OOTS #1145 - The Discussion Thread

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But if it's locking you into a particular future timeline, it's also locking anyone you interact with into that timeline as well, because if they choose to do something that makes *you* do something different, you're no longer locked in! Everybody seems to be treating prophecy as something that only affects the person who hears it, but it covers a lot more people than that.

This is only true if the prophecy involves those people. But nothing in, say, V's prophecy in any way eliminates Karr's Free Will, despite him being there for it's resolution. And the moment the prophecy moment is over, Free Will is restored. The way prophecy works in OotS removes Free Will for brief moments, yes, but not entirely.

Put another way: the moment V decided to ask that question rather than any other, you could say they had "made their mind up", and nothing anyone else did would dissuade them from the path they had chosen. But on the other hand, while the destination was set, the path there was still up for grabs, as was who walked alongside.

In simple terms, if you ask the Oracle when you'll be in Rome, and he answers "Next Tuesday", yes, people can't at that point convince you to stay, but doesn't stop them from trying.

Prophesy, both as used in this comic and more broadly in mythology and folklore. is a definite prediction of future events that will be precisely fulfilled, and contains information that could not have been known through any mortal means.

False, but explaining how would involve religion, so you can do your own research.

Grey Wolf

[Resileaf]

I'm not sure the Oracle's prophecies can be taken as proof of the inexistence of free will. Haley got her voice back because the prophecy allowed her to ignore the red flags in her mind from Nale's actions. Durkon wasn't locked into having to die to return to his homeland, he was just told the ending to a story, so to speak. As for V, the answer was both specific and vague enough that it was more foreshadowing than it was actual prophecy.
What I mean is, future sight and free will make for a complicated combination. Take the 'guidance' spell in D&D. It lets you see just a little ahead in the future to know how best to hit your target. It doesn't remove your free will to hit them, does it?

[Jasdoif]

In other words, the comparison here strikes me as hinging on one very simple concept: This person (the "says 'I knew you'd do that!'" person) is obviously lying, and indeed the phrasing seems to ridicule the idea that they might be telling the truth. Nothing to do with an actually omniscient person.

The concept it hinges on is indeed simple: the omniscience is irrelevant.

Because unless we've shifted again without me noticing (entirely possible), we're talking about 100%-accurate-perception-of-all-outcomes omniscience...which means possession of that omniscience requires an inability to effect changes to any outcome since the outcome has already been seen with 100% accuracy...including the outcomes of their own decisions. Seeing themselves lying still means they lie, seeing themselves dying still means they die. The only distinction between the actual omniscient person and the delusional omniscient person lies within the person themselves.


Which gets closer to the actual(?) point, since a deterministic universe does not require omniscience to be present. Whether determinism precludes free will should be the question, not the assumption: Is free will incompatible with a deterministic universe, or does a deterministic universe reflect free will in its determinism?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What I mean is, future sight and free will make for a complicated combination. Take the 'guidance' spell in D&D. It lets you see just a little ahead in the future to know how best to hit your target. It doesn't remove your free will to hit them, does it?

But it does, because if you have seen the future, and you cannot stop that future from happening exactly as you saw it, then you no longer have the freedom to choose to do something different. Once you have seen exactly how you will hit that enemy, you will hit that enemy in that manner, even if between the vision and the moment you realise you don't want to hit that enemy anymore (note, I've no idea if that is how that spell works, but it does seem to be how the Oracle prophecies work).

That said, as I have argued, that doesn't eliminate Free Will entirely, just suspends it for the moment of the prophecy - just like you getting captured, bound and gagged eliminates your Free Will in a more mundane manner until you are released from those bonds. Being unable to exercise your free will for a period doesn't mean you didn't have free will at other times.

Grey Wolf

[Paleomancer]

False, but explaining how would involve religion, so you can do your own research.

I have done my due diligence on this matter, thanks kindly . And yes, my point does involve quite a bit of mythology and multiple religious traditions, so as you say, this limits the discussion somewhat here and now (a pity, comparative theology is such a fascinating field ). My point is that in RL prophesy is a metaphysical concept covering alleged revelations from an otherworldly source, while prediction is something at which any intelligent ragamuffin (such as you or I) can try their hand (and we can even perform science and math on it! ).

