Joe's musing about free will and God.
 

I've been mulling for some time now about this topic. This topic has surfaced in a couple of different forums. Now, I know that there are many dwellers here who think that belief in God is a bit passe, and obsolete in this day and age. I have no real quarrel with these dwellers, their belief, or non-belief is really none of my business. But, like I said, I've been mulling on this topic for quite a bit now. I would like to submit that perhaps free will is not possible with out God, or if you will a Universal Intelligence. I am going to imagine for a moment a universe without God. A universe of determination and logic. A universe where enough information, observed and squeezed out of nature will bring about all the understanding and knowledge about it's workings. We are products of that universe. The electrons and particles that make up our very thoughts in our brains, the chemical stew that houses our memories and ideas. These processes can all be traced back to a beginning. That is the rub, because if this is the case, what we majestically call our free will is really just a process of the universe, brought about by a chemical catalyst. No vaunted free thinking here. In fact, if that is the case, then the black marks I'm "causing" to be typed on the screen, connected to these so called "thoughts" in my brain are really not freely thought about by "me" at all. Just a series in a long series of chemical and atomic interactions, easily understood, by who I'm not currently sure.

I've decided to brave the sometimes treacherous critical analysis of the Cellar dwellers, and throw my idea out on the table for discussion. This is not necessarily a belief of mine this idea of free will that I'm discussing, just an idea that's been rolling around my brain for a couple of weeks now.

I fully expect that within 100 posts Radar and TW will be arguing about the U.S. Constitution and George Bush.

If free will is just an illusion of chemical processes, then why would a God be required at all? Is God required to make vinegar and baking soda bubble up?

A hundred posts - hell W.h.i.p set the over/under at 25

No God would of necessity be required; and no God would of necessity be eliminated.

Because free will would be quite a bit beyond the process.

If we agree with every logical step leading to this conclusion, then how can we disagree with the conclusion???

If the only thing against an idea is that we don't like it, then there's nothing against it. A calculator doesn't tell me what I feel like 3,789 times 45,731 should be. The ATM machine doesn't tell me how much money I'd like to have in my account.

But you've thrown in an X factor. God will free us from this deterministic universe. How?

With a Universal Intelligence. I like that phrase.

I believe that God is a universal intelligence--that is, the sum total of all the organization of all the matter and energy that makes up everything.

Just like our computers appears to perform sophisticated tasks, that are really just many, many simple calculations happening very fast and in a super-organized fashion; just like our own bodies are collections of many, many cells and hosted microorganisms, working together to create the appearance and function of a single being; God is like that. But including EVERYTHING.

In this way of understanding, God is the sum total off all the deterministic, Newtonian interactions between particles, all the pre-determined, set in stone, can't be changed chemical reactions, all the non-magical things that are happening in a specific way that is simply too complicated for us to understand; and when you add it all up, there is an emergence, the creation of a massive pattern that acts like an intelligence. God is just...everything. And since everything behaves a certain way, you get a certain God.

Of course he appears supernatural to us; but all that really means is that he is way beyond what we can understand. That isn't really saying much, because we're pretty insignificant. It doesn't make him magic, and it doesn't give him magical properties or abilities. It just means he operates way beyond our ability to comprehend.

So, I'm not even sure God has a free will, but it sure as hell isn't necessary for us to have one. We wouldn't even know the difference if we did.

I think you vastly underestimate the process, and vastly overestimate what it takes to create the appearance of a free will. :2cents:
What nature, or God if you prefer, is able to create is so much greater than what is required just to build a robot that thinks it can make decisions.

We don't even know yet what complexity is required for step one, "a robot that thinks", let alone step two, a robot that conceives of itself having self-determination, but doesn't.

Correct, we don't know those things.

How interesting I should see this thread tonight.

I probably shouldn't answer because my brain is fried. This was my 1st day of classes and OMG I was already loaded with homework. I think I've read 20 textbook pages, I've taken an online quiz and written a 2-page essay. All since 8 p.m.

But anyhow...that essay required reading something I'd never before heard of called The Book of Showings. This is a 15th century document by Julian of Norwich, who was voluntarily chained in a cell at a church and allegedly had visions from God. Interesting.

So what Julian said was that God is not manipulated by prayer, but if God wants us to receive something, he puts it into our head so we pray for it. I guess then we think we wanted it all along, right? So if I pray for good weather next weekend, and it happens, maybe God wanted me to have good weather for whatever I was doing, and I might not have thought to ask Him unless he wanted me to think He gave it to me because I asked.

