Free Will and Theism

Ah, but why should such universes be fatalistic? Fatalism is specifically when all of the history is “written out”, for lack of a less metaphorical expression. Whether it appears random or causal is not relevant. And what is a universe whose history a god completely “sees”, if not one whose history is completely available for its “seeing”?

Maybe it is indeed a matter of formulation. I was working under the assumption that God knowing hte specific thing that happens was a given. Sure, things could be globally different, all of history could be different and God’s knowledge would presumably match it in all such alternative scenarios. But given God knows that Peter will pick vanilla, Peter is not free to not pick vanilla. Given Peano arithmetics, five and seven are not free to not sum up to twelve.

@John_Harshman

This goes back to our agreement that indeterminancy does not entail freewill.

If we propose a future-knowing deity, does it make sense that He knows all the future EXCEPT for the movements of “random quanta”?

At this point, theologians with Calvinist tendencies can wrap up all Space/Time as a tidy box held by a god who is OUTSIDE of time.

God made this specially wrapped box with some purpose in mind - - a purpose that is not foiled by “humans who-think-they-have-freewill-but-dont.”

True. They could be entirely random, without causation but also without inevitability. But the point is that there is no reason to expect a fatalistic universe to simulate a causal one. If a hydrogen atom is at some location at time t, with some momentum, there is no reason that it should be fated to be nearby in a particular direction at time t + 1, or nearby at all, or even in existence, or even for hydrogen atoms to exist at all. Causality imparts structure to time, and we expect such structure. We have no reason to expect such structure from fate. Of course a strictly causal universe would enable completely accurate prediction of the future, and initial conditions would entirely determine what an omniscient being outside time would see. But that’s not, as I understand it, what “fate” means.

Sure he was. It just happened that he did pick vanilla, and God knows that. I think we have a disconnect between two views of time: our view as a moving present, visible past, and amorphous future vs. the divine view of spacetime perceived as a whole. Are they in fact contradictory? The first view must be correct and the second false if your idea of free will is to be conceivable (to the extent that free will is conceivable at all). God must not be omniscient and must be time-bound, presumably inhabiting the present along with everyone else. Would you agree? But I would claim that these are just two views of the same phenomenon, and even if there is only one realized universe, the existence of possible but unrealized universes leaves the door open to uncaused and random or free will events (again, to the extent that free will is coherent in any framework).

2 Likes

Does it? It isn’t clear what point (points?) you are trying to make.

Possibly irrelevant at this point in the discussion, but I just came across this from physicist (and theist) Antoine Bret.

2 Likes

Both we and God know that Peter in the past picked chocolate, but even though it is then a fact that Peter did not pick vanilla and is powerless to alter that history, that tells us nothing as to whether Peter did or did not exercise free will in the choosing. If the traditional view of God is eternal and outside of the material dimension of time, how is the inference for free will any different as regards what to us lies in the future?

Peter chose chocolate
Peter is choosing chocolate
Peter will choose chocolate
…is a linguistic reflection of what John describes as “our view as a moving present, visible past, and amorphous future vs. the divine view of spacetime perceived as a whole.” But God transcendes our tenses.

1 Like

Correct. I’m pretty sure I pointed something quite like this out myself, not too long ago. There is an overlap between fatalism and causal determinism under some conditions, but generally speaking, neither implies the other. At no point did I say or imply that divine knowledge of all events entails total or partial causality, or a total absence of causal relations between events, or that this is what fatedness requires or entails. We are in agreement here (and in the rest of the paragraph following the quoted passage).

In a sense, I think I might. Not with God needing to be time-bound. But His omniscience must be restricted, if libertarian free will exists. It cannot be the true at t_0 that God knows that Peter picks vanilla at t_1 if Peter picking vanilla at t_1 is not also true at t_0 already. If God can see a block universe, then our inability to see the same is not a mere difference of perspective, but an actual limitedness, a weakness of ours. On the other hand, if in fact “always in motion is the future”, then statements about God knowing it are false until it happens, because there is no fact about them happening, and it is not possible to “know” things that are not facts.

As I explained, it’s not really about where and how a god could or would exist, or whether and how it would know things. It’s about what the set of true propositions is and whether and how that depends on time.

