Free Will and an Infallible God

[Subversive Agent]

Keep in mind he knows exactly which way you will go, even if that way is to turn around and go back, or to punch a hole in the wall, or even if you stand still (the mine only activates after a person stands on it for a certain amount of time). Even though you appear to have an option to avoid the mine (a route exists with no mine in it), where is your ability to choose to trigger the mine or not? His knowledge and creation of the situation leave you with no real choices, regardless of how it appears from within the situation.

No choice on the outcome, choice on how you reach that outcome. Free will does not imply you escape ground zero of a nuclear detonation, just means you can try not to piss yourself in the process.

[MooCow]

No choice on the outcome, choice on how you reach that outcome. Free will does not imply you escape ground zero of a nuclear detonation, just means you can try not to piss yourself in the process

Well said. I was trying to figure out how to phrase that, and just ended up opting for the more argumentative.

[3278]

I believe:

The infallibility of god [or gods] has nothing to do with free will.

Gods' omnipresence has nothing to do with free will. He can be everywhere, and you can still be able to make choices, or not make choices; that property is dependent on other variables.

Gods' omniscience has nothing to do with free will. Knowledge of choices made does not influence those choices when your viewpoint is four-dimensional, any more than knowledge of where a cue ball sits influences it sitting where it is. Causality is independent of observation or knowledge. Those turning now to the uncertainty principle, don't; it has to do with the mechanisms of observation, the alteration of something's position in spacetime because of actions taken against it. Fundementally, the uncertainty principle is a comment on the limitations of human perception; to percieve something, humans must experience it indirectly, by observing its effects on something else, like light or other matter. Gods, if omniscient, should not be in any way expected to have to be limited by this principle; it would make very little sense for them to be, although I would not say it is impossible.

Gods' omnipotence has nothing to do with free will. Power does not have to be used. Gods can create a stone too heavy for themselves to lift simply by choosing not to lift it. Gods have free will, also - they must have control over themselves if they have control over everything - and thus can decide to limit their own behavior.

The combination, however, of omniscience and omnipotence creates a problem, if you assume that before the creation of the universe, the gods knew its end result; this would mean that end result preceded its cause, meaning the universe would be self-contained and created with full knowledge of all events therein. However, if a god were to choose to create a universe whose properties he was not aware of in advance, but rather to create conditions for events to take place, he would have the power to do anything - including changing choices - but would also have the power to choose not to; he would have the knowledge of everything that would happen, but only after the initial cause. In this way, one could be all-powerful, as well as all-knowing, while still allowing events to unfold without interference.

All of this is ridiculous, of course, since it specifies as an initial starting condition something much less likely than the combination of omnipotence, omniscience, and free will within a closed system: it specifies the existence of a divine being with those properties, which is, as we all know, totally whack.

In the really real world, there is no free will, because there are no true choices. You can certainly "make choices," such as whether to wear the red shirt or the blue shirt, but that choice is not made by "you," because there's no "you" separate from the rules of causality. As Ang said much more effectively, a pool ball doesn't "choose" to be ejected at a certain angle; that ejection is a property of the physical laws which govern its behavior. Humans are not different, in any significant way, from pool balls.

[Subversive Agent]

Well if ultimaletly you can predict that I'm going to eat an apple right now because I have cromossome 76 and there are 374 atoms in my left hand and the stars are right... if everything is a law, simple like gravity or complex like man... Then I suppose yes, there is no free will. All our decisions are based on chemical processes in the brain, added by unknown factors (which may be predictable in themselves).

If there is no random factor, nothing that can not be quantified, dissected, weighted and defined... well then yes, we are nothing more than machines. Highly complex biological machines, but machines nonetheless. Sans free will.

But then, so is everything else. Including God.

[Anguirel]

If there is no random factor, nothing that can not be quantified, dissected, weighted and defined...

And if there is a random factor, then you did not choose to do anything. It randomly occured. And totally ruins physical causality.

[3278]

And there's absolutely nothing to suggest that randomness exists in our universe.

[TheScamp]

And totally ruins physical causality.

I really don't see why this is an issue at all.

