God, Foreknowledge, Free Will and Booby Fisher

[Joseph Smidt]

Hey everyone,

   First, if this email is too long, at least watch this video clip: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_67.pdf

    Okay, I have enjoyed reading Blake Ostler's approach to explaining how God can be omniscient, but not take away our free will.  The argument is that God is like a master chessmaster who, being omniscient, can foresee every possible decision you might make and hence has already worked out a plan for you no matter what decision you make is. (So you really are free) The more formal form is this:

1.  God exists and is omniscient: for all X, if X is actual, God knows that X; if X is possible, God knows that potentially X.

2. God knows now all possibilities (all things).

3. God knows now what his purposes are and that he will achieve them.

4. God does not know now, in every case, precisely which possibilities will be chosen or become actual.

5.  God knows now how he will respond to whichever contingent possibility occurs to insure the realization of his purposes.

    "This notion of existentially contingent omniscience suggests that God knows all things (including laws) now and possibly existing (1,2). It also allows for free choices among alternatives (2,4). This idea suggests that God knows all possible avenues of choices (2, 5), and coupled with an idea of adequate power entails that God's plans and declarations of future events will be realized (3, 5). Therefore, this concept of omniscience potentially describes an essential attribute of the adequate object of faith. In fact, this concept of omniscience expands the knowledge of God manyfold over that traditionally ascribed to him because it encompasses not merely the single, inevitable reality but the almost innumerable permutations of reality possible within the metaphysical foundations of the universe."

   By analogy, in the movie clip above Bobby Fisher realizes no matter what moves his opponents will freely do, he will win.  He then extends his arm and offers a draw to be "co-champion".  The opponent refuses and Fisher wins... just as he foresaw even though at no time did his foreknowledge affect his opponent's free will.

   So, what if someone becomes God at the time when after looking at the board, like Fisher, He realizes no matter what acts external free agents might do, He is going to win?  I'm just glad, like Fisher, He has extended His arm to allow us to become co-champions with Him.  If we take it.  

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Smidt <josep...@gmail.com>

Theoretical Division
P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop B283
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Office: 505-665-9752
Fax:    505-667-1931

[Joseph Smidt]

Ah!  Sorry, here's the video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pFp6iRVM0

The other link was to Ostler's paper.

[Lincoln Cannon]

Even if God knows everything about the present, it seems unlikely that God knows everything about the future. Barring infinite resources, some problems are too complex to know in advance. Even given infinite resources (whatever that might mean, if anything at all -- yucky superlatives), there may be problems that cannot be solved any faster than we're now experiencing them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Joseph Smidt <josep...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
To learn more about the Mormon Transhumanist Association, visit http://transfigurism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mormon Transhumanist Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transfiguris...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transf...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfigurism?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Joseph Smidt]

Yes, the halting problem is an issue.

[Matthew J Price]

You all may be too professional to note that the subject line contains the word "Booby"

But I am not.

It's a very interesting idea, but God is not just a player, he would also have designed the board and pieces and decided the rules for how they move.  An imperfect analogy, but thought provoking anyway.

--

[Lincoln Cannon]

Creators are still players in the metagame.

[Joseph Smidt]

Actually I take this back. I'm not sure the halting problem is a problem. All the halting problem says is there may be certain programs for which it is impossible to know if they will eventually halt.

But, even if He doesn't know the answer, He still knows all possibilities: either it halts or it doesn't.  As long as his plan is such that he know He will win either way, the halting problem isn't an issue for Him.  

[Joseph Smidt]

> he would also have designed the board and pieces and decided the rules for how they move. 

Why would he have had to designed the board and the pieces?  Bobby Fisher didn't design chess and still knew he would win.

[Lincoln Cannon]

The point is that maybe not even God can know whether some problems halt, and maybe not even God can perform some computations differently than they're playing out in our world.

--

[Joseph Smidt]

> The point is that maybe not even God can know whether some problems halt

I *completely* agree.  God probably has no clue as to wether a problem X halts or not. But, as long as as A.) He knows all possibilities (it either does or doesn't) B.) He foresees His plan will work either way, He's still good even if He has no clue whether it will actually halt or not.

Or am I just crazy which is always a possibility?

[Lincoln Cannon]

Maybe I misunderstood you. You're just suggesting that IF the problem halts THEN God knows it, and he has a plan either way? I'm okay with that, but I don't think it actually solves the problem unless there is a known finite number of possible halting problems. What if we live in a multiverse compatible with an indefinite number of possible halting problems?