Edit: To be clear, it was your comparison of predictions that a second Great War was coming (obvious to any student of European history at the time... there's a school of thought that would see the Napoleonic wars, the Austrian wars of succession, and the Crimean war, among others, classified as World Wars give their scope and scale), with prophesy to which I objected. The former is simply advanced pattern recognition. The latter delves into some morasses of human speculation and belief as theology and metaphysics.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

My point is that in RL prophesy is a metaphysical concept covering alleged revelations from an otherworldly source).

You've now changed the definition you gave earlier. My point of contention with that definition, which you've now dropped, was "is a definite prediction of future events that will be precisely fulfilled" (emphasis mine). That is the point that is not universally true, but I can't say how without getting us both in trouble. And to be honest, I suspect that "contains information that could not have been known through any mortal means" is also likely not the case, but I don't have as clear a counterexample in my mind as for the other bit.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

I always thought one of the things about free will vs. determinism is that from our perspective, even a deterministic universe looks like free will. We can't know whether the things we think of as free will are just chemical or physical or quantum processes we can't grasp and don't actually control.

Of course, I believe in acting as though we have free will, since that seems to be the only ethical way to practically approach the question.

Anyway, did anyone see last night's The Good Place?

[Paleomancer]

You've now changed the definition you gave earlier. My point of contention with that definition, which you've now dropped, was "is a definite prediction of future events that will be precisely fulfilled" (emphasis mine). That is the point that is not universally true, but I can't say how without getting us both in trouble. And to be honest, I suspect that "contains information that could not have been known through any mortal means" is also likely not the case, but I don't have as clear a counterexample in my mind as for the other bit.

Grey Wolf

That is actually what you had previously wrote in response to me:

False, but explaining how would involve religion, so you can do your own research.

It lends no context to your position, though your subsequent clarification makes more sense in explaining your perspective. I still stand by my original position, with "revelations from an otherworldly source" being a rather loose summation of my original claim. The whole "we'll get this thread locked if we don't stop and possibly get a warning" subtext regarding religious discussion on these boards makes perfect sense to me as well. Naturally, we really shouldn't tempt forum fate any more on that count . Please know I was not attacking you, calling you a fool, or attacking your credibility, and I fear that is exactly the impression you have.

[Fyraltari]

Sure, but the reason the Oracle knows is because he chose to look - in V's case, because V chose to ask that question rather than, say, "When will I reconcile with my partner?*". Now, I appreciate that the Oracle choosing to check every time he will need a resurrection robs a druid somewhere from his free will in the moment of deciding what to do about his wife's infidelity, but it doesn't rob him of all his other choices.

The cat is both alive and dead until you choose to look, after all.

ETA: to put it explicitly, I square this off by positing that the very nature of deciding to consult the Oracle locks in a bit of the future, railroading you to it, but the choice to consult the Oracle is itself free.

Grey Wolf

*Or maybe "When will I have time for my kids again?", I'm not sure of the timeline between Oracle visit and divorce papers. In any case, V chose to center on their power gain rather than, say, their family life.

I mean, "you have free will unless the Oracle randomly looks into your future" does not really sound like free will at all. The Oracle has consistently predicted the actions of Xykon (trying to reach him and going to Girard's Gate after Soon's) without Xykon actually consulting him. He also predicted Belkar's death without being asked: does that mean that all the choices on Belkar's part that will ultimately lead to his demise (such as, say, staying with the Order rather than leaving after the Mark was removed*) were/are not (going to be) his choices?
Answering the Order's questions also mean the Oracle prophecized Nale would take Haley on a date, Lee, Cedrik and Nero would offer V ultimate power and Malack would befriend and eventually murder Durkon.

which means possession of that omniscience requires an inability to effect changes to any outcome since the outcome has already been seen with 100% accuracy...including the outcomes of their own decisions. Seeing themselves lying still means they lie, seeing themselves dying still means they die.

Which makes an omniscient (or to be more general a prescient character would prophecized their own future actions) something of a walking bootstrap paradox**. If they take one particular course of action because they know they will, why is that course the one who happened rahter than any other?

I always thought one of the things about free will vs. determinism is that from our perspective, even a deterministic universe looks like free will. We can't know whether the things we think of as free will are just chemical or physical or quantum processes we can't grasp and don't actually control.

Of course, I believe in acting as though we have free will, since that seems to be the only ethical way to practically approach the question.

Honestly I have no idea how anyone could act as if they don't have free will. Take absolutely no action?


*Thinking of it, doesn't that logic implies that until Belkar's death (and assuming he doesn't quit the mission) none of the main characters have free will?