[Anguirel]

And totally ruins physical causality.

I really don't see why this is an issue at all.

It isn't, directly. However, part of a philosophical argument is determining what the implications of your beliefs are. Many people would not give up the idea that our universe follows laws of causality. If wholly random events occured, sans causality, you completely destroy science. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless the cause of the action was random." It's a sucky law. If you're going to accept that there are possible forces that have physical effects but are not physical in nature (i.e. your actions are not purely bio-chemical and physical reactions; although your Soul/Mind is non-physical, it can have effects on your physical body and through it, on the physical world), you also need to accept the fact that our entire conception of science is broken in such a fashion as to be useful, perhaps, but wholly incomplete and, in the end, very wrong (in a fashion similar to Newtonian physics, which is useful, but it is fails to cover everything and is actually incorrect).

[Sowhat]

Sorry that I quote so much and that my posts are too long, it’s because most people tend to post while I’m asleep and then things are pretty stagnant while I am online.

Well yes, "the universe" is what we've labeled everything.

It's what we labeled "everything" at one time, but is that how it's used now?

I would say because that's our label for everything, it must include everything. What I think might be possible is that we'll find that the big bang happened at a point that actually wasn't the centre of the universe (there was an uneven distribution of matter/energy around the point where it occured) and that the universe is actually a lot bigger than we currently think. But by definition the universe is everything.

Quantum theory (which I'm barely literate on, so feel free to correct me) brought forth the idea (proven or no) that for anything that happens, every possible path it could have taken also happened (at least on the quantum level). If that is the case, what do we call this time and space where sequence x happened versus sequence y? What do we call the time/space where y happened instead, or the sum collection of all the sequences?

Because there is only one possibility, this isn't an issue. Llike Ang's example, if you drop a ball on a tilted table, it will roll downwards, it can't have rolled the other way. The interactions of energy and mass become much more complex when it comes to human consciousness and the decisions that we make, but they're still there, and they can only occur in one way.

I could say that subatomic particles don't exist because "atom" meant indestructible. Using the understanding of the time, they thought that the atom was as small as matter got and named it thusly.

But they named the entire atom an atom. Using my logic, I would say that because it's labeled an atom (despite that it's a bad name), an electron is part of an atom. It didn't matter that they didn't realise that electrons existed or could be removed from the rest of the atom at the time, I would still consider it a part of an atom, because what they were refering to was everything in that thing that they had found. And by this logic, I'd say that if we defined the universe as everything, then if we find something that we haven't seen before, it still must come under the heading as part of the universe.

Smart has nothing to with it. If the knowledge required to make those calculations didn't exist, then you couldn't make them. Perhaps God created us in order to further his own knowledge?

The knowledge required to make the calculations does exist I think, but the problem would be collecting all the data. You would have to collect data from a past moment, but to collect that data you'd have to store it somewhere at that time, but you'd need something to snap-shot the entire universe at that time, and the only way to do that would be for the thing recording the data to exist outside of the universe. As there is no such thing, you're right, it wouldn't work. We could only predict what would happen in an entirely sealed-off portion of the universe, but there's no such thing, we can only estimate what will happen in a small, relatively closed off environment by ignoring outside forces as negligible. But if you did know absolutely everything, you would know every factor and therefore be able to account for it when determining how everything would interact. God is said to know everything (hence he can't further his own knowledge), so he would be able to determine exactly what would happen given the way he created the universe.

Sure, but what does that have to do with what I said? You assume the reason for our creation was soley so that we could be "happy". There are higher pursuits then "happiness".

Like what? The aim in everything we do is to be happy/content/satisfied/feel emotions that give us positive reinforcement for our actions. But that wasn't the point, the point was that regardless of whatever it is that you consider to be "Good" (in your case not happiness), he could have created a world where only good things existed, not evil things.

Because they chose to do evil, and evil must be punished.

