At one point in time in the bible, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. Peter denies this, yet does it anyways.

You can say that if an outcome is known before the event of the outcome occurring, it is true that the outcome will be what we know it will be. However, I fail to see why if a person's choice is known it is predetermined. If the outcome of a choice is known to be one thing, that isn't a predetermined choice, as the choice of the one choosing hasn't been made yet. The person still has free will to choose their own choice, but the choice isn't predetermined; the choice to be chosen (note future sense, as in the event of choosing has not yet happened) is only known. Knowing what someone will choose before they choose it does not necessarily affect the ability of the chooser to choose freely. I'm not sure I can explain this more in depth, although if it false then someone should be able to provide a solid reason as to exactly why knowing what a future choice will be directly affects the chooser's free will.

The popularity of a belief is irrelevant. The flat earth model and the geocentric model were also widely accepted ideas once.


It is irrational to dislike an idea. All ideas should be treated with neutrality and disinterestedness.


I did not state that the proposition that a supreme being exists is irrelevant to all discussions about all topics, so don't distort my words.

What I stated is that the fact that we cannot disprove the existence of a supreme being is irrelevant. We also cannot disprove that pink unicorns and flying elephants exist.

Scientists don't look to disprove propositions, we look for evidence to support them and a belief in the supernatural lacks any sound supporting evidence.


I know how to use the google search engine from experience with the interface and not by any non-scientific way of knowing. Nice try though!


I didn't get anything concrete from that response, all I got was a search engine's results, so I still don't have any evidence, thanks for trying though.

I try to be as rational and scientific as possible, so if you have any concrete evidence please do provide it.


I don't care about any of your opinions either, however, I do care about facts and evidence! Unfortunately you have failed to present any so far, as you decided to just link me to a search engine rather then to any evidence.


Until you provide any evidence as I asked for previously I will treat these ideas as just things you made up. I do not deny that you can make up in your mind a fantasy being that is capable of doing anything. However, what remains to be seen is that anything you are talking about here is more then just something people like you made up using your evolved brains.


This idea that people aren't made entirely of matter also sounds like something you just made up. So I see a fantasy story here but no evidence.


I don't understand your point.


The child is ignorant and it lacks knowledge therefore it needs to receive commands from an authority (the parents), however, given a sufficiently independent and intelligent entity a rational and evidence-based approach is effective.


Thank you for providing this example. The quantum world is mysterious and strange, however, I don't think that it really provides any sound evidence for indeterminism.


Special relativity indicates that time is part of a single continuum, spacetime, and it shows that there isn't any true simultaneity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Simultaneity

Special relativity has shown that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B). So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in "the present".

Uniqueness of a present moment

There is no fundamental reason why a particular "present" should be more valid than any other; observers at any point in time will always consider themselves to be in the present. However, every moment of time has a "turn" at being a present moment in flow-of-time theories, so the situation ends up symmetrical. Although there is still an ontological distinction between past, future, and present that is not symmetrical.

Rate of flow

The concept of "time passing" can be considered to be internally inconsistent, by asking "how much time goes by in an hour?" However, the question could be no different from "how much space is contained in a meter?" — all measurements being equally arbitrary.


Good job saying "straight up false" w/o providing any supporting evidence for that claim. Artificial intelligence is a real thing and we are making progress every single day using a variety of means, such as HTM that I went into earlier. So if you intend to make such a strong claim I think you ought to back it up a little.

I tried to make this below quotation as succinct as possible but i guess he still does a better job at it. I'd say it's worth a read:
If you say well I truly am happy with everything in this world, ok so be it. Like the guy said, we can only ask and appeal, we cannot compel. I'm not asking anyone to respond to this (since some of you already have).

You need to at least explain why popularity of a belief diminishes the relevance of the belief. I think you are confusing the argument of "Popularity of a belief does not effect the validity of the belief", with it effecting the relevance of the believe. The more relevant a belief is does not necessarily affect the probablity of it being true. God existing or not is relevant because the belief itself (independent from the probability of it being true) effects many people's choices very often, and has for a very long time.