Dammit, this is confusing.

It's not confusing. It means that God isn't manipulated by prayer. It means God manipulates pray-ers. ;) Therefor, there's no free willy in heaven.

Free will modified by chemical processes.

I agree Flint, with your Fatalist definition of reality and "God", S/He wouldn't have a free will.

More like determinism than fatalism; but the important thing is that the machinery of the universe is so many billions of times more complex than we will ever be able to understand that we never need to worry about simple, low-level subroutines like human free will.

Do you know why optical illusions work? Because our brains are designed to assume. We aren't reliable witnesses to our own experience. The proportions of a baby's face causes a release of oxytocin. It doesn't mean that babies aren't cute, just because we know this. It isn't a threat to our humanity to admit that we are simply another part of the physical universe.

And I don't find it disrespectful to God to say that he's just the program running on a giant, universe-sized computer. In a definition of the universe inclusive enough to include the so-called supernatural (actually just parts of nature yet to be understood by our own pea-sized human brains), I can't imagine any other definition of God that wouldn't be a major downgrade. Either he's EVERYTHING or he's just another bureaucrat.

Excellent post, excellent ending Flintos.

@ Flint... :thumb:

I like to think that every single quantum fluctuation causes the universe to split into every possible direction that fluctuation can result in. Which means that every decision you made that could have gone in multiple directions, some version of you has chosen ALL those directions. Then there are an infinitely many universes being created every instant of time, and we are sort of doing a 'random walk' in choosing which universe our particular consciousness traverses. If our consciousness could somehow 'choose' which path to traverse, then that would be free will from our particular point of view, but from the point of view of an outside-the-universe observer, everything happens somewhere in the ever-branching series of possibilities, and free will would be an illusion.


Yep, the damn cat in the box is alive and dead.

Sorry Flint, I guess I was reading you wrong then.
It has seemed like in your posts you only allow for us to have inescapable thought processes and responses. No allowance for free will choices in a physically dimensioned only universe.

In what way does your thinking differ from fatalism?

For myself, I can't accept a concept of a Creator that doesn't allow for all that His/Her creation is, and that SHe not be separate from it as its creator.
Within our own beings we see a capacity for emotions, and the desire for enjoyment/ relationship that would need to be in the Creator as well.
An "in all, and all of everything being the creation/creator" model of a guiding force/God playing Hide and Seek with Himself doesn't add up to a full enough explanation for me.
It leaves major things unaddressed for me like that S/He would have created a reasoning, logically thinking being(us) with the capacity for meaningful relationship(love), and we can't experience relationship with our creator because S/He's playing Hide and Seek with Him/Herself?

For me, because S/He created us with the mental reasoning capacities that we have, and the abilities for relationship, its only a logical conclusion that our creator provide a means for such relationship.
So in looking around I ask myself, "Out of the various options/ explanations that appear to exist, how many are logical, reasonable, answer all of the necessary requirements, and has evidence that it follows the scientific natural laws that we in our capacity can discern.
And like you said, as time goes on, we will continue to learn more, and better understand more fully the real truth of reality.

I readily agree with your comment "the machinery of the universe is so many billions of times more complex than we will ever be able to understand".
Shoot, we have barely scratched the surface of the basic four dimensions that we so far can experiment in and study. And in quantum physics they have identified a necessity for there actually to be more than a dozen dimensions that exist.
But I disagree with you about our level of significance in the scheme of everything. From my studying, we likely have a very significant place in this universe from the scientific evidence that I've found exists.*

I also agree with you about our cognitive reasoning including assumptions that will at times be wrong. But your conclusion, "We aren't reliable witnesses to our own experience." goes beyond the logical conclusion that can be stated from the observation.
Certainly we aren't always reliable witnesses to our own experiences, but much of the time we will be.

"In a definition of the universe inclusive enough to include the so-called supernatural (actually just parts of nature yet to be understood by our own pea-sized human brains)"
Very well stated. If man could someday fully understand all of the ways the Christian God(should S/He actually exist) performed all of the miracles, and acts of creating all that exists; in every step there would be a reasonable, logical, deductive, scientifically repeatable explanation.

"I can't imagine any other definition of God that wouldn't be a major downgrade. Either he's EVERYTHING or he's just another bureaucrat."

Like I said, this definition of God is too small, at least on the face of it.
You may though have an ability to allow for this God concept to create time, and to preexist time in what we call eternity, or something like it.