But if as you say what they do is necessary in order for good to exist, then what they were doing wasn't in fact evil, it was actually ensuring that good things would happen. Similarly, if someone does something good, by your logic, they're ensuring that evil things will happen. With your logic, nothing can be any more good or evil than something else, as it will cause an equal and opposite reaction in terms of good an evil, therefore it makes no sense for one action to be punishable and another not to be.

if you believe in determinism, then there is no justice in punishment, and no real guilt in any act. Of course, I was predetermined to rip your testicles off after you humped my ear, and I feel no remorse that this must happen as I have no control over it... *Anguirel proceeds to do just that*

I don’t fully agree with you on this one. There’s always the comeback, “Sure, but I was pre-determined to feel that you needed to be punished for it”. There was a point in punishing them, because you had to punish them. You were pre-determined to do so.

Regarding "the universe:" Universe no longer means "everything," since our notion of "everything" has expanded quite a bit since we started using the term. Universe now means the space/time in which we live. That space/time may be imbedded in something else, and in fact it seems fairly likely

The space and time that we live in could be considered just the Earth. Or this solar system. Or the Milky Way. They’re each a slightly larger part of everything. By that definition, why not call the Earth the universe?

In this universe, you are completely defined by physical laws. Your decision making process of whether to have blueberry or strawberry jam is an equation as much as gravity is an equation. There is no choice in whether something is effected by gravity, and there is no choice in whether you end up with blueberry or strawberry jam.

That is exactly right. We’re made out of mass and energy, like everything else. The concept of randomness is an illusion created by the enormous number of variables that come into play when a human thinks and acts, but all it means is that we can’t keep track of all of these variables at once in order to calculate the exact response someone will make. I don’t even like drawing (well representing, we can’t draw 3D) graphs of two variables. But if God existed, being all-knowing and all-powerful, he could easily account for all variables.

Your argument that knowledge = control is false. God /knows/ what we will do, but he does not /control/ what we do. There is a difference.

That’s true, but he doesn’t just know what will happen, he created us, therein being the difference. As he knew what the results of his creation would be, when he created us in this way, he chose our actions and forced the rest of history to unfold according to his will.

If he puts atom X in position Y it means you will go to the movies instead of playing paintball.

No it doesn't, because I am not bound by fate... Part of the design process included giving me free will which does not bind me to fate.

But that’s not possible, and Ang has given many examples as to why.

Gods can create a stone too heavy for themselves to lift simply by choosing not to lift it.

That doesn’t make it too heavy for them to lift, it just means they’re choosing not to.

Gods have free will, also - they must have control over themselves if they have control over everything - and thus can decide to limit their own behavior.

This may be true, but by choosing to limit his knowledge of exactly how his creations would turn out, he was choosing to allow faults to occur. He still chose them, and he’s still responsible for them. It was still his actions of creation that forced those paths upon people. Like when you choose to get completely plastered, you are still responsible for your actions. Try getting off a drink-driving charge by saying, “But I was drunk, I didn’t know what I was doing!”. If you chose to get drunk, you chose the actions you’d take because of it. If God did limit himself before he created us, he chose the “mistakes” he made by choosing to limit himself, therefore he’s still responsible for them.

However, if a god were to choose to create a universe whose properties he was not aware of in advance, but rather to create conditions for events to take place, he would have the power to do anything - including changing choices

What do you mean by that (the changing choices bit)?

... which is, as we all know, totally whack.

Yep, this is a silly little discussion as God doesn’t exist anyway .

[3278]

Regarding "the universe:" Universe no longer means "everything," since our notion of "everything" has expanded quite a bit since we started using the term. Universe now means the space/time in which we live. That space/time may be imbedded in something else, and in fact it seems fairly likely

The space and time that we live in could be considered just the Earth. Or this solar system. Or the Milky Way. They’re each a slightly larger part of everything. By that definition, why not call the Earth the universe?

I must not have explained well. The "universe" is the /entire/ spacetime in which we live, not any single part of it. "The set of all spacetimes," if you will, is known as the omniverse, or cosmos.

Gods can create a stone too heavy for themselves to lift simply by choosing not to lift it.

That doesn’t make it too heavy for them to lift, it just means they’re choosing not to.

Certainly. I'm playing a conceptual semantic game.

Gods have free will, also - they must have control over themselves if they have control over everything - and thus can decide to limit their own behavior.

