Time, Omniscience and Free Will

[Ronson]

There are a half dozen separate issues here. I’ll just name two, and that will probably still be tldr.

1) What is free will? It’s easy to analyze free will into absurd nonexistence, but is that valid? Namely, every choice is either caused by internal and external agencies or it’s uncaused. If it’s uncaused then it’s random. A random choice might be free, but it can’t be called will, because it’s undirected. It’s flipping a coin and then having no choice but to do what the coin toss decided for you. On the other hand, if a choice is caused, it is either an external cause, which we didn’t choose so the choice it caused us to make can’t be free will, or an internal cause. An internal cause is either nature or nurture. Nature is what we were born with; we didn’t choose it, so to the extent it causes us to make the choices we make, we have no freedom to go back and choose a different inborn nature. And nurture is just a mixture of how that unchosen nature and various unchosen external agencies have molded us unwillingly into who we’d be and what choices we will now make. No freedom is possible except by injecting random, utterly uncaused and undirected influences into our decision-making. Free will is meaningless.

I think there are two ways out of that conundrum. One is to say that free will is an emergent quality in which a) it’s more than the sum of its parts and b) there is a point beyond which you simply can not validly dissect your choices or your nature without losing the substance of what you’re trying to analyze. You make your choices. They are what they are. No amount of analysis of the causes will get you any closer to the heart of free will.

The second way is to invoke the soul. Much of who we are–our personality, memories, mental abilities and tendencies–is natural, hardwired or softwired into the circuitry of the brain. But the soul may be the conscious spark that is responsible for making moral choices based on all the data and programming the brain feeds it. It’s the umpire who can and must override the natural and nurtural propensities that an unconscious automaton would follow. And because the soul is non-material, it is not bound by the same logical concepts of cause and effect. It has no moving parts, so it has no cause to its choices but itself. The soul is a tiny sliver of the image of God that gives genuine freedom of will and choice in a world of clockwork pre-determinacy.

(A third way out is to just say that free-will from a biblical and spiritual perspective does not actually mean unrestricted freedom, but only that one acts according to one's nature, and one is morally and legally responsible for that action to the extent that it is internally directed and not externally forced. It's not how we prefer to think of free-will, but if that's the way it is, God in his sovereignty would have every right to judge us accordingly, just as a potter has every right to judge a pot malformed and destroy it, even though the pot didn't choose to be malformed. The pot never has any right to judge the potter, ever.)

Secondly, what is freedom? If freedom requires contingency and uncertainty, then freedom itself is bound up in time, and it has no meaning outside of its brief temporal moment of leeway. That is, every choice you’ve made was free until you made it, and then the freedom ceased to exist. You can’t change the past, so the past isn’t free. If the future is set in stone, whether by a B-theory of time or by God’s omniscience, then the future isn’t free. But in its moment in time, the choice was free, whether past, present, or future. Inside time, it’s free. Outside of time, it doesn’t lose its freedom; it just loses meaning to still describe it in those terms. I would argue that the B-theory of time doesn’t mean that time doesn’t really flow, it just means that, from a position outside of time according to which the concept of flow loses its meaning, the flow can only be seen in its entirety, not in its real but temporal contingency. And I don’t know what God’s view of time is like, but being outside of time does not mean God is frozen like a snapshot, unable to move, but that he is freer than those of us who are trapped in a single time-stream. And if freedom can exist within a B-theory of time (though not from its external perspective), it can certainly exist within the much freer nature of God.

Yes, I think this is a can of worms in any case.

Regarding (1), yes, it is all a stew of internal and external causes.

I walk down a path and I am startled and jump. Was the causing agent intelligent or not? A branch fell, or a human jumped out and said "boo!" The former would mean my jump was MY free will, and the latter would include the other person's free will because they chose to startle me. In either case, my jumping was instinct and not really "free will", but the direction I jumped could be a free will decision. So in this simple scenario there are already several contributors to a single action.

So without dissecting "free will" down to a molecular level, I would prefer to think of it as a carefully-considered decision by made an individual, with the freedom to act on that decision - as well as other decisions he could have made.

Regarding (2), God's omniscience can't be the deciding factor. Did God force you to walk down path A instead of path B, or does He only observe your decision? I can read someone's comprehensive autobiography and know every decision they ever made. Does my knowledge negate the freedom of those decisions? If the decisions were internal ones then they were freely made - and they will remain freely-made decisions after the person had written his book and he no longer exists. The only factor being introduced here is observance.

