Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah I am using some possible world semantics. I guess the reason why i think some modal operator is needed here is that, at least to my mind, infallibility should provide immunity from the mere possibility of epistemic error, which is different from just providing for the lack of epistemic error. For instance, just that something is free from er ...[text shortened]... ter being a stronger condition.

However, I am open to different opinions on all of this....

Can you clarify exactly what is meant here by libertarian free will?

I am currently assuming it means the ability to have any physically possible
thought, and undertake any physically possible action "at will".


If that is what libertarian free will is... Then I can't see how it's possibly compatible
with a god (or anything else) KNOWING with epistemic certainty what the choice WILL
be. Because in such a situation that choice, which hasn't been made yet*, can't be
changed and thus can't be free.

*By the supposedly free agent.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't see how this holds. There could be an infinite number of free will choices but god knows (sees) which one we will choose to take. Doesn't affect out free will in any way.

I'm not saying it does - it was just an attempt to roughly describe fatalism.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm not saying it does - it was just an attempt to roughly describe fatalism.

I still maintain that for god to know with epistemic certainty the outcome of future
events then those events must be pre-determined and that there can be no libertarian
free will.

Because it seems to me that libertarian free will requires the ability to make a
non-absolutely predictable decision.


However I would like to hear from anyone who thinks this is wrong and why.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I still maintain that for god to know with epistemic certainty the outcome of future
events then those events must be pre-determined and that there can be no libertarian
free will.

Because it seems to me that libertarian free will requires the ability to make a
non-absolutely predictable decision.


However I would like to hear from anyone who thinks this is wrong and why.

Free will should be an inherent quality of an individual that is independent of an observer's knowledge of future actions. If the observer is also the maker and mover of all things, however, then free will may be in jeopardy.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Free will should be an inherent quality of an individual that is independent of an observer's knowledge of future actions.

The observer can only know the outcome of future actions if those future actions
are already predetermined.

Hence the logical link, if god knows with certainty what we are going to do, it must
be the case that what we are going to do is already set in stone and we cannot
alter the decisions we have not made yet, but are destined to make.

Thus libertarian free will is [in my view] incompatible with certain and absolute
knowledge of the future.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The observer can only know the outcome of future actions if those future actions
are already predetermined.

Hence the logical link, if god knows with certainty what we are going to do, it must
be the case that what we are going to do is already set in stone and we cannot
alter the decisions we have not made yet, but are destined to make.

Thus ...[text shortened]... rian free will is [in my view] incompatible with certain and absolute
knowledge of the future.

What's predetermined depends on where you're standing on the timeline. God, supposedly, is situated outside time and space. The entire space-time continuum is one big high-res still-frame to God (or so many believe), with no "future" or "past" as such. So yes, to such a being everything is predetermined. But that does not preclude free will, because it may still be that God does not direct every action.

Or so many believe.

Originally posted by Soothfast
What's predetermined depends on where you're standing on the timeline. God, supposedly, is situated outside time and space. The entire space-time continuum is one big high-res still-frame to God (or so many believe), with no "future" or "past" as such. So yes, to such a being everything is predetermined. But that does not preclude free will, because it may still be that God does not direct every action.

Or so many believe.

It doesn't matter who if anyone is predetermining the action.

In a completely atheistic universe with no god at all, If the future is predetermined,
then there is no free will. [libertarian]

Free will is not curtailed by a being deciding what the predetermined future is,
it's curtailed by the future being predetermined.


My point was that for god to be able to have knowledge of the future requires that
the universe be predetermined and THAT removes free will.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I still maintain that for god to know with epistemic certainty the outcome of future
events then those events must be pre-determined and that there can be no libertarian
free will.

Because it seems to me that libertarian free will requires the ability to make a
non-absolutely predictable decision.


However I would like to hear from anyone who thinks this is wrong and why.

I'm going to let LJ handle that because he knows the terminology much better than I do.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It doesn't matter who if anyone is predetermining the action.

In a completely atheistic universe with no god at all, If the future is predetermined,
then there is no free will. [libertarian]

Free will is not curtailed by a being deciding what the predetermined future is,
it's curtailed by the future being predetermined.