I didn't say that the proposition that a supreme being exists is irrelevant to all discussions about all topics either...

Looks like you said:
You stated that the possibility of a god existing is irrelevant since there is no evidence for it's existence, and then compared the question of a supreme being existing to the question of unicorns existing. You did not say anything about disproving.

Well:

Come on. Don't take my quote out of context and then make such an off-topic reply. As I've already said, there are more ways of knowing than just the scientific theory, and even gave you a link that shows many very valid links with rather prestigious sources, such as the entire International Baccalaureate organization (the first search result).

If the scientific theory were the only means of knowing, then how do you verify that the scientific theory is indeed a valid means of knowing? Do you verify the scientific theory with the scientific theory? That's circular reasoning, and is a fallacy. There needs to be other independent ways of knowing, otherwise one could argue that we actually know nothing if one cannot know that their way of knowing is a valid method of knowing.

Both of the words omniscient and omnipotent exist by definition, and as such are self-evident. The quote you quoted above of mine was simply stating properties that were defined when the definitions of both omnipotent and omniscient were defined. You can think of my quote as a clarification of the effects of the definitions of those two words, which, again, are self-evident since they are true by definition.

I don't need evidence, as I stated "as long as people believe". The whole point I was making was, if you believe in free will you can't also believe that people are made of only matter. No evidence is needed, as my statement is true by the definitions of free will, and matter (plus, evidence and the scientific theory aren't the only means of knowing).

Well imagine you saying "We have no free will", then imagine the person you said this to punching you in the face. They just won the argument, sort of, by punching you in the face, and they aren't at fault because they "don't have free will".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 21 2010, 3:35 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Edited bad part.

Yes, it does. Consider the following: You are presented with a red sock and a green sock, and asked to pick one. I say "I know he will pick the green sock" and instead you pick the red sock. That means I did not know the choice you would make. Similarly, but less obviously, I could say you would pick the red sock, and you do pick the red sock, but I still did not know you would pick the red sock. This is the colloquial usage of the word "know", not the strict logical one I'm talking about. If God "knows" something, then it is undeniably true. If God "knows" the choice you will make, then you must make that choice, else he did not know.

God knows you will make choice A
You make choice B
=> God was wrong, therefore did not know the choice you would make

God knows you will make choice A
You make choice A
=> God got lucky, OR God did know you would make choice A

So if God does truly know the choice you will make, you cannot act differently, therefore you have no choice.

The popularity of a belief is very relevant when we are talking about considering ideas. Popular beliefs often can affect the lives people lead, even if the belief itself is outlandish or erroneous, which is a very relevant topic considering we are people.

Not really. Considering the implications based on the truth or falseness of an idea can have very real effects on our lives, its perfectly rational to not like some ideas. I agree that we should man up and not let that affect our judgement of these types of arguments though.

You may be interested to hear that the scientific method isn't actually knowledge, it's a statistic. When an experiment is performed a number of times, the explanation behind it is accepted as fact because statistically, it is so unlikely to be wrong that its not worth considering otherwise until something comes up to challenge it. If you are so invested in the scientific method, then this is the argument you should be making against God. He is so unlikely to be true, that he isn't worth considering until something comes up to support him. Of course, that doesn't make him false, but science can only tell us how statistically likely or unlikely he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0011/0011086.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dingers_Cat
http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/#SH3a
Some light reading for you. Personally I agree with you, I think quantum theory is incomplete and there will likely be significant revisions, possibly even refuting any support current theory gives to indeterminism, however, I have no choice but to acknowledge that the current explanation of the double slit experiment and the results of Bell's experiments support determinism.

I'm familiar with special relativity and I reread the wikipedia article, but the relativity of simultaneity does not affect whether a system is deterministic or indeterministic. Events are still separated by the spacetime interval. For example, if I get in a spaceship and travel at .99c to some distant planet, my friends on earth may clock my arrival at a different time than I clock my arrival, but it is still not possible for me to arrive before I left, for example. None of this says anything about whether or not I am capable of choosing to travel, or whether it is predetermined that I travel.