Most traditional interpretations of omniscience don't resonate with me. I consider omniscience to be a practical exaggeration relative to us.

--

[Joseph Smidt]

> Maybe I misunderstood you. You're just suggesting that IF the problem halts THEN God knows it,

I am saying only after the problem halts, can God know it. (Before hand it is only a possibility in God's mind) As #4 of the argument goes:

  "4. God does not know now, in every case, precisely which possibilities will be chosen or become actual."

    Meaning, only after it halts will He know it.  God in this scenario isn't omniscient in the sense he knows before hand what *will* happen.  Only, like Bobby Fisher, He knows all possibilities and that regardless of what happens, He still wins.

    There is a difference and this is why I have the Booby Fisher clip: Bobby Fisher cannot have known what his opponent would actually do.  He could have only known what it was possible for his opponent to do and was "smart" enough to know, regardless of what that was... as he says... his opponent has already lost.

  So again: God in this scenario is no more special than Booby Fisher.  He cannot solve the halting problem before hand.  He can't know if Lincoln will actually respond to this email.  All he knows is, like Bobby Fisher, whatever actually happens it will not prevent Him from winning. 

[Lincoln Cannon]

... unless there are infinite possibilities.

--

[Carl Youngblood]

This is important. The halting problem represents an infinite set of problems.

[Joseph Smidt]

> The halting problem represents an infinite set of problems.

Why does this matter? Bobby Fisher is *proof* that if there is only finite possibilities you can still know you will win. (He literally did this) Why does this magically change when the number of possibilities becomes infinity?  Are you saying this is a problem because it is impossible God to consider an infinite number of possibilities?

I see no reason to think that, if the number is finite you can know you will circumvent them all... but not if it is infinite.

[Lincoln Cannon]

It doesn't change magically. It changes practically. Planning infinite contingencies requires infinite resources.

--

[Joseph Smidt]

> Planning infinite contingencies requires infinite resources.

That's only if you have to think of them all individually.  We can prove statements about the uncountably infinite set called the real numbers without infinite resources. Or any other infinite set. We can know, for example, prime factorization is unique for *all* in an infinite set without having to use infinite resources to come to this conclusion.

Therefore, it is very possible a similar finite-resource argument can allow you to know all infinitely many halting problems won't actually be a problem for your goal.

[Joseph Smidt]

Lincoln,

   I am quite happy you have brought up this infinite resource argument.  Perhaps you are right and I am happy to have something new that is difficult to think about.  Best case scenario I can construct a proof to show either way if it is possible or not.  But this is the kind of puzzle I am happy to work on.  

    What is possible and is not for God to me is a fundamental problem to consider as it ultimately is a question about what is possible or not for us.

[Lincoln Cannon]

Yes! Theology should be the study of possibility.

--

[Lincoln Cannon]

Hmm. I'm not sure, but it reminds me of weather forecasts. There is an exponentially decreasing return on the value of forecasts as they try to be longer in duration, reflecting the exponentially increasing complexity of the problem. Maybe God can plan for all contingencies for relatively simple goals, but relatively complex goals remain the meaningful challenges of existence. Maybe that's a case for an interventionist God, which would be unneeded if all contingencies could have been sufficiently accounted for in advance.

--

[Grasshopper]

Joseph, the issue of how Bobby Fischer was able to calculate his eventual victory is important: he was able to simulate the various outcomes in his head, and was able to do so more rapidly than actually playing the game through the various possibilities. If this is the model we propose for God's foreknowledge, then there are certain types of problems that cannot be solved (simulated) more quickly than actually running through all the possible scenarios. This is part of what Giulio was getting at in his presentation at the recent MTA conference: let us suppose that this universe is the fastest simulation of this universe. If this is the case, then for certain types of questions, the answer can only be known through the unfolding of this universe (God discovers the future as it unfolds, just as we do). (Briefly, to address the argument that perhaps this is *not* the fastest simulation of this universe: suppose we live in universe A (the slower version), while God discovers the answer by watching universe B (the faster version) unfold. 1) We could not know whether we are in universe A or universe B; and 2) The problem now exists for universe B, in which God cannot know faster than the inhabitants of *that* universe as it unfolds, so the problem of God's omniscience is still not solved.)