So I submit: If an omniscient God exists outside of time, then He must know future events with certainty. But that knowledge does not negate free will.

[JimL]

So you are saying that an observer changes everything? What if there was no observer but everything else you describe remains the same?

No, just the opposite, the observer has nothing to do with it other than if as an observer he/she can see the whole of time, past, present and future, then all of time exists whether an observer from a different perspective can see it or not. In other words if an observer outside of time i.e. a god, can see all of time, then all of time must needs exist whether an inside observer experiences time as coming into existernce incrementally or not. If an outside observer can see your future reality from an outside of time perspective, then your future reality must needs exist even though you are only aware of your present reality.

In other words the future of time can only be observed by an outside of time observer if future time actually exists, if the future time doesn't exist, then it can't be observed. But it can't be both, all of time can't both exist from one perspective and not exist from another perspective. If it exists from the former perspective, then the latter perspective of the future coming into existence must be an illusion.

As far as free will is concerned, the existence of all of time negates it. You can't freely choose a future that already exists, and has always existed prior to your experience of it.

[Jim B.]

So I submit: If an omniscient God exists outside of time, then He must know future events with certainty. But that knowledge does not negate free will.

I agree. Augustine and Boethius both addressed this problem over a millennium and a half ago. Knowledge does not equal control or causation.

[JimL]

I agree. Augustine and Boethius both addressed this problem over a millennium and a half ago. Knowledge does not equal control or causation.

God couldn't have knowledge of the future unless the future either exists and he can see it, or he engineered it to unwind in a manner that he knows it will, scenarios both of which would be determined and negate free will. If you have free will then you would have to explain how god would have knowledge of your future actions and not be responsible for them him/herself. Did Augustine or Boethius give explanation to that?

[Ronson]

God couldn't have knowledge of the future unless the future either exists and he can see it, or he engineered it to unwind in a manner that he knows it will, scenarios both of which would be determined and negate free will. If you have free will then you would have to explain how god would have knowledge of your future actions and not be responsible for them him/herself. Did Augustine or Boethius give explanation to that?

Imagine time as linear, and you can see the beginning and the end, and any chosen reference point in between is "the present." From our reference point we can see backward but not forward, so decisions made in that direction are fixed and knowable for us - at our juncture. That knowledge doesn't negate the free-will decisions that were made. We didn't affect them but only observed them.

God's reference point can be at the end, so He can see all the decisions that were made in the past - from that juncture. They are knowable and fixed for Him, but He did not affect them and only observes them.

Same thing only different vantage points.

[JimL]

Imagine time as linear, and you can see the beginning and the end, and any chosen reference point in between is "the present." From our reference point we can see backward but not forward, so decisions made in that direction are fixed and knowable for us - at our juncture. That knowledge doesn't negate the free-will decisions that were made. We didn't affect them but only observed them.

God's reference point can be at the end, so He can see all the decisions that were made in the past - from that juncture. They are knowable and fixed for Him, but He did not affect them and only observes them.

Same thing only different vantage points.

Sure, if all of time exists then an outside of time observer, i.e. god, can see that future, but that means that your future precedes your actual experience of it. Can you change that which already exists or will you just experience that which already exists. What you are suggesting is that even though you have yet to experience it, the you in the future of time already exists. How does the future you exists if you have yet to experience the future? How can an outside observer see the future you, unless you already exist in the future. Have you already lived out your entire life? If so, what are you doing here in the present?

[Jim B.]

Sure, if all of time exists then an outside of time observer, i.e. god, can see that future, but that means that your future precedes your actual experience of it. Can you change that which already exists or will you just experience that which already exists. What you are suggesting is that even though you have yet to experience it, the you in the future of time already exists. How does the future you exists if you have yet to experience the future? How can an outside observer see the future you, unless you already exist in the future. Have you already lived out your entire life? If so, what are you doing here in the present?

No, the problem is that you're using tensed categories like "already exists" to describe something that would be tenseless. The future does not 'already exist' for God. If God is outside of time entirely, or, as I prefer to put it, "unconditioned by temporal categories," then God, in some sense, would not be affected by tense at all. What Boethius and Augustine were talking about was the eternity of God. It would be a different plane of reality from our tensed reality. So God would not be 'already' in the future knowing what you're going to do tomorrow. He would be in an eternal present.

