Suppose God is infinite, and we are finite. If free will is finite, then we have free will, and have knowledge of good and evil. Yet it also means we can never know God's will, which is infinite.
Does infinity mean an unchanging concrete block? No! Recursion and fractals are infinite. There may yet be a perfect, infinite pattern that this world is designed to follow.
Would it be possible to know the whole pattern? No. But could we know enough to fit into that? Yes. And I think that it requires the surrender of self-will, which is usually deterministic.
In earthquakes, bridges (nicely rational, rectangular shapes) often crack (with fractal tree-shaped fractures). It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding.
B) A simulated universe (where the simulation due to the nature of being simulated will have all the characteristics that lead to the conceptualisation of God, hence being indistinguishable);
C) A fake universe - for similar reasons as the simulation, and conceptually being the same as a simulation, it will exhibit all the same characteristics - the equivalent non computational example would be seeding a planet with humans and letting them go about their lives while keeping an eye on them and intervening when wanted, or the story shown in Truman’s Show - the fake here refers to it not being what it seems, not to it not existing;
D) A universe where consciousness IS the essence of it and what gives rise to it in the first place, making every manifestation in it be direct manifestations of that consciousness and being effectively intertwined to the point where conscious parts can in some way affect the global consciousness and vice-versa, this eventually leads to the idea of A God as well, but is not "God" in the way we usually define it, it just quacks like it;
E) A universe different from all the previous descriptions, as in without an overarching conscious form modelling it - the fact that you would then have both free-will and subjective experience of it (since I think no one will argue that you can NOT "experience" things objectively) would probably lead you (or someone) to formulate any of these other ideas - simply because the universe to be experienceable has to have certain minimal rules - given that the rules/laws supersede the abilities of the subjects (cannot be/have been made by the subjects describing them themselves) it can look like any of the other universes.
A totally random universe doesn't seem to make sense because for it to exist in any way experienceable it has to have at least certain laws that govern its manifestation and any possible perception by “anything” in it, at which point it stops being completely random and has to be one of the other 5 descriptions, which again, will all be indistinguishable.
If this makes sense for you then:
> It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding
may or may not be a valid proposition. If you cannot distinguish between them then you have to assume that it might not make sense to blindly "surrender" to a greater design.
Yes, in my opinion the only way for reason and free will to exist are if some supernatural being were to grant it to us. That said, in order to truly have knowledge of anything we must first be able to assert free will. Otherwise even this God figure's interference in our natural lives may just be interpreted as an outside stimulus that we're dutifully responding to according to the laws of nature.
I'm simply asserting that a lack of free will constitutes lack of control over one's own thoughts. Do you disagree with this or am I just not communicating well?
Edit: I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just because you personally haven't read the authors or pieces that agree with my point of view doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that without free will knowledge does not exist.
And really the situation is simple. Either you believe in determinism or you believe in libertarian free will. The problem is that one of these beliefs is supported by science and the other requires magic.
Can you explain this further? It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude. While that may be the case, I'm going to overlook it.
The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source. This isn't an argument against determinism so much as it is against naturalism.
I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex. I would say that just because something is pre-known doesn't require it to be pre-determined. To say such a belief requires magic is a little flippant, I think.
Our universe and everything in it exist as they are in a moment of time. Our attempts at reasoning about the universe have given us some degree of accuracy in describing it. But the fact remains that whatever ideas and supporting science we come up with are just that, ideas and science. Reality trumps it all. So--while you can _say_ things in whatever tone you like and alienate or belittle folks who don't believe the same things you do--I would say that how we as humans show love for each other is much more helpful, and that it's okay to admit we don't know nearly as much about the world as we think we do.
>It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude.
You are the one making grand claims so you should be the one supporting them. My position is that of the majority of professional Physics and Philosophy communities which is that the universe is deterministic and libertarian free will is a fantasy.
>I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex
Well show some proof and claim your Nobel Prize.
> The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source.
You are just saying this, it doesn't follow from any Philosophical argument that I can see
Honestly I think your argument boils down to "The absence of free will makes me uncomfortable so therefore it can't be true," this isn't unique to you either most of the people on that side of the fence's arguments tend to come down to that.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.
[end quote]
If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.
>If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.
Oh man, Haldane wrote this 100 years ago so it must be true amirite?
All Philosophers and Physicists are crushed by these 2 sentences...
>If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.
It's not nonsensical. Your statement is actually nonsensical. If you found a mathematical proof written by an illiterate schizophrenic the only thing that matters is the consistency of the proof's logic not its source. Maybe you should read actual philosophers instead of the centuries old writings of a Biologist.
The laws of physics are true as we know them, it is completely irrelevant if the minds that came up with ways to describe them have no free will. Your position is completely untenable and unsupported. You would fail Philosophy 101 at any community college if you wrote a paper on your position.
First you say, "I don't know anyone who has ever said this," all the while appealing to the age and authority of your own philosophy. Then I bring you evidence that people have been saying this for 100 years and you imply it's too old to be relevant.
And really, why would I care about whether my ideas would receive good marks or not from the most ego-stroking subject in all of modern academics? My philosophy professor at university was a self-absorbed little man who I didn't envy then and still don't 15 years later. Why would I bother having an authentic discussion with such a person?
Two obvious hallmarks of disingenuous debate are belittlement and sarcasm.