Chris

--

To learn more about the Mormon Transhumanist Association, visit http://transfigurism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mormon Transhumanist Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transfiguris...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transf...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfigurism?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Grasshopper

   //_____ __
  @ )====// .\___
   \#\_\__(_/_\\_/
     / /       \\

[Joseph Smidt]

Chris,

 

   I appreciate the argument and admit it is something very crucial to consider.  But it seems to rest on the assumption that to know all possibilities we have to "run" the whole universe in our minds. But I'm not so sure this is true.  We can know prime factorization is unique for all integers without scanning the entire set.  So I am not so sure running the whole universe, fast, slow, or at any speed, is required for God to know it has the property such that... all roads lead to Rome.  (All paths of possible by free creatures lead to my goals if I implement plan X.)

   Again, it's a good idea and it gives me something to think about... But given we can pop off facts instantly about uncountable sets without scanning through them, I think it is very possible for God to know without running the entire universe fast or slow whether all roads lead to His Rome.

[Matthew J Price]

That's why I don't think Bobby Fisher is a good analogy for an omnipotent God, because we aren't playing against God

--

[Grasshopper]

Joseph, I don't have the references handy, but: you have given an example of a problem that is predictable without running through all permutations. But there are other classes of problems for which this is (provably) not the case. It is those types of problems that present the conundrum, not the ones like your example.

Chris

--

[Matthew J Price]

Sorry Joseph, my browser hadn't refreshed with the host of replies since you last asked me your question, if it wasn't clear to whom I was responding.

[Joseph Smidt]

> there are other classes of problems for which this is (provably) not the case. it is those types of problems that present the conundrum

  It is true Godel showed no matter how you axiomtize the integers, there will always be prepositions that are true and not provable.  However, that fact does not preclude us from deducing individual facts about this infinite set.  Again, we can know prime factorization is unique despite the fact that not all truths about the integers are provable.

    So, just because there are infinitely many things that are not provable, this in itself does not necessarily imply that the one fact "all roads lead to God's Rome" cannot be proven.

  I mean, you might be right.  But all facts not being known does not imply single facts about the whole set can't be known.

[Joseph Smidt]

Last analogy and I will quit until I have something substantive to say. I am *not* a chess master but I could imagine one could know, given a certain configuration on the board, strategy X will win every time no matter what your opponent does.  In this scenario, you did not have to consider *any* future possibilities.  All you had to know is, since the board has the configuration Y, so no matter what my opponent does strategy X will work.

Anyways, sorry to argue, but to be honest I am only trying to speak through my thought processes. I have absolutely no skin in the game and am *very* happy you all are helping me think about pitfalls. All I care about is: is such a God possible? and your critiques are helping me think this through.

  I will leave you all alone now. :)

[Lincoln Cannon]

Keep arguing.

--

[Grasshopper]

Joseph,

I thought the issue under discussion was whether Gods know *all* particulars about the future, not just some subset. I am happy to agree that Gods know some future outcomes (even I can do that to some extent). My point about problems that require the permutation of all possible solutions has nothing to do with infinity and everything to do with the *nature* (not quantity) of the problem and its proposed solutions. The existence of one such problem is sufficient to undermine the idea of Gods' comprehensive foreknowledge.

Chris

--

[Grasshopper]

Yes, the case where a given  scenario is recognized and the outcomes do not have to be recomputed (they are a cached computation, for that is how the potential outcomes were initially determined) is feasible. But if we were to try to apply this generally, think of the world that would result: it would be a world in which everything is already pre-computed, one in which nothing novel is possible -- infinitely and infinitesimally recurring. The situations in which we find ourselves are re-runs. We've done all this before (including imagining that this is the first time), but Gods don't need to really think or react -- a simple glance tells them all they need to know: stalemate.

Chris

--

[Joseph Smidt]

Chris,

> I thought the issue under discussion was whether Gods know *all* particulars about the future

  For me the issue under discussion is if it is possible for there to exist a God who:

1. Can know for a certainty His gospel plan will triumph.  (No new truth around the corner that will defeat Him)

2. Preserves free will fully. (There may be issues with free will if God can *know* what you do in advance)

   Ostler claims William James has solved this problem with the formal proof I listed. He knows all possibilities but not actualities about the future (so #2 is safe) and foresee no matter what happens He wins. (#1 is safe) 

    Then we got off on this "He would have to compute an infinite number of possibilites faster than the universe which seems impossible" critique.  Which is fair.  But now I am arguing perhaps #1 can still be preserved because perhaps it is possible to know, via current configuration of the board or mathematical proof, that He will still triumph no matter what possibilities are out there. 

