Quick argument against Free Agency

[_MrStakhanovite]

Nice summary Brade, thanks!

*It isn't clear to me that B-Theory is necessarily incompatible with libertarian free will, and there have been serious attempts to square B-Theory with libertarian free will. I haven't studied them, but my limited understanding is that such attempts haven't gone well.

I agree with your intuition here that B-theory necessarily ruling out libertarian free-will is a pretty strong claim, I'd play it safer and wait to see the efforts before making that strong of a claim.

[_sock puppet]

It doesn't matter. The statement "X or not X" is true under any and all circumstances.

Yes, I agree 100% with this, but I can see how Mormons are forced to disagree. Let me put the argument like this:


(P1) There exists propositions about everything Bob Loblaw might do in the future.

(P2) All of those propositions about Bob Loblaw are either true or false (Principle of Bivalence)

(C1) There is now a set of true propositions that correctly predicts everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it.

(P3) If there is a set of true propositions that correctly predict everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it, then the future is unavoidable.

(C2) The future is unavoidable.

Some philosophers (Like William Lane Craig) will deny P2 because he believes that most propositions that predict the future do not have a truth value (his semantics are tensed). I would say that if a proposition is true, then it is always true (semantics are tenseless).

[_brade]

I agree with your intuition here that B-theory necessarily ruling out libertarian free-will is a pretty strong claim, I'd play it safer and wait to see the efforts before making that strong of a claim.

Yes, I agree. My intention was just to sketch the landscape. Philosophy of time really ties me in knots and when I get into it I quickly get overwhelmed by the tension between my intuitions and the best available scientific evidence.

[_Tobin]

That is incorrect. Relativity shows that space time is affected by motion and distance. According to Einstein, an observer far from us using sophisticated means could by either moving away or towards us theoretically view everything that happened in our space time or will happen in our space time. That would seem to mean that our future is fixed and free agency is an illusion.

Tobin, I am familiar with the idea from relativity that for something moving at a rate of speed close to the speed of light time process is slower, relatively. I am aware that an observer from far away is seeing events in the past due to the time it takes light to arrive for seeing. We see distant galaxies in the form they had millions of years ago. If we move closer to them we would see them in a form closer in time to the present. That does not have a path to get any closer to the future than the present.

Again, special realitivity has no concept of now (for everyone) and the laws of physics work equally well if you run time backwards OR forwards. Space time can change and is truly dependent on distance/speed and direction. For example, if accelerated away from the Earth at 1 G in 30 years, 3,600 years would pass here. If you accelerated at 2 G, over the same period 10 million years would pass here and so on. It would be by every definition a time machine since both objects initially shared the "same" inertial frame of reference. This is called the Lorentz contraction. As Carl Sagan stated, "Because time is relative to the speed one is traveling at, there can never be a clock at the center of the universe to which everyone can set their watches."

So, seeing the future is theoretically possible (and clearly an observer far from us can see our past). The question is, can information flow from what we perceive as our future to the past? I think Quantum mechanics might suggest that is also a possibility. For example, Quantum Entanglement demonstrates that distance between two objects can be overcome. Suppose you created a communication device based on this princple. You could instantly communicate over ANY distance (and possibly time itself).

[_brade]

This thread prompted me to take a look at the Gospel Principles manual, you know, for the church's official stance on free will. I was quickly annoyed. Take this claim, for example:

The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.

The right? Surely agency is something above a right. If I have agency (to use the Mormon jargon), then it must be that I am the sort of being that has agency whether anyone tells me it's permissible to exercise that ability. To bring the point out another way, if God suddenly proclaimed that nobody has the right to choose between good and evil, would I no longer be such a being with the ability to choose between good and evil?

Without the gift of agency, we would have been unable to show our Heavenly Father whether we would do all that He commanded us.

Again, gift? Mormon teaching suggests that our fundamental identity was not something created by God. Indeed, we're co-eternal with him. It's also suggested that the primary aspect of our fundamental nature, that sets us apart from, say, dirt, is that we have the ability to choose and dirt doesn't. So, how can an aspect of our natures which is the reason God picks us to be his spirit children also be an aspect of our natures that he has gifted to us?