1 Like

Actually, I happen to find this question rather interesting. It’s even more interesting to see just how often (not to say consistently) physicists get this anywhere between partly and completely wrong. The article you link, for better or for worse, seems to be comfortably in the vicinity of complete wrongness (not in every detail, but in broader strokes), and I can prove this about more than one substantive statement it makes as a matter of premise or conclusion. I shall forego doing so with this message, for the thread is about free will and how it is affected by theological concerns.

Still, I’ll be delighted to elaborate upon a prompt/challenge of this claim of mine, respecting the article’s take on both classical physics (including the part about special relativity in particular) and quantum physics. Prompts I’ll welcome in private, in another Side Conversations thread, or in this one, provided moderation agrees to tolerate such tangents.

Edit: After reading through all of it with more care, I must admit it is less egregious than I expected. That’s not to say it doesn’t make provably false claims about classical and quantum physics, and relativity. The only thing it gets arguably right is chaos, or rather, what I think are mistakes in that are, in fairness to the author, probably correct entailments of their take on non-chaotic classical and quantum problems, rather than an introduction of new errors. Still, it may be possible to smooth out some of the outright falsehoods a little bit, with a very generous, charitable reading and/or with what I think are plenty necessary qualifiers.

I don’t recall you making that point, but there is no overlap between fatalism and causal determinism as far as I can see. There is an overlap between what one would observe, merely because in a fatalist universe we could observe anything at all.

Then we have different definitions of fatalism. I would see it as opposed to causality. I suppose we could have a mixed universe in which some things are caused and others are fated, if that’s what you’re talking about.

Now I’m confused. You say that God is not time-bound, and yet you describe exactly a time-bound God whose knowledge depends on what time it is.

Sure, it’s a limited perspective. Don’t know if I’d call it a weakness. It just is. And it would not seem to prohibit free will.

Once again your attempts at formalism obscure rather than clarify. The limited God you describe as one alternative is in fact a time-bound God. He lives in the present, just like the rest of us.

[quote="John_Harshman,

Sure he was. It just happened that he did pick vanilla, and God knows that.
[/quote]

@John_Harshman

If God knows ahead of the choosing, then it is the human’s fate that only vanilla will be picked.

The old Greek plays love to use plot structures where being told one’s fate in fact becomes part of the causal chain of events that bring about the predicted fate.

Briefly put, FATE is so powerful that even warnings can be enlisted by the Cosmos to bring fate into fruition.

The significance of plots like these was to demonstrate that it is not accidental - -like an issue of ignorance- - when fate arrives as predicted.

Even knowledge that would help a person to avoid his/her fate is bent away from, and coerced against, a destiny free of the predicted fate.

@John_Harshman & @Gisteron :

Not true. You might say that a fatalistic universe COULD exist without simulating a causal one. Strange things can happen in most any universe.

But i think there is probably sufficient justifications to think a fatalistic universe is, for the most part, the RESULT of intersecting chains of causation.

You are using a different definition of “fate” from me and, I think, other people here. But thanks for mansplaining.

What use were your “corrections”?

Again, different definition of “fate”.

Indeed, then, our definitions differ. To me, fatalism means that there is (at all times, or outside of time, which ever is more comfortable - point is, independent of which time specifically we might be concerned with) a fact about what circumstances obtain at what time. There is a definite fact about what the universe’s state looks like at t for every value of t. With that in mind, here are the four possibilities by the definitions of determinism and fatalism I go with:

  1. There is a definite state of the universe at some reference point in time, and deterministic rules prescribing how that state evolves over time. There is therefore a definite fact about what the exact state is at every time. Determinism holds and fatalism holds in such a universe. That’s the overlap that exists in my definitions.
  2. The state of the universe for any time is well-defined at all times, but there is no deterministic rule set that would allow one to construct the exact state at t_i from knowing the exact state at t_j\neq t_i. In this universe, fatalism holds, but determinism does not.
  3. The rule set governing the evolution of the universe is deterministic in that knowing a state of one time fully would in principle allow one to reconstruct the state of other times, but it is not actually possible to know the state of any time fully, because it is not definite/factual to begin with. In this universe, determinism is true, but fatalism is not.
  4. There is neither a deterministic rule set governing the evolution of the universe’s state, nor a fact about what the universe’s state looks like exactly at any point in time. In this universe, fatalism is false, and determinism is false.