  So ultimately I am wondering if a God sufficing #1 and #2 is even possible.

[Joseph Smidt]

And if we can prove possibility next we just have to prove necessity then we get a proof of existence. But one step at a time.  Is such a God even possible is step one.

[Karl Hale]

This reminds me a bit of the recent research indicating that evolution appears to be quite predictable.

[Carl Youngblood]

I haven't followed this discussion in detail, but it reminds me of how there are games where computer science algorithms still haven't come close to matching the skill of expert players. Go is one example. There are things that our minds can do that are still far beyond the state of the art, and they seem to be highly adaptable.

--

[Lincoln Cannon]

Carl, your comment reminds me of this recent io9 article:

http://io9.com/how-skynet-might-emerge-from-simple-physics-482402911

[Mike Perry]

FWIW, here is my no-doubt rather unorthodox viewpoint on "God" and "gods." In the first place I am not a theist in any conventional sense. However I do hold out serious hopes in an afterlife for each one of us and those who have gone before us (extended to sentient beings, SBs, more generally), based on informational and other considerations consistent with physicalism. Each SB in effect then is undergoing eternal progression, where diseases, debilities, and even death--even a collapsing, destroying universe, if it is to happen--are ultimately temporary setbacks. Asymptotically, then, each SB advances to full godhood. The gods we develop into and realize in the limit of "time" (subjective time anyway) together comprise what can be called a Godhead, or (if the meaning is clear) God. God in a sense "makes" everything since everything of any importance (arguably everything period) is what survives in the minds of gods = the "mind" of God. On the issue of "free will"--there are no happenings that could happen but do not happen (reality is a freely evolving multiverse). Whatever can happen is inevitable. From the standpoint of a hypothetical observer that is outside the whole of reality, all is predetermined and fully deterministic, and there is no such thing as "free will." On the other hand, there is no such actual observer. And from our standpoint it is very different because we are constantly, in effect, splitting into near-copies for which different events happen. So this introduces a kind of uncertainty for us that makes it reasonable for us to say we are acting by "free will"--if the limitations of this concept are understood. It is reasonable to say we are responsible for what we do, even though in an ultimate sense what we do is governed by impartial laws. "God's purposes" are just ours, as the gods we are becoming, considered from the far end of the timestream. 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:05:53 PM UTC-7, Joseph Smidt wrote:

Hey everyone,

   First, if this email is too long, at least watch this video clip: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_67.pdf

    Okay, I have enjoyed reading Blake Ostler's approach to explaining how God can be omniscient, but not take away our free will.  The argument is that God is like a master chessmaster who, being omniscient, can foresee every possible decision you might make and hence has already worked out a plan for you no matter what decision you make is. (So you really are free) The more formal form is this:

1.  God exists and is omniscient: for all X, if X is actual, God knows that X; if X is possible, God knows that potentially X.

2. God knows now all possibilities (all things).

3. God knows now what his purposes are and that he will achieve them.

4. God does not know now, in every case, precisely which possibilities will be chosen or become actual.

5.  God knows now how he will respond to whichever contingent possibility occurs to insure the realization of his purposes.

[...]

[Giulio Prisco]

The Fisher analogy is interesting. But Fisher having a winning strategy ready for every possible move of the opponent does not imply knowing what the actual move of the opponent will be.

--
Giulio Prisco
giu...@gmail.com
(1)7177giulio

On Apr 30, 2013 9:05 PM, "Joseph Smidt" <josep...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey everyone,

   First, if this email is too long, at least watch this video clip: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_67.pdf

    Okay, I have enjoyed reading Blake Ostler's approach to explaining how God can be omniscient, but not take away our free will.  The argument is that God is like a master chessmaster who, being omniscient, can foresee every possible decision you might make and hence has already worked out a plan for you no matter what decision you make is. (So you really are free) The more formal form is this:

1.  God exists and is omniscient: for all X, if X is actual, God knows that X; if X is possible, God knows that potentially X.

2. God knows now all possibilities (all things).

3. God knows now what his purposes are and that he will achieve them.

4. God does not know now, in every case, precisely which possibilities will be chosen or become actual.

5.  God knows now how he will respond to whichever contingent possibility occurs to insure the realization of his purposes.

