Does God have free will?

Can you break it down in more detail than saying “he's an idiot”

I wrote to you to present his argument with premises and a conclusion, and if you don't see it on your own I will try to address it.
All the best

He says that if A=A
and two universes are completely identical even at the quantum level
will there be a difference between them after a while?
If so then A=/=A
If not then there is no free choice

This is still too general and does not sharpen the point. Now try to sharpen the argument more. A logical argument should be formulated precisely, and specify exactly what each line (each claim) means and exactly how one moves from line to line, and in the process, one comes to see that there are several assumptions and transitional steps that are missing in its "structure". When you do this, it will be an excellent exercise for you in examining arguments (this is the main point of logic), and you will immediately see that this is nonsense that is suitable for a person who completely lacks the skill of critical and logical thinking.

Can you answer?
Or at least phrase it better

No. I insist for didactic reasons that you do the work and present the argument well. Only later (if necessary) will I address it. The reason for this is that my goal is not to answer this specific argument (it's not worth it), but to teach you how to analyze arguments in general. You're an intelligent guy, and that's precisely why I think this is the right way to do it. I promise you that you'll learn quite a bit from this (and also stop disparaging philosophy and believing in science, as you stated in our meeting. You'll see here why it's important for a scientist to be skilled in philosophy, and why Kaku, who is apparently a successful scientist, suffers from being unskilled).
Nevertheless, to help you, I'll give you some clues for your work:
1. What does A=A mean? Is it equality or identity? For example, there are two raindrops that look exactly the same, is it one drop or two? You can search the Internet for Leibniz's “Principle of the Identity of the Indistinguishable” which discusses this (and is wrong).
2. Can two identical/equal universes (note!) really produce two different results? Even according to quantum theory, this is not at all certain. On the contrary, I tend to think that it cannot (although I am not sure) and if so – why? How does this relate to the principle of causality? Is the difference due to randomness or due to freedom (like freedom of will)?
3. When two different results are produced and the universes are now different, is the assumption A=A violated? In other words, assuming that the initial universe is A, is the later and different universe also A? After all, it is different from the early universe, so how is it itself considered A (even before you compare it with its counterpart the second universe, compare it to itself some time ago)
4. According to religious perception, who created the difference between the universes? God? Kaku assumes that he does. Is he right?
5. Does the difference between the universes contradict the laws of logic?
6. How would Kaku himself explain, according to his own assumptions (determinism), this process of changing two identical universes?
7. Even according to his own assumptions, how does he prove from all this that either logic is violated or that God has no choice? In other words: how does God's free will relate to everything he says?
These are just some of the questions because I don't want to complicate the matter too much. But now think about these questions, and then try to formulate a valid argument that draws its conclusion from its assumptions. I'm sure that now you will easily see that it is nonsense.

If you want, at the end of the process you can/we can write a systematic critique article on this argument, and perhaps we will publish it on my website (or anywhere else you want). There is an interest in this because it becomes clear to me again and again that intelligent people (important scientists, such as Dawkins, Hawking, etc., and their readers) fail with such ridiculous arguments, and even seem very profound and brilliant to those who read their words. I have an interest in improving the thinking ability of the public (this is my main goal on my website) so that they will not be captivated or deceived by this nonsense (both in the secular and religious directions. Both sides usually do not know how to think systematically and therefore suffer from many failures).

1) Identical in space-time and matter-energy
2) The same thing will lead to the same thing I don't see a problem here
3) I didn't understand
4) If there is a difference then there is an extra-universal event, we can call it the ’
5) Yes
6) Breaking the law that a thing is equal to itself
7) Are you actually claiming that it could be that the ’ chooses not to change anything?

And I agree
There are retards everywhere

A, you answered my questions. I sent them to you so that you could build an organized presentation of Kaku's argument on their basis. Can you present a structured argument?
By the way, the phrase “identical in space-time and matter-energy” is not sufficiently defined. Are two completely identical photons that are in the same place and at the same time the same photon itself? They have no matter and are identical in all their properties in their energy and in their place and time.

The same location both on the Kantian level and the same thing in the Kantian duet
The argument goes like this
Two worlds are completely identical even on the Kantian level, will there be a difference between them after a while?
If so, then there is no causality because there is no reason for there to be a difference
If not, then there is no choice because there is no way to change the predetermined

Hello.