It is false. Machines with HTM programming are not as smart as a dog, nor are they millions of times more intelligent than a human. If you wish to support your claim that we have created machines as smart as a dog (much less a human), I suggest you start doing some research; it won't be easy to find such a machine.

This is simply repeating what you said earlier, which I already disagreed with. You continue to base your argument on the assumption this is true. "God truly knowing the choice you will make" does not mean "you cannot act differently."

Using your example of choosing a red sock or green sock, it is possible to know the choice you will make without infringing on your ability to make said choice. Being able to foresee what you choose doesn't mean it wasn't your choice.


A more accurate example would be, you are presented with a red sock and a green sock, and asked to pick one. You choose red. I then use my time machine to go back ten seconds, and predict you will choose red.

Let's address this first.

If God truly knows your choice, he cannot be wrong about which choice you will make, correct?

I would say yes, on the basis of examining the 2 possible cases:
If he is wrong, then he did not know what choice you will make.
If he is right, either did know your choice, or he got lucky.

We don't really care about him getting lucky, since that doesn't tell us anything about his "knowing" affecting our choices, it just tells us about "getting lucky," and we want to know what happens when he "knows."

So, either he knows and is right, or does not know and is wrong. ("does not know and is right" is being excluded by the above sentence)

Your thoughts?

Right, I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm saying that even if he will definitely be right about what choice you will make, it doesn't mean you had to make that choice. In this scenario, you are free to choose either selection, he just knows the outcome of your choice. You weren't forced to make that choice, however; your actions weren't based on his predetermination, but rather his predetermination was based on your actions.

I think the example above involving time travel is a good indication how free will and predetermination can coexist.

Well, to follow the logic out from the last post, we're taking
"If god knows your choice, he cannot be wrong about which choice you will make" to be true.
So when you make the choice, you can only choose that which he already knows you will choose.
You can't choose otherwise, because that contradicts the premise we're taking to be true.

I don't see where you can make a choice other than what god knows you will choose, which isn't really a choice, considering you have no options besides what he already knows you will choose.

I think I see where you're coming from, going back to the socks example, I think you're saying theres a difference between "God knows you will pick the red/blue socks" and "God knows which pair of socks you will pick." I think though, even if god knows which pair you will pick, you can't choose otherwise without invalidating his knowledge. While God may not be able to explicitly say "you will pick X", he would still know, and if I may make a math analogy, some solutions to differential equations cannot be explicitly written out, but they can be solved implicitly. I suppose the actual analogy is that the knowledge still exists, just like the solution to the equ., even though it can't be written/spoken. As long as God has that knowledge, I wouldn't consider the choice made of free will.

As for the time travel example, I'm not 100% sure how to approach that. A lot of funky things can happen with time travel, and I'm not sure of every philosophical implication of it. But as far as I can see, by observing the outcome after it happens, you never had prior knowledge of the choice, which I suppose is an important facet of the "pre"-determined choice. I suppose you can say that in your example, an entity knows the outcome before it happened, but that same entity didnt know the outcome until after it happened, which is a contradiction? I'd be appreciative if you could think of an example without time travel in it.

Natural language's have context and they require considerable intelligence to process which is why we we still use programming languages rather then an NLP system. When I said "that" it was in the context of disproving a supreme being's existence.

as you said this doesn't necessarily prove that a supreme being cannot exist
doesn't prove that a supreme being cannot exist ↔ doesn't disprove the existence of a supreme being

Then when I followed that sentence with "that is irrelevant" it was in the context of the previous claim about disproving.


Forget it. I don't have an infinite quantity of time to try to decipher your links, so I give up on that.


I agree that they are not at truly at fault, however, I don't see how they won the argument.


Thank you.


We have not created a machine with an intelligence on par with a dog or a million times greater then a human, nor have I claimed that we have. However, my claim is:

Mind uploading is scientifically possible. It is possible to take a human brain and copy it onto a computer and have it behave almost indistinguishably. The same thing can be done with a dog's brain or the brain of any other mammal. A fairly successful existing example of this is the hierarchical temporal memory system developed by Numenta which maps the neocortex onto a computer system.