    "This notion of existentially contingent omniscience suggests that God knows all things (including laws) now and possibly existing (1,2). It also allows for free choices among alternatives (2,4). This idea suggests that God knows all possible avenues of choices (2, 5), and coupled with an idea of adequate power entails that God's plans and declarations of future events will be realized (3, 5). Therefore, this concept of omniscience potentially describes an essential attribute of the adequate object of faith. In fact, this concept of omniscience expands the knowledge of God manyfold over that traditionally ascribed to him because it encompasses not merely the single, inevitable reality but the almost innumerable permutations of reality possible within the metaphysical foundations of the universe."

   By analogy, in the movie clip above Bobby Fisher realizes no matter what moves his opponents will freely do, he will win.  He then extends his arm and offers a draw to be "co-champion".  The opponent refuses and Fisher wins... just as he foresaw even though at no time did his foreknowledge affect his opponent's free will.

   So, what if someone becomes God at the time when after looking at the board, like Fisher, He realizes no matter what acts external free agents might do, He is going to win?  I'm just glad, like Fisher, He has extended His arm to allow us to become co-champions with Him.  If we take it.  

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Smidt <josep...@gmail.com>

Theoretical Division
P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop B283
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Office: 505-665-9752
Fax:    505-667-1931

[Joseph Smidt]

> The Fisher analogy is interesting. But Fisher having a winning strategy ready for every possible move of the opponent does not imply knowing what the actual move of the opponent will be.

I agree.  This is encoded in premise #4: "God does not know now, in every case, precisely which possibilities will be chosen or become actual."

There is *no* case where God knows which possibility will become actual.

[David Foster]

Something to consider. 

If God can answer our prayers, regardless of how far we are physically from him, then he must be able to receive signals faster than light. If signals are traveling faster than light in some reference frames, then they are traveling backwards in time in other reference frames. 

On one hand, this makes seeing the future relatively easy for deity, but what does this mean for free will? Perhaps quantum uncertainty will take hold, meaning a multitude of possible universes and make the Fisher analogy important.

But this time travel also introduces infinities, of necessity. The same Groundhogs-Day loops we would find vexing and paradox filled, could be potent tools to handle infinite calculation and thought. 

In short, saying that Omniscience requires infinities and is therefore impossible, is a weak and mortal argument. If I am do regularly dealing with infinities and transinfinite numbers on a daily basis as a God, I will think I got majorly gipped. Only an Infinite Mind could really handle managing a Universe that is 46 billion light years across. Or answers to our prayers could regularly be billions of years late. 

--

[Lincoln Cannon]

Maybe the information doesn't need to travel faster than light. Maybe it just needs to be accessed in a way that surpasses our current understanding. If God is an extraterrestrial only in the far away sense then I can't make sense of large sections of Mormon scripture that describe God as immanent and pervasive. Where am I from the perspective of my neurons? Where is software from the perspective of its computer? Where is the mother from the perspective of its embryo? Where is spirit from the perspective of body?

[David Foster]

Then you still moved information faster than light would normally allow, and my points still stand. 

[Lincoln Cannon]

Hmm. How does what I describe move info faster than light?

[David Foster]

Nevermind, I misread your comment. 

Seeing the end from the beginning is one thing. But doing it at all points in space, and governing a universe 46 billion light years across, in a timely fashion is quite another. 

Your arguments might work for the former case, but will fall apart for the later, unless you want to invoke a bodyless omnipresence or infinite mystery to God. 

[Lincoln Cannon]

I am embodied, and computers and mothers are embodied, yet we are immanent and pervasive relative to our thoughts, software and embryos. As a different discussion entirely, I have no reason to believe in infallible detailed foreknowledge.

[David Foster]

A while ago, I realized that if God were sufficiently intelligent, that would have some surprising consequences for statistical mechanics, reflecting several things we believe but take for granted, such as the separation of the different kingdoms. It would also mean infinite order and power would become as inevitable as entropy is a problem here on earth. 

Part of the idea, is that God can make more out of ever situation than you or I can. Does he see the one only future? Or have infinite contingencies for every infinite possible future? 

If God is failable, then he dare not be infinite. 

The Lectures on Faith had some interesting things to say about the necessity of infallibility for faith. 

[Lincoln Cannon]

Some Mormon leaders over the years have emphasized the importance of divine infallibility. I've never been persuaded, perhaps mostly because I've never needed it. While such an idea may be important for some persons' faith, it has never been important to mine. To the contrary, I'm far more inspired by a God that is fallible strictly speaking but in practice innumerable orders of magnitude more dependable than I.