Imagine I am watching a film of you having a conversation with other people. I know what you're going to say because I've seen it already. Now I am in a tensed relationship to the events that were filmed, ie they happened in my past, so this is necessarily a limited analogy. But imagine that I am in the position of God, except that God is in a tenseless relation to the events in the film. They didn't happen in his past because he has no past. Every moment is eternally now for him. Just because "I" can know exactly what you will say on the film does not mean that you were determined to say what you said. My knowledge of what you said has no bearing on whether or not you were free to say what you said.

[JimL]

No, the problem is that you're using tensed categories like "already exists" to describe something that would be tenseless. The future does not 'already exist' for God. If God is outside of time entirely, or, as I prefer to put it, "unconditioned by temporal categories," then God, in some sense, would not be affected by tense at all. What Boethius and Augustine were talking about was the eternity of God. It would be a different plane of reality from our tensed reality. So God would not be 'already' in the future knowing what you're going to do tomorrow. He would be in an eternal present.

Imagine I am watching a film of you having a conversation with other people. I know what you're going to say because I've seen it already. Now I am in a tensed relationship to the events that were filmed, ie they happened in my past, so this is necessarily a limited analogy. But imagine that I am in the position of God, except that God is in a tenseless relation to the events in the film. They didn't happen in his past because he has no past. Every moment is eternally now for him. Just because "I" can know exactly what you will say on the film does not mean that you were determined to say what you said. My knowledge of what you said has no bearing on whether or not you were free to say what you said.

So, you think that an outside of time, or eternal being, can eternally observe what you have yet to do? For one thing, if an eternal being could eternally observe an so know your future, then your future was eternally determined. You have to remember that whatever is eternal, including the thing that an eternal being can eternally observe, can't change. If it could change then it couldn't be said to be eternally observed as it exists at each location in time. What I mean by "always" in this discussion is "eternally." If an outside observer can "always" i.e. eternally see the future, then the future must needs "always" have, or eternally have, existed, and that which etenally exists can't also be said to change. If an outside observer can eternally observe all of time, then all of time must have existed eternally. Yes or know? And if all of time existed eternally so that an outside observer could observe it then logically nothing of time could change.

[Jim B.]

So, you think that an outside of time, or eternal being, can eternally observe what you have yet to do? For one thing, if an eternal being could eternally observe an so know your future, then your future was eternally determined. You have to remember that whatever is eternal, including the thing that an eternal being can eternally observe, can't change. If it could change then it couldn't be said to be eternally observed as it exists at each location in time. What I mean by "always" in this discussion is "eternally." If an outside observer can "always" i.e. eternally see the future, then the future must needs "always" have, or eternally have, existed, and that which etenally exists can't also be said to change. If an outside observer can eternally observe all of time, then all of time must have existed eternally. Yes or know? And if all of time existed eternally so that an outside observer could observe it then logically nothing of time could change.

The future can change from our perspective, being inside of time, just like your future could change when you were being filmed, but now that it has been recorded, it cannot change. I had the film of you only after it was made because I'm in a tensed relation to the events that were filmed. God is not in such a relation, so God has "ALWAYS" or 'eternally' had the film of every event. But God's knowledge of what is filmed has no bearing on the free unfolding of those events, just as my knowledge of your actions that were filmed has no bearing on what you did freely as you were being filmed.

[siam]

So, you think that an outside of time, or eternal being, can eternally observe what you have yet to do? For one thing, if an eternal being could eternally observe an so know your future, then your future was eternally determined. ...If an outside observer can "always" i.e. eternally see the future, then the future must needs "always" have, or eternally have, existed, and that which eternally exists can't also be said to change. If an outside observer can eternally observe all of time, then all of time must have existed eternally. ...

A chunk of time need not be "eternal"? It could have a beginning and an end---with a new chunk of time coming into existence?

The future can change from our perspective, being inside of time, just like your future could change when you were being filmed, but now that it has been recorded, it cannot change. ... But God's knowledge of what is filmed has no bearing on the free unfolding of those events, just as my knowledge of your actions that were filmed has no bearing on what you did freely as you were being filmed.

In a paradigm in which actions/deeds have no consequences---only belief---such as Christianity, a linear conception of time might be workable....
But for those paradigms that have conceptions of human freewill actions/deeds creating consequences for the "future" a linear timeline would not be a satisfactory outlook.
for example---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, romanized: karma, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ] (About this soundlisten); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).[2] Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad

In a linear timeline of pre-determined "events" ---even if the being inside time did have the illusion of free-will, ---would not be enough as a concept to sustain the principle of Karma---which requires a change/consequence to happen. Conceptually, multiple time-lines might be a better option for such paradigms.....?....

