Q&A: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Divine Knowledge and Free Choice by Comparing Logical and Physical Determinism
A Possible Solution to the Problem of Divine Knowledge and Free Choice by Comparing Logical and Physical Determinism
Question
I assume you deleted my previous question because of the way it was written. True, one person can’t think of everything, but as far as I checked, the possibility I raised is reasonable and hasn’t been brought up on the site before. So I’ll try again. Of course you don’t have to answer, but in that case it would be good if you made clear that you’re not answering, and spared me the uncertainty over whether this is a technical problem or a deliberate move.
A possible solution to the problem of divine knowledge and free choice:
I’m continuing the line of thought according to which the problem in Newcomb’s paradox is the prophet’s intervention on the basis of information from the future:
In my view, the problem in the paradox is the same problem that exists in the grandfather paradox: a loop of causality forward and backward along the time axis (the existence of the grandfather causes, forward in time, the existence of the grandson, who causes, backward in time, the negation of the grandfather’s existence). Therefore, it seems that there cannot be a prophet who knows the future without thereby determining it, even if the prophet does not act on the information he received in prophecy, simply because the information from the future causes a backward-in-time physical change in the prophet’s brain.
On the other hand, assuming logical determinism is mistaken, as you showed in the book The Science of Freedom, then backward causation can indeed exist there. Although even there, two-way causation in parallel cannot exist, because it would create a loop. The difference lies in our intuition that causality in the physical world works forward, an intuition that does not exist in the world of logical causality.
The question is why God’s knowledge is more similar to physical causality or to logical causality. Since there is no physical change here like the one that exists in the prophet’s brain, perhaps there is no problem of backward causality—just as there is no such problem in logical causality. The problem would arise if God were to use information from the future in order to change that same future (to intervene in the film He watched); in such a case a loop would be created, as in the grandfather paradox.
Someone who says that this explanation imposes a limitation on intervention after the knowledge would be right, but that is the situation, and it is important to discuss where the limitation lies: in the knowledge or in the intervention.
Do you agree with this explanation?
Answer
I deleted it because you continued an existing thread that had stopped after I told you I couldn’t continue a discussion with such long gaps, and then you opened a new thread (with a bigger gap) and expected my answers there.
If you want to discuss it there, move the question there, but don’t assume I remember what was said there before.
Discussion on Answer
I probably owe you an apology. I related to your remarks that way because there’s another thread here that came up today regarding Newcomb’s paradox twice, and there I deleted it justifiably. I thought you were the same writer as there. It turns out there are coincidences (or the hand of God). https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a4%d7%a8%d7%93%d7%95%d7%a7%d7%a1-%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%91-%d7%a9%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%A9%d7%9A
So sorry.
As for your question, in the discussion of logical determinism I spoke about determination backward in time that is not causal. The truth value of a proposition is not an event, and therefore it cannot be a cause or an effect. Here we’re talking about actual causality.
As for changing the prophet’s brain, then talk about someone who isn’t a physical human being: the Holy One, blessed be He. The brain isn’t essential here. The problem is in the intellect, not in the brain. Although in my view even a non-physical change cannot be caused backward, because the problem is not in physics but in the causal relation as such. But perhaps one can also speak about knowledge without change.
In any case, all this is not relevant to the discussion, because the purpose of this argument is to convince people who are prepared to accept backward change in time. The claim is that if it works in the world, then they too should admit that this is not possible.
In my view, the limitation is in the knowledge and not in the intervention, because knowledge itself from the future is impossible. Once the Holy One, blessed be He, knows, why shouldn’t He be able to intervene? On the contrary, it is obvious that He can always intervene (He is omnipotent), and thereby ensure the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Again, sorry, and forgive me for the mistake.
As a physicist, do you think there is any meaning to time that does not apply to physical space?
I don’t know what it means for time to apply to some space.
It means that time does not describe all events in the world, but only the order of succession of material events (which allows for different time for different physical objects).
First of all, you’re talking about objects, not about space. Second, do you think mental events have no time? And what about light waves (photons)? Third, I don’t see the slightest reason to make such a distinction also with respect to angels, fairies, or unicorns. And fourth, even if all this is correct, how does it solve the problem of divine knowledge and free choice, which deals with my physical actions?
I wasn’t expressing an opinion, only asking for your opinion as a physicist; there’s no point in your asking me back. The problem of divine knowledge and free choice deals with the interface between my physical actions and God’s non-physical knowledge, and therefore if time has no meaning with respect to God’s knowledge (which is non-physical), that could have implications for solving the problem. As stated, about this I’m asking you and not expressing an opinion.
I didn’t ask you anything. I simply answered you in the form of questions (rhetorical ones). Let me clarify my answer more.
You’re asking whether one can speak in terms of time regarding non-material entities. That is, you’re hesitating between two possibilities: 1. One can. 2. One cannot. To that I asked: if 2 is also a possibility in your view, then what would you say according to that possibility about time with respect to light or mental events? If you agree that time applies to them, then option 2 falls away and your question is answered. That’s what I ‘asked’ you.
Beyond that, I said that this would not answer the question of divine knowledge and free choice in any way. We are talking about divine knowledge regarding physical actions that I perform (which were indeed preceded by desire, so what?!).
That is my answer. By the way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my being a physicist. It’s a matter of common sense.
Thank you
I don’t know what you mean, and I don’t remember having commented on this topic before. You yourself brought up Newcomb’s paradox, so I didn’t repeat it, and likewise the grandfather paradox. Everything else should be understandable without reading any prior material.