If God is solely defined by its knowledge, then fair enough. If what is a fact depends on time, and knowledge is contingent upon the known proposition being factual, however, then knowledge cannot be independent of time. Whether God in a broader sense is time-bound or not, that’s a question for theologians, and I make no commitments there. But God’s knowledge – if it is anything at all like something we’d recognize as knowledge, if it aligns with our definition of knowledge – must require, like all other knolwedge does, that the things known are factual. And said factuality is either time-independent, in which case there is no libertarian free will, or it is time-dependent, and then so is God’s knowledge.

Indeed, it is not our ignorance of the facts of our future that prohibits libertarian free will. It is that there are such facts at all that would. If the future is actually certain, then it is not also uncertain. No matter to whom it seems which way.

Once more, your formalism obscures, particularly your use of “fact”. I would call your first situation determinism or causality, not fatalism, reserving that for the second. I have no clear idea what the third even means. It seems to me that under your definition, all determinism is fatalism.

This has little to do with the definition of God, so I don’t understand the reservation. A God whose knowledge depends on the time is time-bound. There is no broader sense. And all this talk of “fact” is still obscure.

So if our ignorance of the future is not relevant, why mention it?

For sure. Still doesn’t preclude free will, though.

That’s fine. I have already done what I currently believe to be my best to explain what is which in my definition, and what a universe looks like for all four combinations of truth values for both theses. If you can articulate what exactly was unclear about any of it, perhaps I can help clarify. For now, I do not know what else I can improve about the description given in my lastmost message.

Do you mean “That’s fine, I agree” or “That’s fine, whatever, dude”? I see the problem in your understanding of “fact” and “time”. Situation #3 is entirely opaque to me; perhaps an example would help. Same with number 4.

Honestly, I do not think I can point to examples of universes like the ones described by 3 and 4, not least because it is not entirely clear which of the four our own universe is, let alone that there are any others. I suppose I could have tried to recall specific universes in fiction, though the interpretation freedom would still leave it difficult to definitively identify them with the attribute combinations from earlier.

I’m confident I cannot express the ideas in an even less technical way than until now, too. So the followig illustration will, alas, rather be more, technical. I try my best to keep things simple, in the hopes that it will be in total easier to understand and appreciate the difference I am getting at. If by now you do not have any more patience for this sort of thing, I understand. If you do, I ask to bear with me.

The universe’s state is some element of a set of all possible states. For purposes of simplicity we can assign an index to all the states, uniquely mapping them to, say, real numbers.

Setting relativity aside, and what implications it may or may not have on the ontology of time, let’s for the purposes of simplicity consider it just a numerical parameter. Whether time gets to branch could be considered important for questions about the existence of alternative futures and thereby libertarian free will, but for the context of this message of mine, we are discussing fatalism and determinism. I’m sure an extension for more complicated topologies of time could be rendered by even maths-savvier users than I, but I’ll treat it as a simple line here. In fact, I’ll treat time as a discrete parameter, whose values I’ll pick from natural integers[1], and ignore the consequences of how well that applies to physical spacetime in reality.

So, with time and states characterized as elements of number sets, we can formalize a universe’s history as a function f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb R,t\mapsto f(t) which assigns every moment t\in\mathbb N a corresponding state f(t)\in\mathbb R.

Now we are ready to talk about what fatalism and determinism are in this toy model[2], going through the same variants, albeit in a narratively hopefully more cohesive order. I note the number of the case from before just after the title:

Fatalism And No Determinism (scenario 2):
Suppose there is an infinite list, like f(1)=s_1,f(2)=s_2,f(3)=s_3,\ldots mapping every time to a specific state[3]. Such a list would completely fix all of our toy universe’s history f. This is fatalism. Pick any natural integer, and there exists exactly one state the universe has at that time. If you ask God to name the state at that time, they can. It is entirely irrelevant if you live in that universe, or what the current time is for you, there is an unambiguous one-to-one mapping between points in time and points in state-space.

