God’s reason for regularity

[Bronzeage]

The context is quite plain. One one side of the scale we have the mental capacity of the creator of all things, and on the other side of the scale, a human brain.

Can a human truly judge perfection? My mother thought I was perfect, but others disagree. What is the use of an infinitely subjective standard?

What alternative is there?

We could also discuss questions with inherent paradoxes, such as "How long is a string?"

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is the metaphysics forum. Please address your complaint to the manager.


I didn't assume the universe to be perfect. I start with assuming the god wants two things: a complex universe with man in it and free-will given to man. Whether the result would be perfect may not even make sense beyond including these two elements.

It's a battle of the absurdities, with the only viable position being, "don't we have something better to do?"

Do you? And if so why are you even responding?

Also, you are assuming perhaps that this is a frivolous topic or something but compared to most of the posts on this website I think this is serious stuff.
EB

I said absurd, not frivolous.

If it's absurd, either I know it and it's frivolous of me to proceed with this thread or I don't and I'm an idiot. You think I'm an idiot? Your mother was wrong, you're not perfect.

If you want to present an argument which proposes there is some seriousness to it, you have the free will do so, if we do not consider the possibility that an omnipotent entity has already ordained you will do so.

This is a meta-argument although I'm not sure you understand this. Anyway, it is and as such it is a derail. You are questionning whether I know I have the free will necessary to have a rational discussion of the OP. However, I never claimed and don't need to achieve rationality. I am interested in what posters can say to answer the OP's question, whether their answers are freely produced or predetermined is irrelevant as long as these answers are interesting to me. I'll see whether they seem also rational enough. You don't stop a chemical reaction just by arguing that it's not free to do what it's going to do anyway. Also I haven't posited actual free will or required that posters only make free responses.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so this is clearly a derail: First, the god is assumed all-powerful and omniscient. Second, I didn't specify that it was our universe he created.

Also, it would be Ok to have the god starts from preexisting formless or chaotic raw material as long as the god could do anything he wanted to do with it.
EB

Ah, not this universe.

A regular universe would be predictable

Any created universe would be predictable for the omniscient and almighty god who would have created it and indeed for any omniscient being.

A regular universe is not necessarily predictable for non-omniscient beings.

A regular universe would be predictable which seems indispensable to free will.

That may depend on what kind of free will you have in mind but, as I see it, in a non-regular and unpredictable universe, actions based on free will could fail unpredictably but not necessarily. Man could have free will but may not succeed, or only occasionally, in doing what he would be trying to do. He may only succeed unpredictably. So I don't think a regular universe is necessary to actual free will.

It should be noted that we seem to believe both that we have free will and that we do not succeed all the time in what we are trying to do. This works as a specification of what me mean by "free will", whether or not we have it and whether we have it as we think of it.

After all, you can't choose without perceiving the choices.

Yes, and it goes somewhat in the direction I had in mind to answer the OP's question but I don't see why a non-regular universe would necessarily prevent man from entertaining choices. Also, the OP implicitly assumes the god would create man to our own image, so to speak, and we at least believe we have choices so let's assume the OP's man would have what we believe we have.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

The context is quite plain. One one side of the scale we have the mental capacity of the creator of all things, and on the other side of the scale, a human brain.

Yes.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

A regular universe is not necessarily predictable for non-omniscient beings.

Free will is intimately connected to understanding. How could an unpredictable universe be understood to a sufficient degree to present clear choices.

That may depend on what kind of free will you have in mind but, as I see it, in a non-regular and unpredictable universe, actions based on free will could fail unpredictably but not necessarily. Man could have free will but may not succeed, or only occasionally, in doing what he would be trying to do. He may only succeed unpredictably. So I don't think a regular universe is necessary to actual free will.

It seems to me that man would have to succeed often enough to make the distinction between actions taken as a result of judgement or arbitrary choices. That judgement requires understanding.

It should be noted that we seem to believe both that we have free will and that we do not succeed all the time in what we are trying to do. This works as a specification of what me mean by "free will", whether or not we have it and whether we have it as we think of it.

Sure it exists at least as a common illusion or construction. If we have omniscient Gods in our hypothetical universe, free will must exist, in God if nowhere else.

After all, you can't choose without perceiving the choices.

Yes, and it goes somewhat in the direction I had in mind to answer the OP's question but I don't see why a non-regular universe would necessarily prevent man from entertaining choices. Also, the OP implicitly assumes the god would create man to our own image, so to speak, and we at least believe we have choices so let's assume the OP's man would have what we believe we have.
EB

I don't see any value or interest in free will that doesn't involve understanding.