[_sock puppet]

This thread prompted me to take a look at the Gospel Principles manual, you know, for the church's official stance on free will. I was quickly annoyed. Take this claim, for example:

The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.

The right? Surely agency is something above a right. If I have agency (to use the Mormon jargon), then it must be that I am the sort of being that has agency whether anyone tells me it's permissible to exercise that ability. To bring the point out another way, if God suddenly proclaimed that nobody has the right to choose between good and evil, would I no longer be such a being with the ability to choose between good and evil?

I get what you are saying about the very nature of a being that is an intelligent individual. It thinks. That ability implies the ability to come to different conclusions, to make different choices.

Think about the implications of the Mormon "war" in heaven in the pre-existence. Satan's plan is that we would not have free agency, but all be 'forced' to do elohim's will and return successfully from mortality. Jehovah's plan was that we would each come here and be tested, each be able to choose.

Those that chose the agency (jehovah's) route came here for more choices. Those that chose to automatically returned were--nope, not sent here to then automatically return to elohim. 'Bzzzz. Wrong, thanks for playing and as your parting gift, you will be banished forever from the thing you chose. Ha, ha, ha. Good-bye.'

With the Mormonism concept of the pre-existence as part of the Plan of Salvation--er, of Happiness--oh, whatever--we're all just one decision from having the trap door sprung under us and dropped into the trash bin. No forgiveness there. That's right in line with the jehovah we know and love from the Old Testament. The egomaniacal one prone to temper tantrums.

But back to the free agency issue. You point up the importance of rights being natural, not given, not even god-given. Often, it is dichotomized as being either government granted rights or 'natural, god-given' rights that we have. But natural and god-given have as profound a distinction. It might be better categorization to put 'given' rights together, as god-given, government-given rights v. natural rights, those that inhere from the fact of our intellectual independence from one another and from god. We have the ability to think--even Mormonism does not purport to claim that the 1/3 cast out with Satan have had their innate ability to think independently of god and others has been stripped from them. We are, quite frankly, intellectual sovereigns each one of us.

Without the gift of agency, we would have been unable to show our Heavenly Father whether we would do all that He commanded us.

Again, gift? Mormon teaching suggests that our fundamental identity was not something created by God. Indeed, we're co-eternal with him. It's also suggested that the primary aspect of our fundamental nature, that sets us apart from, say, dirt, is that we have the ability to choose and dirt doesn't. So, how can an aspect of our natures which is the reason God picks us to be his spirit children also be an aspect of our natures that he has gifted to us?

I think that this poor use of language is not to accurately describe the nature of our relationship with the Mormon conception of god, but to try to ingratiate us to god for something that we already possess, as though this Mormon god gave it to us.

[_brade]

I think that this poor use of language is not to accurately describe the nature of our relationship with the Mormon conception of god, but to try to ingratiate us to god for something that we already possess, as though this Mormon god gave it to us.

I think you're being far too nice. I think what we're seeing is mental sloppiness.

[_sock puppet]

I think that this poor use of language is not to accurately describe the nature of our relationship with the Mormon conception of god, but to try to ingratiate us to god for something that we already possess, as though this Mormon god gave it to us.

I think you're being far too nice. I think what we're seeing is mental sloppiness.

Accusing them of manipulative word misuse is somehow nicer than their merely being mentally sloppy, i.e. inconsistent? If so, convict me of being overly nice.

[_huckelberry]

Again, special realitivity has no concept of now (for everyone) and the laws of physics work equally well if you run time backwards OR forwards. Space time can change and is truly dependent on distance/speed and direction. For example, if accelerated away from the Earth at 1 G in 30 years, 3,600 years would pass here. If you accelerated at 2 G, over the same period 10 million years would pass here and so on. It would be by every definition a time machine since both objects initially shared the "same" inertial frame of reference. This is called the Lorentz contraction. As Carl Sagan stated, "Because time is relative to the speed one is traveling at, there can never be a clock at the center of the universe to which everyone can set their watches."

Tobin your comments about the space traveler is what I spoke about. Setting aside the number you used, I agreed that the high speed traveler experiences fewer hours or years than the stay at home. Suppose my college buddy goes on a high speed stellar journey and arriving back home visits me to find I have aged over forty years while he has seen but ten. He looks younger and will live more years into the future than I. This is an odd picture and means that there is no clock at the center of the universe as you quoted.