However, outside of what sets f maps out of and into, there are no properties demanded of f in this scenario. You ask God what the state at t=7 is, they tell you it’s, say, 68.176. You have learned nothing about f(3) or f(8) this way. The universe still has a very specific state at t=3 and at t=8, to be sure, but it cannot be deduced from a knowledge of f(3), because there are no deterministic rules to link the states to one another through time.

Determinism And No Fatalism (scenario 3):
Suppose there is a condition history needs to meet. Let’s say f is a polynomial function and satisfies \frac{\mathrm df}{\mathrm dt}(t)=m for all t with some specified number m\in\mathbb R. In that case, f(t+n)=f(t)+n\cdot m for all n\in\left\{1-t,2-t,3-t,...\right\}. Knowing what the universe’s state is at some reference time t, one can directly deduce its state at all other times.

However, we did not suppose that the state of the universe itself is specified at any time at all. In fact, assuming fatalism is false amounts to supposing the contrary. There is an equation that tells us how states evolve, but what state it is actually in is not specified for any time. If there is a God in a universe like this, they could not tell you what state the universe was in at any time at all, because there is no definitive answer to that question. If we’re lucky, maybe they could name some range of states, or a superposition (for lack of a better expression) of states, and sure enough one could specify the ranges of possible past and future states from that, but never one definitive state.

Determinism And Fatalism (scenario 1):
Once again let’s suppose the history function f is a polynomial that satisfies \frac{\mathrm df}{\mathrm dt}(t)=m, but in addition it also satisfies f(14)=3.3. Because the states evolve in accord with a deterministic rule, and we have what’s called an initial condition, the state at every time t is completely specified, as if it were non-deterministic fatalism, except now we can also deduce all of that mapping as soon as we know what state the universe has at any one point in time.

No Determinism And No Fatalism (scenario 4):
Now we suppose there are no conditions on f, but also no list of which states it maps to which times. f is completely undefined. Some would say there is no history of that universe, even. This is practically equivalent to deterministic non-fatalism, in that it is just as impossible to find out what state the universe is in at any time. The only difference is that there is no rules the evolution of states follows. If God were to try and specify a range or superposition of states at some referene time t, this would tell us nothing about the range or superposition of states at any other time.


  1. This would mean that the universe has an earliest point in time. I do this to simplify the listing in the first example. The illustration could be constructed with very minimal modifications even for t\in\mathbb Z. ↩︎

  2. I make no pretense of this analogy holding for arbitrary conceivable universes. This is openly and deliberately a toy model, serving to illustrate the concepts of determinism and fatalism and how a universe can hypothetically have one, both, or neither. ↩︎

  3. Whether this list can be put to paper is not relevant here, we are in maths-land, the list exist even if nobody ever could or would it down. Think of it as a list of some of the things God knows, perhaps. ↩︎

1 Like

Yes, I’m afraid none of that helps, so we may as well stop.

1 Like

@John_Harshman

We could all use some clarifications:

A] a being who is outside of time is best understood as an observor who can see the beginning and the end of any set of events at the same time; i.o.w., God doesnt have to wait for a clock to run “T +/- ‘n’ seconds” to see something in the future (or in the past). From the p.o.v. of this being it all happens simultaneously.

B] “Fatalism” is a term that enjoyed much of its use during the decades and centuries prior to Age of Science. Since science had not reached society-wide maturity, people frequently had specific events in mind when discussing fate - - not usually imagining ALL natural causation as necessarily run by fate.

The ancients invoked fate regarding heaven/hell, rich or poor, married or single, surviving a war or not (and so on).

The Greek tragedies frequently depicted fate as so unrelenting and so beyond deflection … that even if someone had his fate revealed to him as a warning to AVOID this dreaded fate - - the warning itself became enmeshed & enlisted in the machinery of fate to make the outcome unavoidable.

C] the word Determinism became a common idea in the age of science. And so it could very likely be invoked as part of any conventional scenario of revealed fate. Deoending on the nature of the scenario being imagined, one’s fate could locked … without benefit of full determinism. But i think we can agree that it is very difficult to imagine a deterministic universe, but one in which there was no such thing as fate (unless the latter occurs because there is no god with fateful intentions to impose on a fully deterministic fabric of existence).

A is obvious, I would think, and so would not need stating. B is all very nice, but what relevance does it have? C is muddled to the point of obscurity.