**Prophecy is just time-travel, but with data instead of mass.

[Gallowglass]

But it does, because if you have seen the future, and you cannot stop that future from happening exactly as you saw it, then you no longer have the freedom to choose to do something different.

No, in fact you do have/did have/have the freedom to choose to do something different but will choose/have chosen/are choosing to do what you are doing. The future you are seeing is the end of the scenario.

I am arguing that Free Will exists for the Actor, not necessarily for the Observer. Because you are correct. In a linear universe, if the Actor and Observer are the same then Free Will becomes a tricky wicket. The Observer can now see, with perfect clarity, the outcome of his choices. He doesn't like it and decides to make different choices, however he now sees, with perfect clarity, the outcome of his new choices. He still doesn't like it and decides to make different choices. However, he now sees, with perfect clarity, the outcome of his new choices... and on and on. Until you get to the inevitable outcome of "the future that the actor/observer sees is the end product of the choices he will make blessed with perfect knowledge of the outcome of each choice he makes."

The actor/observer has free will, the future that he sees IS the end result of the choices he has chosen/will choose/chooses to make.

To the actor/observer he has the perspective of no free will because he knows the inevitable outcome, however that outcomes was/is/will be due to the choices the actor/observer will choose/has chosen/chooses to make.

But in -that- story/universe then the final end result that the actor/observer sees _IS_ the final result after the actor/observer has made their choices based on what they know including the outcome. If the final outcomes is awful, then you can determine that every other outcome was worse because this is the outcome of the choices the actor/observer made even when armed with perfect knowledge of the outcome.

However, in -this- story the actor and observer are separate entities. The actor is given sparse details of the future that will result from their choices, but they are still making those choices.

Also, in -this- story, the observer (or at least two observers, the oracle and odin) have both changed the future or are trying to change the future -BY- giving information/changing circumstances for the actors they are communicating with. Thus incentivizing the choices the actors make and/or manipulating them. Not taking away their free will but conjoling through deception and manipulation them into making the choice the observer wants them to make. That's not the same thing as not having free will.

Finally, in the universe I -think- you are describing, you are describing this state:

--The actor is not omniscient or they would see the future as the end result of their perfect knowledge.

--The actor sees a future and is led to believe that the future consequence is due to their actions/choices.

--The actor chooses to do something different given this new knowledge.

--The future ends up the same because, in this universe, the future is immutable.

First- those are terrible stories. Second, the future is NOT due to the actor's choices regardless of them being led to believe so. Third, the actor still has free will, they just have no power or agency in this universe. They are pawn in game of life. They get to make the choices they want to make. The fact that the future is immutable REGARDLESS of their choice is, well, dumb, but also outside the purview of the actor and their choices.

[Dion]

an omniscient being would know what every action would result in, .

No, an omniscient being would know exactly what actions will be taken, and the results of those actions.

Since actions that aren’t taken don’t have consequences, it’s impossible to know the consequences of actions that don’t exist, since consequences that don’t exist are not part of the universe and are therefore not knowable.

[factotum]

Honestly I have no idea how anyone could act as if they don't have free will. Take absolutely no action?

Taken to the extreme, yes...someone who genuinely believes that they have no free will and that their lives are being directed by some unseen puppetmaster could well go with "Whatever will be, will be" and just do nothing. It's a very fatalistic approach to life and I suspect most people would not take it, even if they believed in Fate.

[woweedd]

No, an omniscient being would know exactly what actions will be taken, and the results of those actions.

Since actions that aren’t taken don’t have consequences, it’s impossible to know the consequences of actions that don’t exist, since consequences that don’t exist are not part of the universe and are therefore not knowable.

True. The point still stands. Everything that occurs is a result of a billion external factors. An omniscient being would know all these factors and, thus, could extrapolate with 100% accuracy.

[Rogar Demonblud]

*Or maybe "When will I have time for my kids again?", I'm not sure of the timeline between Oracle visit and divorce papers.

The high points are:

• V kills Young Black Dragon
• OOTS goes to Oracle
• Battle of Azure City/Splitting the OOTS
• Mama Black Dragon visits Oracle
• Mama Black Dragon and V face off on the small island
• V makes deal with IFCC
• V destroys Mama Black Dragon after she wrecks V's home and terrorizes Inkyrius and the kids
• V wanders off in search of new things to use Ultimate Arcane Power^TM on
• Inkyrius files for divorce

[Gallowglass]

No, an omniscient being would know exactly what actions will be taken, and the results of those actions.

