what happens is all predestined or scientifically determined. — christian2017

The (ToE) Theory of Everything cannot calculate what we will be doing, because we have free will. The idea is rather that God can skip ahead and see what we have done:

According to this belief, a person's action is not caused by what is written in the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfooz), but rather the action is written in the tablet because God already knows all occurrences without the restrictions of time.

The idea that the ToE would be able to pre-calculate what we will be doing, is a serious problem, because in that case, there would be no true but unprovable facts (=unprovable from the ToE) in this universe, which would then be the only model of the ToE. The ToE needs to be incomplete for it to have multiple models (=universes), such as heaven and hell. Fortunately, our free will automatically implies incompleteness of the ToE. In that sense, we may even look at ourselves as the special ingredient that was needed to complete this universe.

A Baby has free will but its actions are completely predictable. — christian2017

Well, its actions still need to be fundamentally unpredictable, but it would be possible to know what it will do, by peeking ahead. If you can move forward/backward in time without restriction, you will also perfectly know what happened, or what will happen, while all of that is still fundamentally unpredictable.

Modern science is clearly just a Platonic-cave shadow of the real ToE. Still, the real ToE may actually not be that much better either. The most accurate ToE will still be surprisingly lousy at predicting the future. The Preserved Tablet is deemed to be fully accurate by means of looking ahead (=by using a cheat sheet).

Stephen Hawking said something similar in his lecture, Gödel and the end of physics:

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.

its possible.

A Baby has free will but its actions are completely predictable. — christian2017

This is one of the oddest things about humans.


The entire structure of human civilization is based on predictability. For instance basic needs and the desire for them is universal save a few odd outliers who prefer the wilderness.

Yet, morality, therefore the law, is premised on free will. It's even stranger when we consider how "effective" the law is given that it depends on the predictability of our proclivities.

Perhaps morality grounds itself on the possibility or fact of our capacity to resist our inclinations or may be not since the law, the moral guardian, functions "only" to rearrange our priorities from, say, a quick buck to avoiding 30 years in the slammer.

It simply doesn't matter to you or anyone else, because humans are part of the universe.

You see, when the human race has a finite time in the universe (likely when the sun burns the Earth and kills everything living here, or even earlier), it could be argued that there surely would be that finite blueprint/calculation that states correctly what everyone does ever (in this part of the multiverse, anyway).

Yet it doesn't matter as the blueprint/calculation cannot interact with you. From that blueprint/calculation one cannot make a forecast that says that "this is what christian2017 will write here in PF next". That to be true, then you would have to write exactly what the forecast from the blueprint/calculation says. Yet a forecast, a written text, simply cannot control you.

Or to look at this limitation another way: you can write whatever you want, but you never can write something that you don't write.

Just think about it. Do you feel that you are now confined or not by the above statement?

2. they played out and calculated (ran scenarios) what we would all do down to the last detail, i would argue that this was when we had free will. We are completely predictable at this point but we also had free will.

3. The gods let the events play out in real time and at this point what happens is all predestined or scientifically determined.

4. Any slight modification at any given point are also calculated. — christian2017

Wait, are you saying that they have figured, for example,our probability of choosing X in situtation A or that they have figured out that, given certain conditions, we will choose X? The latter does not require letting the events play out (and the main problem becomes incompabilitism's critisms) as you can know what will happen if you know all the variables (and determinism is true). Or do we somehow always choose to do what the events point out to? But the former does not mean that we are "scientifically determined" to do a thing, so it does not seem to be what you're saying.

Can you clarify yourself?

i would argue that this was when we had free will. — christian2017

You're saying that somehow you had free will prior to your existence?

yeah, i'm hoping our predictability is taken into account by my christian god. Just as Paul had his doubts about his faith, so do many of us.

i see the universe as a really big pool table or billiards table. I believe our dna plays a part in our actions and also our environment plays a part in our actions (nurture versus nature)

Scientific determinism is a concept that arose in the early 1800s partly due to Newton's work.

As i stated to someone else i see the universe as giant billiards table and our dna as well as our environment completely decide what we will do. I might have inferior dna and a good environment and someone else might have superior dna and a bad environment.

its hard to call something that is completely predictable to have free will. I do understand that.

I don't however at this point in my life believe that anything whatsoever is strictly random. I do believe that things are pseudo random just as a computer can produce statistically based pseudo random numbers. Ofcourse their results are unknown but that doesn't make it random in the purest sense.

yeah, i'm hoping our predictability is taken into account by my christian god. Just as Paul had his doubts about his faith, so do many of us. — christian2017

I thought it was doubting Thomas who refused to believe in the resurrection. I really find the painting depicting him/Paul??? poking his finger into Christ's wounds to confirm the resurrection awesomely inspiring. The quintessential skeptic.