This may be true, but by choosing to limit his knowledge of exactly how his creations would turn out, he was choosing to allow faults to occur. He still chose them, and he’s still responsible for them. It was still his actions of creation that forced those paths upon people.

Only indirectly. God created liquor, for instance; he did not force you to drink it.

However, if a god were to choose to create a universe whose properties he was not aware of in advance, but rather to create conditions for events to take place, he would have the power to do anything - including changing choices

What do you mean by that (the changing choices bit)?

Just that gods have the power - if they are omnipotent - to change their minds, to make decisions, to choose different paths.

[Sowhat]

This may be true, but by choosing to limit his knowledge of exactly how his creations would turn out, he was choosing to allow faults to occur. He still chose them, and he’s still responsible for them. It was still his actions of creation that forced those paths upon people.

Only indirectly. God created liquor, for instance; he did not force you to drink it.

But he did for the same reason that we can say that he created liquor. He created liquor because he set the universe in motion so that a human would one day discover it, just as he set it in motion that a human would one day drink it. Both were equally his doings.

[TheScamp]

If you're going to accept that there are possible forces that have physical effects but are not physical in nature (i.e. your actions are not purely bio-chemical and physical reactions; although your Soul/Mind is non-physical, it can have effects on your physical body and through it, on the physical world), you also need to accept the fact that our entire conception of science is broken in such a fashion as to be useful, perhaps, but wholly incomplete and, in the end, very wrong (in a fashion similar to Newtonian physics, which is useful, but it is fails to cover everything and is actually incorrect).

But aren't we already accepting that issue with the inclusion of God in the conversation?

[Anguirel]

If you're going to accept that there are possible forces that have physical effects but are not physical in nature (i.e. your actions are not purely bio-chemical and physical reactions; although your Soul/Mind is non-physical, it can have effects on your physical body and through it, on the physical world), you also need to accept the fact that our entire conception of science is broken in such a fashion as to be useful, perhaps, but wholly incomplete and, in the end, very wrong (in a fashion similar to Newtonian physics, which is useful, but it is fails to cover everything and is actually incorrect).

But aren't we already accepting that issue with the inclusion of God in the conversation?

God is not necessarily outside of the physical universe (though the general conception is that such a being would be). I will grant that true omnipotence would inherently break physical causality, though, as any being with that power could cause an action without any reaction. However, if the Universe were designed as a self-contained system in which physical causality was the rule, with only God beng the exception, the argument stands. That is, God can break physical causality (yet chooses not to do so), but nothing within the system may do so, and nothing else from outside the system may do so.

[3278]

But he did for the same reason that we can say that he created liquor. He created liquor because he set the universe in motion so that a human would one day discover it, just as he set it in motion that a human would one day drink it. Both were equally his doings.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the purpose of liquor is human consumption? Because alcohol predates humans by a significant amount. I just don't understand where you're going with this.

[Sowhat]

He created everything, that's all.

[Marius]

He created everything, that's all.

How boring.

[3278]

Plus, not really applicable. Just because gods created something doesn't mean they chose to decide on a purpose for it, much less on /every/ purpose for it.

[Serious Paul]

Thats all assuming this hypothetical deity chooses not to exercise his hypothetical supreme power. Unfortunately I fail to see where evidence could really be offered to either direction of this arguement.

[WillyGilligan]

Plus, not really applicable. Just because gods created something doesn't mean they chose to decide on a purpose for it, much less on /every/ purpose for it.

But we hold humans responsible for neglect, especially with children but also for negligent homicide, for example. You didn't deliberately cause the situation, but you didn't keep it from happening though it was in your power to do so. Likewise, if an omnipotent creator creates a situation in which they could write the reality so that alcohol doesn't affect people the way we all know and love, but choose to allow that to happen (maybe they didn't think it was important, maybe they think it's a good thing and want to prove their love to the Irish), then they can be held responsible for that effect. In essence, anything God(s) do not disallow, they allow and assume responsibility for. I'm very sleepy, so that might make less sense to me in the morning.

[lordhellion]

He created everything, that's all.

How boring.