[JimL]

A chunk of time need not be "eternal"? It could have a beginning and an end---with a new chunk of time coming into existence?

Then even an eternal, outside of time god, could only observe time in "chuncks" i.e. he could not observe the future until and unless it actually exists.

[JimL]

The future can change from our perspective, being inside of time, just like your future could change when you were being filmed, but now that it has been recorded, it cannot change. I had the film of you only after it was made because I'm in a tensed relation to the events that were filmed. God is not in such a relation, so God has "ALWAYS" or 'eternally' had the film of every event. But God's knowledge of what is filmed has no bearing on the free unfolding of those events, just as my knowledge of your actions that were filmed has no bearing on what you did freely as you were being filmed.

But if the future has not yet occured, if the future does not yet exist, even a timeless eternal being couldn't observe or know that future. You're making the same mistake as Sparko in equating the past with the future. If the past has some kind of existence like a recorded film then a timeless being could observe it just as could you, but unless the future exists in the same sense then it can't be observed by a timeless being any more than it could be by you. But, if the future does exist, then when time began it came into existence in it's entirety and you then could have no control over it, no free will to change it. Even a timeless being can't observe that which doesn't exist, so, if this timeless being could observe all of time since its inception, then all of time existed since its inception and there would be nothing you could do to change a future which has, as far as time goes, "always" existed.

[Jim B.]

But if the future has not yet occured, if the future does not yet exist, even a timeless eternal being couldn't observe or know that future. You're making the same mistake as Sparko in equating the past with the future. If the past has some kind of existence like a recorded film then a timeless being could observe it just as could you, but unless the future exists in the same sense then it can't be observed by a timeless being any more than it could be by you. But, if the future does exist, then when time began it came into existence in it's entirety and you then could have no control over it, no free will to change it. Even a timeless being can't observe that which doesn't exist, so, if this timeless being could observe all of time since its inception, then all of time existed since its inception and there would be nothing you could do to change a future which has, as far as time goes, "always" existed.

Notice that you write that "the future has not yet occurred" and "the future does not yet exist." I agree that the future does not yet exist, because the word "yet" indicates that we are still referring to tensed reality. God, under this conception, would not be confined to tensed reality. You make the same mistake when you write "when time began..." and "time since its inception..." You're trying to apply tenses to a context in which they can't apply. Imagine if the inhabitants of Flatland were to receive messages from some being in the n-dimensional world. Flatlanders might well ask "Where does this being speak to us from, from which X Y coordinates?" The question just doesn't apply. If this n-dim. being tried to explain things to them, they'd have no way of understanding him as long as they tried to fit their conception of 'position' into 2-dimensions.

[siam]

Then even an eternal, outside of time god, could only observe time in "chuncks" i.e. he could not observe the future until and unless it actually exists.

interesting....

you are right if "eternal" is also conceptually linear....but if "non-space-time" or the observer IN no-time/no-space is non-linear (say, spherical or web-like or something) then all futures would "exist" (as potential realities) but our choices would make them our reality of our time-line.....?....


likewise these chunks of space-time could "exist" but become active reality by some mechanism?.....is it getting too complicated?......

[JimL]

Notice that you write that "the future has not yet occurred" and "the future does not yet exist." I agree that the future does not yet exist, because the word "yet" indicates that we are still referring to tensed reality. God, under this conception, would not be confined to tensed reality. You make the same mistake when you write "when time began..." and "time since its inception..." You're trying to apply tenses to a context in which they can't apply. Imagine if the inhabitants of Flatland were to receive messages from some being in the n-dimensional world. Flatlanders might well ask "Where does this being speak to us from, from which X Y coordinates?" The question just doesn't apply. If this n-dim. being tried to explain things to them, they'd have no way of understanding him as long as they tried to fit their conception of 'position' into 2-dimensions.

Do you think that an outside of time being could observe the entire world of time even prior to time existing? Put it this way, God, the outside of time being, is eternal, correct? And the universe of time has existed for 14 billion years, correct? Could God obeserve that 14 billion year world of time prior to it's existing? Of course not, because it didn't exist. The same goes for the future of time, if it doesn't exist, then it can't be observed from any vantage point. But, if you are going to argue that God could eternally observe the entire world of time, then the entire world of time, past, present, and future, must needs be eternal as well. God may not be confined to tensed reality, but he also can't observe time, i.e. a tensed reality, unless it exists. So, if God can observe and thereby know the future eternally, then the future must needs have existed eternally as well.