Scientific determinism is a concept that arose in the early 1800s partly due to Newton's work.

As i stated to someone else i see the universe as giant billiards table and our dna as well as our environment completely decide what we will do. I might have inferior dna and a good environment and someone else might have superior dna and a bad environment. — christian2017

Okay. So, how does that allow for free will? In that case, we are reducible to events or states in a casual history of events and we have no bearing on what decision we will make. Our decisions were decided by something other than us. (our DNA and our environment). This, i think, does not allow for free will in the "basic desert" sense (i.e. us being blame or praiseworthy for our actions). A baby lacks free will in that sense too.

Paul said that if the christian is wrong about his/her beliefs that they are the lowest of all people. I don't believe a christian has to 100% sure of everything they believe. I believe absolutely everything in existence is calculated risk.

Basically our free will has no more depth than a new born infant. I'm not sure i could say otherwise.

Yes, it points to that in some sense. The baby does not have free will, and there is nothing in us that would allow us to have free will either.
Now, how does an infant have free will?

it can move its arms, make noises but its decisions to change the world are extremely limited. It does have free will its just its ability make an impact on what happens in the world is extremely limited. In my opinion it does have free will in some sense.

it can move its arms, make noises — christian2017

Yes, but it moving it arms or it making noises is essentially a byproduct of primitive responses. It is like saying we choose to react to cute things in a particular way-we do not.
Also, whetever an agent change the world or not does not necessarily entail that the agent has free will or not. You can not be able to do otherwise and still have free will (from a compabitilist perspective, that is, in the basic desert sense)-whetever we have free will in regards to one action or not depends on how the decision was brought about. If, for example, you were told that you had to vote for one way in an election or you would be killed and you did it because you were going to vote for it anyways, you still "freely" choose the action-you deserve blame or praise for it (if, for example, you choose a tyrant, you deserve blame for it, if you choose someone against a tyrant, you deserve praise).

How is a new born baby's movement primitive or should i say what do you mean by that? I'm sure you would agree the new born baby feels pain as well as positive feelings?

Yes, but it moving it arms or it making noises is essentially a byproduct of primitive responses. It is like saying we choose to react to cute things in a particular way-we do not.
Also, whetever an agent change the world or not does not necessarily entail that the agent has free will or not. You can not be able to do otherwise and still have free will (from a compabitilist perspective, that is, in the basic desert sense)-whetever we have free will in regards to one action or not depends on how the decision was brought about. If, for example, you were told that you had to vote for one way in an election or you would be killed and you did it because you were going to vote for it anyways, you still "freely" choose the action-you deserve blame or praise for it (if, for example, you choose a tyrant, you deserve blame for it, if you choose someone against a tyrant, you deserve praise). — HereToDisscuss

Yeah as to the rest of what you said, that is for the most part true. I guess the point i'm making is that the human brain is like a billiards table of particles and those particles are effected by events that occurred billions of years ago.

How is a new born baby's movement primitive or should i say what do you mean by that? I'm sure you would agree the new born baby feels pain as well as positive feelings? — christian2017

Yes, it does. Howewer, it is primitive in the sense that it behaves exactly like animal counterparts.

Yeah as to the rest of what you said, that is for the most part true. I guess the point i'm making is that the human brain is like a billiards table of particles and those particles are effected by events that occurred billions of years ago. — christian2017

Then, surely, the production of our decisions is not in our control since whetever we will decide one thing or not has been decided not by us, but rather by factors outside our control. The agent has no control over the production of a decision. To quote Derk Pereboom:
"If an agent is morally responsible for her deciding to perform an action, then the production of this decision must be something over which the agent has control, and an agent is not morally responsible for the decision if it is produced by a source over which she has no control." (the incompabitilist initution)
If such a thing is true, then all of our decisions are produced by a source which we have no control over.

Then, surely, the production of our decisions is not in our control since whetever we will decide one thing or not has been decided not by us, but rather by factors outside our control. The agent has no control over the production of a decision. To quote Derk Pereboom:
"If an agent is morally responsible for her deciding to perform an action, then the production of this decision must be something over which the agent has control, and an agent is not morally responsible for the decision if it is produced by a source over which she has no control." (the incompabitilist initution)
If such a thing is true, then all of our decisions are produced by a source which we have no control over. — HereToDisscuss

i understand completely why you would say that.