A boring statement doesn't make it impossible. Just the obvious answer (which, historically, are usually the right ones).

We're just going in circles here. We're arguing that God chose whether or not to give you free will, and that if it was God's choice than it's not really our will. We're just going around and around, saying it in different ways with new analogies to back it up. No answer's going to some this way, but hey, it's a way to kill time, so I won't knock it.

But how about this, what evidence would one need to prove the other side of the arguement to them? What does it take to prove free will? What does it take to prove predestination?

The fact is we're stuck inside the aquarium, here. We are completely unable to observe the workings from the inside. A pet fish might as well try to figure out how it's tank filtration system works (hint: it'd have an easier time). Being stuck in a causality that is determined by the solution of the problem, we have no resources as to what that solution is more than speculation.

More but different food for thought--The whole "Character in a Book" analogy got me thinking, is the End of Time/Apocalypse/Cataclysm that NEARLY everybody (I capped it because I know someone will say "Nuh-uh, not everbody does!") suspects will happen in the future (whether near or far), would that be an actual End of Time, or an End of Scripted Action?

[3278]

In essence, anything God(s) do not disallow, they allow and assume responsibility for.

Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that the individual human didn't make the choice. The gods are ultimately culpable for everything good and evil: YHVH created "the Devil" [whichever name for him you prefer; Lucifer is biblically inaccurate]. Whomsoever creates anything is responsible for it; that does not mean, however, that the "created" may [or may not] have made choices themselves. Responsibility isn't the issue here; however, I agree with you that it exists.

[Anguirel]

But how about this, what evidence would one need to prove the other side of the arguement to them? What does it take to prove free will? What does it take to prove predestination?

A portion of the purpose of this is not to convince the other side at all or to, strictly speaking, prove a point. The philosophical dialog here is also meant to establish the full ramifications of a given stance. I don't mind if someone believes in Free Will. That's their own deal, and there's no real evidence either way -- but in order to have some sort of Free Will rather than Fate or determinism, you need to give up on the idea of science ever completely locking down physical laws.

Free Will implies that some actions within your brain have no precursor. There is no physical cause. If there were such a cause, then you didn't really choose -- it was simply a chemical reaction taking place, and no more a choice than Hydrogen gas oxidizing to become water is a choice of some sort. It's a simple reaction that follows strict rules and can be completely predicted given known starting conditions. Thus, to escape determinism, you need to break physical causality. Which is fine if you want to believe that, but you should be aware that such is a logical consequence of that initial assumption that humans have Free Will.

[Szechuan]

Sorry, folks. I had to leave for the weekend to help with a university film. I can't really add any more input right now because I'm still out and about. Ang's pretty much handling anything I would have said, though, from what I can see.

[Szechuan]

In essence, anything God(s) do not disallow, they allow and assume responsibility for.

Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that the individual human didn't make the choice. The gods are ultimately culpable for everything good and evil: YHVH created "the Devil" [whichever name for him you prefer; Lucifer is biblically inaccurate]. Whomsoever creates anything is responsible for it; that does not mean, however, that the "created" may [or may not] have made choices themselves. Responsibility isn't the issue here; however, I agree with you that it exists.

To simplify/clarify/enlighten: So the men involved in the Manhattan Project are responsible for the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Salvation122]

Partially. As with the rest of human history, you can't point to one cause and say it led to that effect. There are entirely too many forces acting within the system, most of which are unrecorded.

[Szechuan]

Oh, absolutely. That complexity is a primary theme of this thread. I was just making sure I understood that point - the creator takes responsibility for the actions of the creation. (I think. )

[3278]

To simplify/clarify/enlighten: So the men involved in the Manhattan Project are responsible for the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Absolutely. So is CTR Wilson, who, because of funding shortages, was recruited to work at the Ben Nevis meteorological station, where one day he saw his shadow - from the top of the mountain - cast onto the clouds below. Interested in reproducing the effects and the clouds, he built a cloud chamber, which produced condensation through a drop in pressure. Now, at the time, everyone figured that water condensed on dust in the air, but even after completely evacuating his chamber and making sure none of the air had any contaminants in it, condensation still formed. He figured the dust was too small to see, and went on his way.