However this situation does not offer any escape from the present for either me or my college buddy. I cannot see into my future any better from my friends arrival than I could before he returned. I cannot see anything about my friends future even though I have seen more years than he has. The years I have seen are not his they are mine. His future has not happened and is not known.

Now this trap of the present may seem negligible untill you age past 60. Past sixty you realize that years past are gone not to be revisited and you cannot stop the upcoming years which promise your death. I find myself locked into the present with its unstoppable path of change toward an unknown future. Special relativity offers no relief from this machinery. It offers no window into the mysteries of my death.

You made a leap into the subject of quantum mechanics. It has been decades since I studied anything of that subject. Last I heard it concerned subatomic particles movements within the structure of an atom.

[_Tobin]

Again, special realitivity has no concept of now (for everyone) and the laws of physics work equally well if you run time backwards OR forwards. Space time can change and is truly dependent on distance/speed and direction. For example, if accelerated away from the Earth at 1 G in 30 years, 3,600 years would pass here. If you accelerated at 2 G, over the same period 10 million years would pass here and so on. It would be by every definition a time machine since both objects initially shared the "same" inertial frame of reference. This is called the Lorentz contraction. As Carl Sagan stated, "Because time is relative to the speed one is traveling at, there can never be a clock at the center of the universe to which everyone can set their watches."

Tobin your comments about the space traveler is what I spoke about. Setting aside the number you used, I agreed that the high speed traveler experiences fewer hours or years than the stay at home. Suppose my college buddy goes on a high speed stellar journey and arriving back home visits me to find I have aged over forty years while he has seen but ten. He looks younger and will live more years into the future than I. This is an odd picture and means that there is no clock at the center of the universe as you quoted.

However this situation does not offer any escape from the present for either me or my college buddy. I cannot see into my future any better from my friends arrival than I could before he returned. I cannot see anything about my friends future even though I have seen more years than he has. The years I have seen are not his they are mine. His future has not happened and is not known.

Now this trap of the present may seem negligible untill you age past 60. Past sixty you realize that years past are gone not to be revisited and you cannot stop the upcoming years which promise your death. I find myself locked into the present with its unstoppable path of change toward an unknown future. Special relativity offers no relief from this machinery. It offers no window into the mysteries of my death.

You made a leap into the subject of quantum mechanics. It has been decades since I studied anything of that subject. Last I heard it concerned subatomic particles movements within the structure of an atom.

Quantum Mechanics (and Quantum Theory) seems to contradict special relativity (or to state it better - it seems to offer us escape hatches) from what would seem to be limitations that Special Relativity would impose on the universe. For example, nothing is suppose to be able to go faster than the speed of light. But, apparently information can move faster than light?!? Quantum Entanglement should allows us to construct devices that can communicate over any distance instantaneously. For example, two devices constructed on this principle separated by one light year would be able to communicate information over that distance instantly and it wouldn't take a year to get there. That is puzzling. Also, there are other circumstances that similar effects of the micro universe (governed by Quantum Theory) come into direct contradiction to the macro universe (generally goverened by Special Relativity) - in black holes for example.

Since space time seems to follow the laws of Special Relativity, the nature of space time can only be viewed by your frame of reference (other frames experienced by other observers would be goverend by factors such as gravity, distance, speed and direction). For example an observer (depending on the factors mentioned), could be viewing our past, present (if they shared our frame of reference), or future. You seek to impose a "present" by defining our frame of referencing time is the "present" and all other observers must normalize to our frame of reference. That isn't a good way to look at it. The question is only, if an observer outside of our frame of reference, could communicate with our frame of reference instantly, what could they tell us? If that is possible (and it very may well be), then that would mean what we perceive as the future is fixed and knowable to someone outside of our frame of reference (and they could possibly tell us about it).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the way you slice (or observe) events is not necessarily the same for all observers of an event and are relative. Because of Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime (which is the result of Special Relativity), how we view events (and when they occur) can be perceived (or sliced)differently. Time should be viewed this way and the sequence of events will not be shared by all observers. The past and future are just slices of spacetime (and observable) which means they are fixed (the past has happened and the future will happen the way it will happen and nothing will change it) and free agency is an illusion.