On the first part of your post, i would argue both new born babys and even bacteria as well as animals can make decisions. Those decisions however have little to no impact on the world.

i understand completely why you would say that.

On the first part of your post, i would argue both new born babys and even bacteria as well as animals can make decisions. Those decisions however have little to no impact on the world. — christian2017

Well, but they are not morally responsible for their decisions, are they?

i guess you could say the creator creates a blue print (dna) and puts it under stress conditions to test the result. The actions we take our a product of nurture/nature or dna and lifetime events. I open to that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not held accountable i would be fine with that.

i would argue to be completely predictable does not mean something does not have a will of its own but maybe i'm not thinking about it the right way.

i see the universe as a really big pool table or billiards table. — christian2017

Especially then you sould understand how determinism has limits once everything is a billiard ball on the table and they (the billiard balls) interact with each other. An outside observer can use the determinism and the laws of the universe and knowledge about the balls to extrapolate what is going to happen, but an actor inside (or on this case, a billiard ball on the table) cannot extrapolate the correct outcome in every situation.

It is simply logic.

If you disagree with the above, then just try to do the following: write an answer that you will never write.

It is exactly this problem that creates a lot of confusion.

i guess you could say the creator creates a blue print (dna) and puts it under stress conditions to test the result. The actions we take our a product of nurture/nature or dna and lifetime events. — christian2017

Is there any need? You would do that only if you did not know the result. Howewer, God would know the result beforehand given that he knows all true propositions and "Agent A, under these conditions, will choose B." is definitely true or definitely false in a deterministic universe.

I open to that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not held accountable i would be fine with that. — christian2017

Well, then the problem is that you do not really argue against people who think that scientific determinism or god or them taken together existing/being true means that we do not have free will but simply say that your spesific concept of free will is different. That does not really even have anything to do with God as your spesific concept of free will does exist irregardless of whetever the world is deterministic or indeterministic or agent-casual libertarianism is true.

i would argue to be completely predictable does not mean something does not have a will of its own but maybe i'm not thinking about it the right way. — christian2017

Well, i would argue that it can't if that is the case, but there are compabitilists that would argue against it. Howewer, the problem is not merely that determinism is incompabitable with free will, but rather that, in your view, god determines the outcome by creating the set of affairs P that causes agent A to decide B over C and therefore "manipulates" the agent into choosing decisions. The agent has no choice over the matter, only God does.

why would you think i disagree with that? Did i ever claim i can predict the future? I can promise you i'm nothing like my supposed creator. At this point in time i see no problem with what you said.

You asked for questions and comments.

Not every response has to oppose what you said (even if it is starting to be more like that on the forum). :wink:

I do agree when you state "We are completely predictable at this point but we also had free will." Free will and determinism actually don't counter each other: they can actually coexist. Just tried to point out why it would be so.

Is there any need? You would do that only if you did not know the result. Howewer, God would know the result beforehand given that he knows all true propositions and "Agent A, under these conditions, will choose B." is definitely true or definitely false in a deterministic universe. — HereToDisscuss

boredom is my first guess. The common theological notion put forth is for the creator's glory.

Well, then the problem is that you do not really argue against people who think that scientific determinism or god or them taken together existing/being true means that we do not have free will but simply say that your spesific concept of free will is different. That does not really even have anything to do with God as your spesific concept of free will does exist irregardless of whetever the world is deterministic or indeterministic or agent-casual libertarianism is true. — HereToDisscuss

i think the Bible allows for the christian to have doubts about her faith. I believe it is expedient to be ever so slightly open to the possibility of any given concept to be true. My notion of scientific determinism could definitely be completely wrong. Some theologians would agree with me but that doesn't neccessarily have much merit.

Well, i would argue that it can't if that is the case, but there are compabitilists that would argue against it. Howewer, the problem is not merely that determinism is incompabitable with free will, but rather that, in your view, god determines the outcome by creating the set of affairs P that causes agent A to decide B over C and therefore "manipulates" the agent into choosing decisions. The agent has no choice over the matter, only God does. — HereToDisscuss

I believe the creator creates the dna or blue prints to be sub optimal, calculates the end starting from the beginning, but hopes before doing the calculation that the results will be somewhat decent. I believe the creator likes to test his/her creation just as a engineer tests her system or machine. Millions of sub optimal part interacting with millions of other sub optimal parts typically produces terrible results. But thats not exactly my problem.

thats fair