Since actions that aren’t taken don’t have consequences, it’s impossible to know the consequences of actions that don’t exist, since consequences that don’t exist are not part of the universe and are therefore not knowable.

You have a self-limited definition for omniscient. You assume a universe without free will, or rather, a fully linear-path reality, and are defining your omniscience to fit that universe. It's not difficult to assume a world where choices can be made, or a non-linear path reality. In that universe, omniscience (literally knowing EVERYTHING) would necessitate the knowledge of all consequences from all possible actions and choices along with what action and choice was chosen from the viewpoint of after the choice.

Especially if you are trying to narratively equip the omniscient entity with the ability to not just observe but interact with the universe. In that case, the omniscient must, by self-definition, know the consequence of any choice or action he could take.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Ah, I thought "Silver Dragon level" was supposed to be a measure of time....Come to think it, I thought maybe it had more to do with the post you were originally responding to, too.

Yes, it was somewhat unhelpfully tacked on at the end.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I mean, "you have free will unless the Oracle randomly looks into your future" does not really sound like free will at all.

If you have Free Will 99% of the time, does Free Will exist in the Universe? I mean, I thought the answer to that question was obvious, but it seems not? To take Xykon: His choice of which order to approach the last two gates was taken away from him, but that didn't somehow negate his choices of which order to approach all the others. He clearly has exercised free will at all other times.

Please know I was not attacking you, calling you a fool, or attacking your credibility, and I fear that is exactly the impression you have.

Perish the thought. It didn't cross my mind. Sorry for my excessively short (in both senses of the word) response, but you gave me a minefield, and crossing it at a run seemed like the best possible approach.

Grey Wolf

[Dion]

You have a self-limited definition for omniscient.

Let’s be really clear about something. I believe that in the real world, omniscience, omnipotence, and free will are entirely made up imginary concepts, like Santa Claus.

They’re silly words that literally don’t describe anything except silly ideas that literally nobody believes in.

So... yeah. You can feel free to bend and twist all sorts of logical rabbit holes out of it. And if you want to say that “knowing everything” means knowing everything that exists and all possible versions of everythings that don’t exist as well, thats ok. We’ll just assume that instead of having a universe worth of machinery to predict the universe, you would have 2^(universe) number of universes to make predictions with.

[Gallowglass]

You have a self-limited definition for omniscient.

Let’s be really clear about something. I believe that in the real world, omniscience, omnipotence, and free will are entirely made up imginary concepts, like Santa Claus.

I assume from the tone that I've offended you. That was not my intention.

Someone else stated a definition for omniscience that entailed knowledge of all possible outcomes. You then replied "no" and gave -your- definition of omniscience. I simply pointed out that -your- definition of omniscient is not the only legitimate or logical definition of the term. That you have limited it by -your- perception of whether or not free will exists. You then affirmed that by replying stating that you believe that free will is an imaginary concept.

It's a cyclical argument.

And if you respond to every argument against your argument with "You can feel free to bend and twist all sorts of logical rabbit holes out of it" then:

A> you shouldn't be bending your own logical rabbit holes.

B> why are you participating in a theoretical metaphysical discussion in the first place.

[Fyraltari]

If you have Free Will 99% of the time, does Free Will exist in the Universe? I mean, I thought the answer to that question was obvious, but it seems not? To take Xykon: His choice of which order to approach the last two gates was taken away from him, but that didn't somehow negate his choices of which order to approach all the others. He clearly has exercised free will at all other times.

Has he? We don't know how much the Oracle knows about the guy. If the Oracle predicting Xykon's actions suppresses Xykon's Free Will with regards to those actions and we know that the Oracle has a interest in Xykon (seeing as he purposely avoided him once) all we can say is that "most of Xykon's actions may be Free Willed" the difference between that and "Xykon doesn't have free-will" is minimal.

Furthermore, the Oracle predicted Elan a happy ending and his next death his scheduled for some time after Belkar's scheduled end (and therefore most likely after Team Evil's defeat). If the Oracle predicting Xykon's defeat at the hands of the Order takes away the free will of the Order regarding said defeat that means that for most of the story our protagonist don't have it. Which would defeat the point of them having it in the first place (which is to make the story more enjoyable).