The divine power shared in man is exactly that of the creator: to envision and create. We can examine our world and our relationship to it, make judgements and take actions to achieve the perfection in our minds.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A regular universe is not necessarily predictable for non-omniscient beings.

Free will is intimately connected to understanding.

I don't see how that would be necessarily the case. An almighty god could choose to bestow understanding on man but not free will or vice versa.

I suspect you are still reasonning on the basis that the god would create our universe. I want to be more general than that: man is broadly the same but the universe to be created is up to this god given the constraintes I indicated.

Given that man in this universe would be broadly the same as what it is in ours we can assume free will there to be whatever we believe it to be here (even if we are wrong about the latter). However, the universe could be, or could have been, anything the god wanted and very different, or possibly very similar but subtly different from ours.

So we would have the two initial decisions of the god, man possessing free will, one much like ours, and the potential capabilities to understand things (same kind of brain as we have). The god would then have to design the universe in coherence with these two initial choices.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That may depend on what kind of free will you have in mind but, as I see it, in a non-regular and unpredictable universe, actions based on free will could fail unpredictably but not necessarily. Man could have free will but may not succeed, or only occasionally, in doing what he would be trying to do. He may only succeed unpredictably. So I don't think a regular universe is necessary to actual free will.

It seems to me that man would have to succeed often enough to make the distinction between actions taken as a result of judgement or arbitrary choices. That judgement requires understanding.

Understanding has the value of knowledge: If you understand the world then you know something about the world. Free will does not require knowledge of the world and therefore does not require understanding the world. We can imagine man taking decisions freely about an imaginary or inadequate representation of the world he would take for real. His action would fail but he would still have free will. In this case he could still have understanding capabilities but actual understanding operational only on imaginary things.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see any value or interest in free will that doesn't involve understanding.

I'm assuming that this god's creation of a man would be essentially like us and so would possess potential understanding capabilities. Man would make free choices based on whatever he would have understood. But free will and an intelligent brain would have to make do with whatever universe the god would have chosen to create. Prisonners in Staline's goulags would still have enjoyed free will assuming their mental health would have permitted it.

The divine power shared in man is exactly that of the creator: to envision and create.

Derail.

We can examine our world and our relationship to it, make judgements and take actions to achieve the perfection in our minds.

Derail.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm assuming that this god's creation of a man would be essentially like us and so would possess potential understanding capabilities. Man would make free choices based on whatever he would have understood. But free will and an intelligent brain would have to make do with whatever universe the god would have chosen to create. Prisonners in Staline's goulags would still have enjoyed free will assuming their mental health would have permitted it.

The divine power shared in man is exactly that of the creator: to envision and create.

Derail.

We can examine our world and our relationship to it, make judgements and take actions to achieve the perfection in our minds.

Derail.
EB

Is man was created in Gods image? (You said man like us) If so, what meaning does this have, if not the capacity for creation and judgement? If not, then it's not what I would consider free will.

Surely prisoners in the Gulag faced problems of free will. That power is the critical thing, not the limitations in which it works.

Free will without knowledge or understanding presents no problems. It may exist that way, but who cares. Without value choices are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is the metaphysics forum. Please address your complaint to the manager.


I didn't assume the universe to be perfect. I start with assuming the god wants two things: a complex universe with man in it and free-will given to man. Whether the result would be perfect may not even make sense beyond including these two elements.

It's a battle of the absurdities, with the only viable position being, "don't we have something better to do?"

Do you? And if so why are you even responding?

Also, you are assuming perhaps that this is a frivolous topic or something but compared to most of the posts on this website I think this is serious stuff.
EB

I said absurd, not frivolous.

If it's absurd, either I know it and it's frivolous of me to proceed with this thread or I don't and I'm an idiot. You think I'm an idiot? Your mother was wrong, you're not perfect.

If you want to present an argument which proposes there is some seriousness to it, you have the free will do so, if we do not consider the possibility that an omnipotent entity has already ordained you will do so.

This is a meta-argument although I'm not sure you understand this. Anyway, it is and as such it is a derail. You are questionning whether I know I have the free will necessary to have a rational discussion of the OP. However, I never claimed and don't need to achieve rationality. I am interested in what posters can say to answer the OP's question, whether their answers are freely produced or predetermined is irrelevant as long as these answers are interesting to me. I'll see whether they seem also rational enough. You don't stop a chemical reaction just by arguing that it's not free to do what it's going to do anyway. Also I haven't posited actual free will or required that posters only make free responses.
EB

There is no reason to think free will is necessary for a rational discussion to occur,or for a person to present a rational argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is man was created in Gods image? (You said man like us)

I don’t see why an otherwise unspecified omnipotent and omniscient god would necessarily want to create man in his image. Don’t export the characteristics we may believe our universe has to the hypothetical universe envisaged in the OP. You have to start from those characteristics which are specified in the OP, i.e. omnipotent and omniscient god, and man with free will, or it’s a derail.