Ernest Rutherford is responsible, too, since he looked at the photographs of the cloud chamber in action, and, seeing trails as well as secondary streaks departing these trails, correctly deduced that he was seeing alpha particle decay. Because of this, scientists were able to study the structure and behavior of the atom in ways that led to the development of the atomic devices dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War.

But responsibility is not fault. While they caused events to unfold, they did so without foreknowledge, with no reasonable expectation of foreknowledge, for totally unrelated reasons, and in so doing discovered things that most likely would have been discovered eventually anyway. The english language doesn't have the right words to sort "responsible" from "culpable" in a way that's immediately understandable.

[Salvation122]

Well, again: yes, to a degree. The people who built the facility and the Nazis and Truman and the pilots on Enola Gay and the commander and crew of the... Indianapolis, I believe, as well as their mothers (for giving birth to the creators, you see,) are also partially responsible. It's an utterly complex chain, and I'd shy away from directly saying that they "were responsible" in this context.

[Edit: Fucking Ninja. Said it better than I, as well.]

[Szechuan]

Note: I didn't mean to imply the phrase 'solely responsible' in my above statements.

So. If a god is in some way responsible for our actions, why should he punish sinners?

[3278]

So. If a god is in some way responsible for our actions, why should he punish sinners?

For the same reason that I - and not my mother - should be punished for my actions: because I chose them. Even though she /caused/ them, she is not - we humans have decided - /to blame/ for them. That's the difference between responsible and culpable. Is that logical? Well, that's certainly debateable.

On the other hand, in the god case, if free will exists, then the choice was solely ours; we knew the ramifications of our actions and chose Satan and his works over God, or whatever the religion in question believes. The choice was ours, so despite gods' responsibility, the blame is ours.

[Szechuan]

For human problems that must be solved by humans, I agree with your statement. Punishing the individuals most directly responsible is obviously a better idea than sending their folks to prison.

But if God made the universe in such a way as to make us unable to truly control our actions, if good and evil and our choices are all a matter of this determinism we're discussing, why should he punish us?

[3278]

But if God made the universe in such a way as to make us unable to truly control our actions, if good and evil and our choices are all a matter of this determinism we're discussing, why should he punish us?

/If/ God made us unable to control our actions - if there is no free will - then he should not punish us, because we are neither responsible nor culpable. We are no more deserving of punishment than the meteor which killed the dinosaurs.

[Szechuan]

But if God made the universe in such a way as to make us unable to truly control our actions, if good and evil and our choices are all a matter of this determinism we're discussing, why should he punish us?

/If/ God made us unable to control our actions - if there is no free will - then he should not punish us, because we are neither responsible nor culpable. We are no more deserving of punishment than the meteor which killed the dinosaurs.

So, if we can measure all variables and constantly predict who is going to do what when, then God is a jackass?

[3278]

Absolutely! Or does not exist, of course.

[Szechuan]

Well, yeah.

[TLM]

Aren't you all working from the assumption that god cares about us? What happens if he/she/it doesn't care about humanity, let alone individual humans? I realize that it's 'easier' in some ways to assume that if there is a god, then naturally it must care about our well-being, but that might in no way be the case.

So if god exists, but does not care about us, wouldn't that enable us to have a 'true' free will, since god would not have any inclination to reward or punish us?

[Szechuan]

The free will aspect we were discussing depends on the laws of physics that we have not yet discovered.

As for your statement, I can see where you're coming from. But if the consequences don't differ no matter your decision, we're all destined to the same end anyway.

[3278]

Another interesting aspect of the responsibility versus culpability issue is the notion of chain-of-command. There are many cases in human history in which one human admits responsibility for an act, but attempts to deflect culpability by invoking the defense that they were following the orders of another. It is hardly difficult to see the many ways this can relate to religion, to gods, to sin.

[Szechuan]

The most popular study on chain-of-command was done in the 60s and was originally laughed at. Other researchers assumed you would only get 1% of the population - the socipaths - to kill a human when told.

