of what determinism is? Everything is determined by its cause?

From this understanding (if it be correct) I then assume that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rules this out in proving that not all causes within experiments produce the like effects. Cause A does not always result in effect X, therefore ruling out the idea of determinism as I have presented it.

I guess the major misunderstanding comes when this term is used within the Christian realm to convey the philosophy of all being determined by God. It is not the proven fact that cause A will result in effect X that determines exactly what the future will hold, rather it is the idea that God's knowledge of future events so solidifies them that they cannot be other than what He knows (as He is perfect and cannot know what is false).

Therefore I would see it as fruitless, to an extent, to attempt to discussion 'determinism' from differing views of the word. While I could fully well embrace the Heisenber uncertainty principle and understand that not all causes will necessary result in the same effect (because of my belief in that which is supernatural; miracles), I could still maintain that the future is determined as God knows what will happen, and what He knows will happen will occur.

Am I being followed so far?

From your perspective unless you were willing to concede for a moment and discuss with the supposition that God does in fact know the future and therefore makes it 'determined', I do not see why our discussion would continue as we would both probably agree that if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is indeed true the future cannot be 'determined' (in the physical/Atheistic way of understanding determinism).

Basically, if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is true, 'determinism' (in the sense of causes always resulting in a specific effect) cannot be true. Likewise, if there be a God who is perfect, therefore unable to fault, and knows all (past, present and future) then 'determinism' (in the sense of what He knows will occur as He knows it) can be true.

[sofyst]

I would however like to discuss this statement:

For me this type of conundrum reveals god to be no more than the inevitable result of certain untestable propositions.

If I am understanding you correctly, I would have to disagree. If this idea of God's knowledge is indeed correct then it is not God who is the inevitable result of certain untestable propositions, rather it is the future that is the result of certain untestable propositions. God's knowledge is one of those certain untestable propostions that make the future an inevitable result.

If God knew 'the result of every beta decay or collapse of every quantum wavefunction' then this knowledge would be untestable unless God were to share it with us. And this untestable proposition would make the objects of God's knowledge (the beta decay results and the quantum wavefunction collapses) determined in the sense that the beta decay results will be just as God knew they would be, and the collapse of the quantum wavefunction would be just as He foreknew it would be.

Am I being followed?

Given that my observation here is dismissed without pause, my only further observation is that your god must be pretty bored already if he knows everything that comes next. Heck, he might as well take eternity off and hang out someplace else

But if you likewise understand Him to be so very simple, you would see that His knowledge is no different than His being. Therefore just as His knowledge cannot change, His being cannot change. And if there be no change within His being, there would be no flux to cause boredom! :)

[mrmufin]

Nah. Actually, I'm partial to this type of world line. Based on our coordinates in four dimensional spacetime, certain outcomes are possible, some impossible, and time isn't quite as straight and constant. To a sufficiently distant observer, Abe Lincoln hasn't been born yet. Think about it...

I have not read this theory...just printed it out, will research it more. Although I would say from just an ignorant viewpoint. Thinking of God and His eternity, which I would think would coincide with the 'distant observer', it is not that Abraham Lincoln has not yet been born, but to God/'the distant observer' he is being born, living and dying simultaneously (to use temporal words).

When we look at the sun, we don't see what the sun look likes now; but what it looked like a little over eight minutes ago. Likewise, an observer at the Sun would see Earth on an eight minute delay. This delay respects the 9.3 * 10^7 mile distance traversed at light speed (about 1.86 * 10^5 mi/sec). Within known distances and rates, time can be approximated: t = d / r.

An observer watching Earth from a distance of, say, 6 light years away might be following the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. An observer at a distance of 50 light years away might be watching original I Love Lucy broadcasts. To an observer at a distance of 200 light years away, Abraham Lincoln was not yet born.

In fact, the sufficiently distant observer in my examples is merely a hypothetical being with the intelligence and capability to observe Earth from very far away. These hypothetical beings are not among the gods, and even if they were, they would still be within the universe. Special relativity tells us that the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving reference frames. The cosmic speed limit appears to be the speed of light, so if the gods were just a few galaxies away, they would currently be receiving prayer requests from the Reagan era.

In my theory when one comes to a 'fork in the road' the only option that is truly an option (which still reeks of equal ability because having options or an option normally signify having more than one) the only possibility that can actually be taken is that which is determined, that which is the future. Therefore the others which appeared to be options were not actual, and never would have been actual. I guess I should have said not said potential. Sorry, I know what I meant I just did not express it adaquetly.

Do you know of any way to test your hypothesis?

I think that it is not unreasonable in the sense that it is not completely illogical, certainly it does 'appear' to make sense. However I would say that it does appear that the stars are but tiny specks upon a black canvas, when in actuallity they are millions times bigger than us. Does that make sense. We cannot always judge what is off of what appears to be. Simply because it appears that you have just as much an ability to choose option A as you do option B, I do not think it wise to then formulate a doctrine based upon what appears to be.

But we have the means to determine that the tiny specks of light on the night sky actually are. With tools like Hubble and Keck and Spirit and Huygens, we can get up close and personal with those tiny lights in the night sky and falsify the hypotheses about their assumed tininess. To the contrary, I have no evidence which suggests that my choices are anything other than my own.

Perhaps we need a globally simulcast TV appearance in which all the gods can make predicitons about tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Maybe we could settle this thing once and for all, huh? May the best god prevail!

I would probably vote for Athena, as I am most certain Yahweh would not play this man-made game...

But Yahweh would certainly have the capacity to pick the winning lottery numbers, eh? Or maybe he's still picking the winning numbers for 12 years ago...

Regards,
mrmufin