So the only way to reconcile free will and the Oracle is to conclude that the Oracle's prophecies don't take awy the Free Will of their subjects. Which, I think makes sense because while that means that there is only one path, each character follows the path that is traced by their personnality, nature, desire, etc and, I would argue, these things being causes of your actions is what "choice" means.

I also disagree with the idea that the future is not fixed when the past is, but that is closer to real-life philosophizing.

[Dion]

Someone else stated a definition for omniscience that entailed knowledge of all possible outcomes.

Ok, so I think what I’m hearing are that we are discussing two imaginary universes (neither universe is any any way similar to the real universe we live in):

Universe A, the railroad universe. The entire universe is pre-ordained from the beginning, and that some external entity knows every single event that will happen. There’s a book somewhere with a huge list like: Photon X will excite electron Y at time Z.

Universe B: the probabilistic universe. The entire universe is still pre-ordained from the beginning, and some external entity knows every single thing that *might* happen. There’s a book somewhere with a huge list of hyperlinks like; Photon X has a 23% chance of exciting electron Y at time Z. If that happens, go to page 23,058,324,831 in the book. otherwise, go to page 583,342,643,345 in the book.

And the idea that we’re arguing is that there is some definition of “free will” that is somehow compatible with Universe B, and we’re trying to come up with that definition?

[Knaight]

Your "if you have enough results from a probabilistic function, future results aren't actually probabilistic" thing sounds awfully close.

That's not the gamblers fallacy, that's you rephrasing regression to the mean. Take dice probabilities, because they're illustrative here. nd6/n will always have a range from 1-6, which will always average 3.5. The probability distribution when n=1 is a straight line, n=2 is a chevron, n=3 a bell curve. Now remember just how big n gets in terms of microscopic particles in macroscopic phenomena. That nd6/n toy example? When n=10^24, it's still technically a distribution from 1 to 6, but it looks like a straight line at 3.5 unless the axes you're looking at are something like 3.4999999999999999999999999999 to 3.5000000000000000000001.

[Jasdoif]

That's not the gamblers fallacy, that's you rephrasing regression to the mean.

In the absence of the "perfect predictions" part I was specifically objecting to (that apparently had nothing to do with I thought it did), sure.

[davidbofinger]

When n=10^24, it's still technically a distribution from 1 to 6, but it looks like a straight line at 3.5 unless the axes you're looking at are something like 3.4999999999999999999999999999 to 3.5000000000000000000001.

Technically, the spread would be of the order of 10^-12, so you've got a few too many 9s and 0s.

[factotum]

Ok, so I think what I’m hearing are that we are discussing two imaginary universes (neither universe is any any way similar to the real universe we live in):

Er, you realise this entire discussion about free will and omniscience concerns the fantasy comic strip that we're all reading, right? It has approximately three-fifths of naff all to do with the real world, even if we might occasionally use a real-world example to make a point.

[Knaight]

Technically, the spread would be of the order of 10^-12, so you've got a few too many 9s and 0s.

There's a square root in that, right. Overall point stands, numbers are off.

[Dion]

Er, you realise this entire discussion about free will and omniscience concerns the fantasy comic strip that we're all reading, right? It has approximately three-fifths of naff all to do with the real world, even if we might occasionally use a real-world example to make a point.

Can you point to anything in the comic where anyone or anything has demonstrated either omnipotence or omniscience? The Oracle has the gift of prophecy, but prophecy and omniscience are two extremely different things.

I guess I’m trying to find specific examples from the comic that support anyone’s arguments here?

[Domino Quartz]

Can you point to anything in the comic where anyone or anything has demonstrated either omnipotence or omniscience? The Oracle has the gift of prophecy, but prophecy and omniscience are two extremely different things.

I guess I’m trying to find specific examples from the comic that support anyone’s arguments here?

I don't think factotum specifically was claiming that any of the gods were omnipotent or omniscient. The argument was started, at least in part, by someone claiming that since Odin is involved in prophecy, he must be omniscient.

[factotum]

I don't think factotum specifically was claiming that any of the gods were omnipotent or omniscient. The argument was started, at least in part, by someone claiming that since Odin is involved in prophecy, he must be omniscient.

That's correct. My arguments all relate to whether free will and prophecy are compatible, I have no boat in the "is Odin omniscient?" race.

[Peelee]

I have no boat in the "is Odin omniscient?" race.

Which is just as well, I hear Robot House is going to win.