My point was that f ...[text shortened]... nowledge of the future requires that
the universe be predetermined and THAT removes free will.

In a universe not being observed by an omniscient being, "predetermined" still means what it always means. We have to assign probabilities to events because as mere mortals we do not know the future, but what would antimatter particles which travel backward in time have to say if they could speak? The future is predetermined from some point of view.

Actually, if we hold to the "many worlds" hypothesis of quantum theory, every possible future in fact happens. So, if the answer to every question is "all of the above," where does that leave our precious free will? We are "free" only insofar as we are constantly surprised by what comes next.

Originally posted by Soothfast
In a universe not being observed by an omniscient being, "predetermined" still means what it always means. We have to assign probabilities to events because as mere mortals we do not know the future, but what would antimatter particles which travel backward in time have to say if they could speak? The future is predetermined from some point of view ...[text shortened]... ecious free will? We are "free" only insofar as we are constantly surprised by what comes next.

Please note I don't believe that libertarian free will exists.
(or could possibly exist?)

I am viewing this as a discussion in the abstract with the understanding that
certain people seem to want to include libertarian free will in their religion AND
a god that can see the future 'choices' we make perfectly.

To which I argue that this is impossible.

In this debate it has been suggested that libertarian free will is not logically incompatible
with a god that can have perfect knowledge of the future.

I disagree.


However in reality, whether the universe is completely determined and deterministic or not,
I don't for a moment think we have libertarian free will.

We can argue about compatibilist free will another time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Please note I don't believe that libertarian free will exists.
(or could possibly exist?)

I am viewing this as a discussion in the abstract with the understanding that
certain people seem to want to include libertarian free will in their religion AND
a god that can see the future 'choices' we make perfectly.

To which I argue that this is impo ...[text shortened]... think we have libertarian free will.

We can argue about compatibilist free will another time.

Understood.

Call me old school, or more likely ignorant, but I'm not aware of there being different species of free will. It seems to me that you're either in command of your own actions or you're not, so I can't guess at the difference between "libertarian" versus "compatibilist" free will.

To be honest I'm not sure that the existence of omniscient and/or omnipotent god(s) precludes the possibility of free will in general. However, my feeling is that the existence of the Biblical god, in particular, would indeed be bad news for free will all 'round (as well as freedom, justice, mercy, and any conception of a sane reality).

Originally posted by Soothfast
Understood.

Call me old school, or more likely ignorant, but I'm not aware of there being different species of free will. It seems to me that you're either in command of your own actions or you're not, so I can't guess at the difference between "libertarian" versus "compatibilist" free will.

To be honest I'm not sure that the existence of omniscient ...[text shortened]... free will all 'round (as well as freedom, justice, mercy, and any conception of a sane reality).

This is one of these long running hard and bitterly thought philosophical arguments
that have been running since people first invented logic and reason and started using
them to pick fights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

This is reflected in the epic length of the above wiki on the subject.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is one of these long running hard and bitterly thought philosophical arguments
that have been running since people first invented logic and reason and started using
them to pick fights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

This is reflected in the epic length of the above wiki on the subject.

Oh my. That's a doozy all right.

All my (rather limited) readings on the matter of free will were simply about whether or not we have it.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Oh my. That's a doozy all right.

All my (rather limited) readings on the matter of free will were simply about whether or not we have it.

Oooh no, you have to have an epicly long argument first about what you
mean by free will before you can discuss whether people have it or not
😉

Originally posted by Soothfast
Understood.

Call me old school, or more likely ignorant, but I'm not aware of there being different species of free will. It seems to me that you're either in command of your own actions or you're not, so I can't guess at the difference between "libertarian" versus "compatibilist" free will.

To be honest I'm not sure that the existence of omniscient ...[text shortened]... free will all 'round (as well as freedom, justice, mercy, and any conception of a sane reality).

I'll try a short version.

The idea of "Libertarian" free will is, roughly, "Free choices are those that could have been otherwise."

The idea of "Compatibilism" is, roughly, "Free will and determinism are compatible." (This is not necessarily an endorsement of determinism, however.) Under Compatibilism, my choices can be considered free even if there was no possibility of them being otherwise.