If so, what meaning does this have, if not the capacity for creation and judgement?

It seems to me that if man has free will then he has creativity and judgement, judgement as the mental ability to make distinctions but not necessarily moral distinctions, and not even necessarily objectively or materially effective or successful ones. Completely ineffective and unsuccessful people in our universe, for example in the case of the locked-in syndrome, presumably are still regarded as possessing free will and the ability to make distinctions.

If not, then it's not what I would consider free will.

The OP doesn’t specify “free will as envisaged by Horatio Parker”.
It doesn’t specify it at all so you need to start from the basic notion of free will we think we all have (whether we possess it or not), i.e. the ability to choose between alternative possibilities, such as going up rather than down if you’re standing at the 20th floor landing of a fifty-floor tower or thinking about Santa Claus living at the North Pole rather than the monster living at the centre of the universe.

Surely prisoners in the Gulag faced problems of free will. That power is the critical thing, not the limitations in which it works.

So we normally think of prisoners as necessarily deprived of free will?! Why would we need to keep them under lock and key?

Free will without knowledge or understanding presents no problems.

I didn’t say free will without knowledge or understanding but without knowledge and understanding of the universe outside the man’s own mind.

It may exist that way, but who cares.

That’s a metaphysical thread, not a moral one.

Without value choices are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Values are not necessarily moral values (otherwise we would always drop “moral” in “moral values” and careful speakers don’t). Values include whether I prefer working outdoors or in offices

Value: Usefulness, utility, worth, merit or importance to the holder;
Values: A principle, rule, code or standard, as of conduct, manners, activities, that is considered important, desirable or defining.

Choice implies value but not necessarily moral value. I don’t see that our basic notion of free will implies making moral choices. We don’t usually think of amoral people as unable to make choices according to whatever values they may have. Moral people certainly disapprove or think of amoral people as weird but not as being deprived of free will. Also, I’d be surprised if it was discovered that nobody was truly amoral.
Also, whatever seems meaningless to you may not seem so to others. I think we usually accept that people can be different, very different, including in the way that their brain works. Meaning is a personal and private thing that we are not forced to share with others.



I think exporting our moral system to the hypothetical universe envisioned in the OP is unnecessary to answer the question. In terms of both free will and the cognitive capabilities of our brain, moral choices are not substantially different from choices we make about the world or about whatever imaginary things we want to think about.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is no reason to think free will is necessary for a rational discussion to occur,or for a person to present a rational argument.

It probably all depends on what you mean by free will and by rationality. If you think of free will as the kind we don’t have then obviously it’s not necessary to having a rational discussion.

Me I'm referring in the OP as the kind of free we have, i.e. the common and therefore minimalist notion of free will which we think allows us to choose consciously between alternative possibilities present to our mind. This seems a process crucial to the historical development of ideas, including science. Also, mainstream physicists seem to believe human beings must have the necessary freedom to make crucial choices.

Sure we could get a simple computer programme to choose between printing gibberish and printing a typical conversation between Max Born and Niels Bohr (substitute the names of whoever you think are paramount examples of rationality). But this wouldn’t be demonstration of an ability to carry out a rational discussion and the computer’s choice wouldn’t be described as conscious. So I’m not sure what you mean.

But maybe subjective consciousness is not necessary to free will. An AI machine could get the ability necessary to produce a rational argument about this OP for example or other complex issues like, say, deciding which interpretation of QM is best. But if there is no autonomous choice possibly made by the machine then it’s definitely not a discussion and definitely not rational. Rational conversations are open exchanges, not fingerprints of what the real world is looks like. The machine would need to know the language, know the specific vocabulary, learn new words, understand the argument put forward by the opposite side, and depending on how things go propose various arguments appropriately adjusted to whatever would have been said so far. This involves the ability to make choices, to choose between alternatives on the basis of some definite set of values and beliefs which would themselves be susceptible of evolving depending on how the conversation goes (so, not much like most posters on this website). It would therefore need to have only low-level instructions rather than high-level ones (like, “answer YES whenever asked if you are happy”!). However, if it does all that then I guess it would be accepted by most people, over time perhaps, as demonstrating a sort of second-rate free will (one without subjective consciousness, assuming subjective consciousness is not necessary to free will).
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don’t see why an otherwise unspecified omnipotent and omniscient god would necessarily want to create man in his image. Don’t export the characteristics we may believe our universe has to the hypothetical universe envisaged in the OP. You have to start from those characteristics which are specified in the OP, i.e. omnipotent and omniscient god, and man with free will, or it’s a derail.

