Q&A: Knowledge and Free Choice, and the Definitions of Past-Present-Future Time
Knowledge and Free Choice, and the Definitions of Past-Present-Future Time
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
In your book No Person Rules the Spirit, regarding the issue of “knowledge and free choice,” you divide the knowledge-choice question into two “problems” — the physical problem (how it is possible to “reach” the future) and the logical problem (how knowledge of the future fits with free choice, which you assume there).
You explain there that the physical problem can be solved, whereas the logical problem remains.
Your conclusion there is that because of the logical problem, one must give up the assumption that the Holy One knows a person’s future choices.
My questions:
A. Assuming that time is a creation of the Holy One, and therefore He is not subject to time and to the division into past-present-future, then necessarily He knows the future (since for Him there is no division at all between present and future). Otherwise, what meaning is there to saying that He is not subject to past-present-future?
B. Assuming you agree with A — does the meaning of your conclusion about the Holy One’s not knowing future choices amount to saying that you are in fact assuming that the Holy One is subject to the division of past-present-future, and essentially to time?
C. A separate but related point — years ago at Shabbat Takhkemoni, the guys were discussing knowledge and free choice, and one guy suggested the explanation (which apparently appears somewhere) that the meaning of the Holy One’s knowledge, in the sense that He is above time, is that a person’s future actions themselves bring about the Holy One’s knowledge in the present. That is, it does not matter what the person will choose, but his choice now produces at this very moment the Holy One’s knowledge in the past (by virtue of there being no division for the Holy One between past-present-future).
When I think about it, maybe the closest example is conditional betrothal, where once the condition is fulfilled the past changes in accordance with the person’s action in the present (of course the analogy is not perfect, but I mean the principle that an action in the present can project backward onto the past within a supra-temporal framework).
In other words — we are not talking about knowledge from the past or from the present toward the future, but about knowledge from the present in practice toward the “past.”
What do you think?
D. And from here to Newcomb’s paradox (though on this I’m less sure) — could it be that Newcomb’s paradox occurs only where both the “prophet” and the “chooser” are under the constraints of time, but if the “prophet” is not limited by the definitions of past-present-future, maybe the paradox does not exist?
That is, if the person’s final actual act (whether he took or did not take the open box) is itself what caused the prophet to know whether he would take it.
Answer
A. I don’t understand the claim that He is above time. It’s a cluster of words devoid of meaning. So I do not see any necessity that He would know the future.
B. I don’t understand. Same as above.
C. How is that claim connected to His being above time (which by itself I also do not understand)? Bottom line, if He now knows what I will do in the future, He can also reveal that to you. Do you now see the contradiction?
D. There is no limitation on the paradox so long as there is someone here who knows the future with certainty. Instead of calling him a prophet, call him God, and now formulate the paradox with respect to Him.
Discussion on Answer
What does “inherent in reality itself” mean?
I do not know whether time was created or not. But even if it was created, that changes nothing. Events are arranged along the axis of time. The world too was created, and it was created in such a way that it operates along the axis of time.
I don’t understand what it means to be limited by the limitations of time. Can He obtain information about the future? I think in principle not, except for information about deterministic events, where it is enough to know the present and calculate the future from it. But as I explained, even if He can obtain information about the future, that still does not answer the question.
The Holy One created the form of the triangle and the circle, and still He cannot make a circular triangle. Is He subject to the laws of logic? No. He acts in accordance with them, but that is not subjection. I explained this in several articles and columns. See, for example, here:
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%25A2%25D7%259C-%25D7%25AA%25D7%2595%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2595%25D7%2590%25D7%25A0%25D7%2598%25D7%2599%25D7%259D-%25D7%2595%25D7%2598%25D7%25A2%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%259F%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%25A1%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiAp_Gy3–QAxXLVaQEHWkCEMIQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lgas2_DFOvd8SwAy_uOP7&fexp=73177438,73177439
In short, my answer is neither yes nor no, so don’t draw any conclusion. My answer is that I do not understand the question.
Regarding A —
Is time created, or is it inherent in reality itself?
If it is created, that simply means that the Holy One is not limited by the limitations of time (because there is no reason God should be limited by a limitation that He Himself invented).
Time — at least part of it — isn’t it the division into past-present-future?
Do you think the Holy One is limited by the limitations of time?
If it is devoid of meaning, then presumably your answer is “yes,” which would also straightforwardly lead to the conclusion that time was not created.