This is very interesting to me, I love thinking about, studying, and discussing such.
Its a life journey discovering the true nature of reality isn't it? But I love the adventure of it.

No.#2, maybe we each exist in our own constantly unfolding universe that is effected by every decision we make... and everyone else makes?

Nope. Not true. All my problems are someone else's fault... the bastards... picking on poor little me. :angel:

Every decision each person makes, and every decision everyone else makes, and every 'decision' that inanimate objects end up taking (such as a path that lightning chooses to travels) has consequences. These consequences propagate from the instant of the event ever outwards in a chain of cause and effect and entanglement. Every possible consequence happens in every possible way, each possibility happening in a different parallel universe. I have no idea how each of us ends up in this particular branch of the universe- one in which we chose to zig instead of zag. But from the 'God's eye view' from outside the whole infinite number of universes, free will is meaningless because every possibility will run its course.

An odd idea that occurs to me when I think of this stuff. If there are an infinite number of universes in which I win the lottery, and also an infinite number in which I don't, are these two infinities equal? It seems that they aren't because more often than not this particular instance of me ends up in a universe in which I don't win the lottery.

I find two fundamental problems with your reasoning: #1 Reality doesn't care what you can accept.
#2 According to the best scientific evidence available to ants, ants will conclude that ants have a very significant place in the universe.

The approach I am going to take here is probably the opposite of the ones in my above posts

Could consciousness somehow be important to the universe?

Haven't scientists found that by observing fundamental physics experiments, they themselves 'force' the universe to choose between the possible results. Their tests seems to show that quantum physics situations that go unobserved remain in a state of probability rather than having a fixed solution. If that is the case, then the universe really does need someone with consciousness to observe it in order to somehow cause it to become what it is, otherwise it would be a fuzzy blob of vagueness with no definition.

(yes, this is sort of the opposite of what I had said earlier, but it seems both positions though more or less opposite are totally unprovable. So this idea might be true and the other thing I said about parallel universes might be bunk. Which would be better?)

Accepting or rejecting a line of reasoning isn't a part of the reasoning, but rather a judgment of its plausibilty.

- Obviously true for each of us.
Your linking my quote with your statement is an ungrounded leap.

- cute, prove it. :D

Sorry, it appears from what you've said that the options/explanations you are willing to consider are those which meet the extremely specific conditions you've pre-decided must be satisfied, i.e. an emotional relationship God/dess which doesn't play "hide and seek" with him/herself; right?

Not tryin' to be all harsh on ya; I'm just sayin' is all...

No problem, I didn't feel any harshness. I enjoyed reading your summation. Your conclusion was on the face of it, quite accurate for as far as it went, though I suppose you might guess I would want to fill it out somewhat for greater accuracy. I strive for the clearest understanding and communication possible.
I have a dear friend who's an agnostic(used to be atheist) and very intelligent, who for 32 years we've together discussed many aspects of reality perceptions, strengths and weaknesses of evolution and creation, etc.. We both grew to understand the importance of detailed, accurate communication to be able to get anywhere.

I'm just really pressed for time this week as my partners and I are this weekend putting on the largest open walleye tournament that exists on Lake Erie. Its a huge affair with a 105 boat field. We hold a free pig roast and catered dinner afterwards to all who attend... lots to do yet. ;)

In fact in looking back I saw how I had maybe offended you. I'm familiar with the basic concept you're presenting from elsewhere and have had it described as the God playing hide and seek with himself model or concept.
I wasn't meaning to be offensive, and if so I apologize.

I don't know why, but the topic of "free will" has never been terribly interesting to me. The argument about free will is more interesting than the actual idea, IMHO. My opinion is that no matter if it is one extreme or the other, you have no way of knowing, and it can't have any effect on your life and decision making process no matter which way were finally proven to be "true", so why bother worrying about?

Anyhow, even if I don't think much of it, this topic has been at the center of a long-running debate with some of history's greatest Philosophers. I found this discussion about free will terribly insightful: http://cdn1.libsyn.com/philosophybites/PinkMixSes.mp3

Robot predestination.

There's the stuff of a comic SF novel in that. John Wesley is no doubt not spinning in his grave, but doubling up and seized with the hiccups.

I've been thinking about simulated reality quite a bit lately. Whether or not consciousness is deterministic is going to become a major issue when we have to decide whether NPCs in a physics-appropriate simulation are alive or not.