The classic reason is that he wanted to share in his perfection, but whatever. "Man like us" is vague. The only characters are God and "man", presumably an archetype. Not much to go on.

It seems to me that if man has free will then he has creativity and judgement, judgement as the mental ability to make distinctions but not necessarily moral distinctions, and not even necessarily objectively or materially effective or successful ones. Completely ineffective and unsuccessful people in our universe, for example in the case of the locked-in syndrome, presumably are still regarded as possessing free will and the ability to make distinctions.

Distinctions in the context of free will obviously have a moral implication, but I wasn't going beyond value, since we're discussing an individual.

I didn’t say free will without knowledge or understanding but without knowledge and understanding of the universe outside the man’s own mind.

So what understanding does man have if not his universe?

Values are not necessarily moral values (otherwise we would always drop “moral” in “moral values” and careful speakers don’t). Values include whether I prefer working outdoors or in offices

Usually morals are in a social context. But what I was after is if this free will encompasses value. An irregular universe in which man survives by making what may be unpredictable choices and therefore fitting some definition of free will, but not based on understanding, since understanding is of no use in an irregular universe, isn't very interesting.

I think exporting our moral system to the hypothetical universe envisioned in the OP is unnecessary to answer the question. In terms of both free will and the cognitive capabilities of our brain, moral choices are not substantially different from choices we make about the world or about whatever imaginary things we want to think about.
EB

I think if you've exported value, you've exported morality. Only this hypothetical universe hasn't progressed to having relationships, which is where questions of value would have moral implications.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me that if man has free will then he has creativity and judgement, judgement as the mental ability to make distinctions but not necessarily moral distinctions, and not even necessarily objectively or materially effective or successful ones. Completely ineffective and unsuccessful people in our universe, for example in the case of the locked-in syndrome, presumably are still regarded as possessing free will and the ability to make distinctions.

Distinctions in the context of free will obviously have a moral implication

I don't see why that would necessarily be true. You must have a specific notion of free will that implies moral values.

I didn’t say free will without knowledge or understanding but without knowledge and understanding of the universe outside the man’s own mind.

So what understanding does man have if not his universe?

Man has a brain like our own that he can use and free will to decide what to do with it. What he may be able to understand presumably dépends on what he does with his brain. It probably also dépends on the kind of universe he happens to be in.

Values are not necessarily moral values (otherwise we would always drop “moral” in “moral values” and careful speakers don’t). Values include whether I prefer working outdoors or in offices

Usually morals are in a social context. But what I was after is if this free will encompasses value.

I fail to see why free will would imply having values, let alone moral ones. Man can choose to have or not to have moral values. Maybe certain values come with understanding the universe. Free will also implies that man can choose to accept or refuse particular values. I think the question of values is relevant but not necessarily that of moral values, or at least not particularly. Again, most of us seem to have moral values but I don't think it's clear whether those we have come with the kind of brain we have or with the kind of societies and civilisations we eventually built. Whereas I'm confident that we all have non-moral values that perhaps come with our brain or whatever experience of life we happen to have.

An irregular universe in which man survives by making what may be unpredictable choices and therefore fitting some definition of free will, but not based on understanding, since understanding is of no use in an irregular universe, isn't very interesting.

The OP doesn't assume a non-regular universe. It's asking the question "Why would the god choose a regular universe?"

I don't see why understanding capabilities would necessarily be of no use in a non-regular universe. Certainly man could not survive in a universe that would be completely irregular but non-regular does not imply chaotic. Man could use his understanding capabilities to survive in a certain type non-regular universe.

I think exporting our moral system to the hypothetical universe envisioned in the OP is unnecessary to answer the question. In terms of both free will and the cognitive capabilities of our brain, moral choices are not substantially different from choices we make about the world or about whatever imaginary things we want to think about.
EB

I think if you've exported value, you've exported morality. Only this hypothetical universe hasn't progressed to having relationships, which is where questions of value would have moral implications.

Values I think come with the kind of brain we have but I don't see why we would necessarily have moral values. I think it's a choice that people make. I'm also not convinced that life in society makes moral values necessary.
EB