Again, you didn't answer my question about identity and equality, but let's examine the wording you sent.

This is the argument you put in Kaku's mouth.
1. Two worlds are completely identical even at the quantum level, will there be a difference between them after a while?
2. If so, then there is no causality because there is no reason for there to be a difference
3. If not, then there is no choice because there is no way to change the predetermined

First, let me ask you what does someone who does not believe in God do with this argument? According to your wording, this business has nothing to do with God, this is about logical proof in favor of determinism [by the way, this is only because of the very ”thin” interpretation you gave to the argument. There are many other possible interpretations, and this is because it is worded in such a careless and amateurish way. For example, where in your interpretation do we need the law of logical identity, which is the sign A=A? He mentions it countless times in this video, but in your interpretive version it is not needed at all and does not appear. But for our didactic purposes, let's go with your interpretation]

Second, this argument is problematic on its face, even before we go in to examine it (it is the art of philosophers to identify problems in arguments a priori): after all, the thesis of determinism is a claim of fact (= the world operates deterministically. It is a claim about the world, i.e. a fact). Now we must examine whether this is a true or false fact. Kaku offers a logical path that shows that it is true. But there is no way to prove claims of fact in an a priori argument (without observation). You, as someone who does not have philosophy but only science, should be the first to agree with this. This is what philosophers call the emptiness of the analytic (this is what is argued against logical proofs for the existence of God, that a fact cannot be proven with a priori tools without observation).

While it is true that he also assumes that causality requires that there is no difference, causality itself is an a priori assumption (as David Hume showed, it has no empirical basis). Beyond that, your claim 2 is nothing more than a result of a definition (of causality). In other words, Kaku proves determinism with logical argument and conceptual analysis. This is what is called analytical analysis. But the analytic is empty. There is no way to analytically prove factual claims.

Okay, so we realized that even before examining the argument, it must be wrong. Now all we have to do is examine the argument and locate the error. Even in your ”thin” version there are some basic errors (and in his words in the video, even more). In short:

A. Two identical worlds at the quantum level can develop in two different ways. Quantum theory allows for a different development from the same state, and this is the randomness that it contains.
One of the confusing components of quantum theory is randomness, that is, the deviation from classical causality. If so, the correct scientific conclusion is 2 (in your miscounting). But how does this relate to violating the laws of logic (the law of identity), or to the conclusion that God does not have free choice? It just means that quantum theory is not causal. A very small innovation.

B. Of course, in order to see whether the worlds are different or not, you need an external factor that measures the world and its properties, and its measurements will give different results. But is this factor itself part of the worlds or not? Is it subject to quantum theory or not? And maybe it is God? My friend Prof. Nadav Shnerb wrote an article about how applying quantum theory to the entire universe leads to a logical contradiction. Therefore, by definition, quantum cannot be applied to the whole of reality, meaning that if these worlds are quantum, then at least the measurer is supposed to be outside of them.
In other words, the question of whether or not there is a difference between the worlds depends on the observer. There is someone who needs to determine whether there is a difference (to measure). In fact, before the measurement, the question of whether they are the same or different has no meaning (they will probably be the same, because quantum dynamics itself is probably not random. From the same initial state, the wave function reaches the same state at all times. Only the measurement introduces the change).
Now ask yourself if the observer himself is not subject to quantum theory? After all, man is part of the quantum world that is being observed. He also evolves quantumly over time, doesn't he? And in general, does he belong to world A or world B?

C. Even if for some reason someone decides that these two worlds will evolve in the same way (contrary to the findings of quantum theory), this only means that the laws of nature are deterministic. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that God decided that they would be like this (another unfounded assumption. Maybe they are just like this because they are like this, as the atheist who does not believe in the creator of laws thinks). But even if he created the laws (as I do think), why does this prove that he does not have free will or free choice? It just means that he does not apply his free will to inanimate nature. But he still has free will in one of the following meanings:
1. Maybe he chooses other contexts/places.
2. Maybe he does not choose at all but he can choose (he chooses not to choose).
3. Maybe he chooses only in the contexts of human actions that have free will and are not completely subject to the laws of nature.
And that's just your ”thin” version. There are many more errors and nonsense and the desired assumptions in Kaku's video and formulations.