65% of all respondents pushed the button that they believed would fatally shock a human that they knew was there but could only hear. ~50% did so even when they could see the person. ~30% did it even when they had to physically apply the shocking apparatus to the person.

[3278]

And even if the methods of that particular experiment could be debated - and I suppose they could be - one must remember those were normal people, in a somewhat normal situation. Under duress, under combat, under fire? Given even the slightest reason, nearly any human will kill. Civilization is a thin veneer over hundreds of millions of years of biology.

[Szechuan]

Subjects were told that it was an experiment that used aversion to aid the 'victim's' memory. Every time the victim got an answer wrong, they were given an increasingly powerful 'shock'. We were shown videos of this - some people were crying but continued to push the buttons labelled as 100 volts, 125 volts, 200 volts, 400 volts, etc...
About 2/3 of the way up,the victim would cry out and ask for them to stop. After a few more notches up the machine, the victim would stop talking as if unconscious.

Of the 35% of people who did not go all the way, not one got up to help the victim without the experimenter's permission.

Whoopee diffusion of responsibility.

[FlameBlade]

I'm with Szech here. I know about the experiment. The results are frightening.

It's known as the Miligram Experiment. Almost all psychology class talks about it.

Miiligram Experiment

The results are rather obvious here.

[Cain]

Ah, yes, Stanley Milgram. The ramifications of that could take up several threads alone.

I've been avoiding this thread because I don't accept: "Do you believe in God?" as anything other than a poorly defined or trick question, but I'll toss this into the mix-- perhaps it is possible for there to both be a random factor (free will) and complete knowledge of the outcome.

Let's use diffusion as an example. We'll take a glass of pure deionized water, and at point X, we will introduce exactly Y amount of 3.00M salt water. Now, no form of math known to us can predict the movement of any given sodium particle one introduced. Heck, even given perfect preknowledge of the conditions, we *still* cannot predict the movement of a single particle, let alone the movements of thousands of them, colliding with one another.

However... given a pocket calculator and the diffusion constant of water, I can predict the exact salinity at any given point in the vial, at any time frame after the salt water was added. It doesn't require anything more than algebra, really.

So, it is entirely possible that if a supreme being existed, that our "random factor" of free will could already be accounted for. It simply makes no difference in the overall scheme of things.

[Marius]

However... given a pocket calculator and the diffusion constant of water, I can predict the exact salinity at any given point in the vial, at any time frame after the salt water was added.

No, you can't.

[Cain]

However... given a pocket calculator and the diffusion constant of water, I can predict the exact salinity at any given point in the vial, at any time frame after the salt water was added.

No, you can't.

Okay. So I need a scientific calculator. My bad.

[Marius]

Still can't do it.

[Cain]

*re-examines formula*

Time, gradient, diffusion constant, distance... what else do you need?

Oh, wait. Forgot to specify STP.

Better?

[Marius]

Nope. Because the concentration at any given point is never going to be exactly the number you calculate. The assumption that concentrations in solution are uniform is useful and robust, coming as it does from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But since the second law of thermodynamics is also merely a useful (and, of course, robust) assumption, neither turns out to actually be true. (This may be completely immaterial to the point you were trying to illustrate. I just saw something that was innaccurate enough to be pedantic about.)

[Cain]

How can it "never" be preciely what I calculate? Especially if I end up predicting the salinity for the solution as a whole?

At any event, the point is that it doesn't matter how the individual sodium molecules feel about things, or what random decisions they happen to make. The solution will reach salinity X at point Y at time Z, despite the randomness of the calculation.

[3278]

No, it won't. Marius is right. The overall result depends on the totality of the unpredictable factors. Your equation is merely an approximation. It will work to within a very, very small margin of error, but it will not be "correct." This is the lesson Lorenz first learned: beyond a certain point, further knowledge is not useful for predictive capabilities, because the system is too complex to allow for all variables. [This was so difficult for people used to the mechanistic universe to understand that for some time, people thought that meant the universe behaved in an essentially random way, and so we called it "Chaos Theory," until people got off their crazy humanocentric horses and realized our limitations are not the limitations of reality; now we call it "The Theory of Complex Systems," which isn't as catchy, but is a lot more accurate.]