- Furthermore, that claim may be supplemented with:

Sometime within this millennium the Artificial Intelligence community will successfully construct a Seed AI, that Seed AI will be smarter then human beings and it will use its intelligence to improve itself over and over again in a cycle of recursive self-improvement, this will quickly lead the Seed AI to develop an intelligence factor at least a million times greater then the average human.

It's more like, he can only know the choice which you decide to make.


It doesn't contradict it. You are going to make a choice. You may choose the red sock, you may choose the green sock, you may decide to take neither, you may decide to take both and try to eat them. Regardless of what the outcome of your choice is, one thing is certain: There will be an outcome.

Knowing what that outcome will be before the decision arises doesn't mean you didn't have a choice, not any more than knowing what that outcome is after it's occurred. The outcome doesn't change regardless of if you know about it before or after the fact.

You're saying "I may choose red, or I may choose green. You can't know for sure which it will be, so I have free will. If you knew for sure, then it wouldn't be free will." That's simply not the case. If you pick the red sock, then that is the definitive outcome of your decision. Anyone after that point can say "You definitely chose the red sock" and it wouldn't negate that you made the choice of your own free will.

In the same line of thought, if someone before that point could say "You will definitely choose the red sock," that doesn't negate that you made a choice either. Knowing the outcome of a decision doesn't necessitate that you had no choice, it simply means the choice you ended up making was known beforehand.

The prediction is based on the choice, not the other way around. You are free to choose whichever sock you want. If you'd decided to choose the green one, then that's the one he'd have predicted instead.


You're switching the cause and effect. You're looking at it like his knowledge is the cause, and your actions are the effect. In reality, the idea is that your actions are the cause and his knowledge is the effect.

A more accurate description would be "I don't see where god can know you will choose anything other than the choice you will make, which isn't really his choice, considering he has no options besides what you will choose."

His knowledge is based on the choice you will make, not vice versa.


It's more like, he can't know otherwise without invalidating your choice.


It doesn't matter if the same entity knew the outcome after it happened. If god knows everything that will happen, then it could be argued he transcends time anyways, the same way he's assumed to transcend space.

The point of the example is that there is both free will and predetermination existing simultaneously; at the same time, one person is making a choice, and the other person knows with 100% certainty what choice they will make. Your argument is based on the assumption that those two things can't coexist, yet I've provided an example where they do.


Anything along the same line of thought will work, whether it's a crystal ball, a psychic vision, a telephone that lets you talk to someone in the past or future, the power that Cris Johnson has in the movie Next, etc. That's just ways to explain it with human beings, never mind with an omnipresent entity that could easily include existing at all times simultaneously as part of that omnipresence.

To summarize, knowing what choice someone will make doesn't negate it being a choice or contradict free will.

By the way, I thought you might like this.

I think you're missing what I mean by knowledge here. If this superhuman supernatural superuber God "knows" something, then it is true, no matter what, since he is omniscient. He knows all. (Under the usual definition of omniscience which we commonly use, meaning he can even know that which would be impossible to know, not the limited definition I was talking about in a previous post. In the limited definition where it is not possible for him to know the impossible, and I would agree that your argument seems perfectly valid in that case. I don't think you think that's what we're talking about though, but I figure I ought to clarify to be perfectly sure). This is different from me saying "I know you will choose X" because I am not God, which doesn't necessarily make what I say true. I suppose the definition I am using of knowledge is the definition that Socrates would have used, only those things which are always true can be considered knowledge. For example, "It is raining" isn't knowledge, even if it is currently raining, because 10 minutes from now it could be false. "It is raining at this moment" can be considered knowledge if it is true, because we will always be able to truthfully say "at that moment it is raining"


Yes, but my point is that the outcome can't change, if it is already true prior to the outcome.

This is where I would point out the difference between the colloquial "know" and the knowledge I'm talking about. If I know you like the color red at the time of your making the choice, then even if I say "I know you will pick red socks" and you do, that doesn't mean I knew you would pick the red socks. Whereas if God says "I know you will pick the red socks" then it is 100% absolutely certain that you will pick the red socks.

I think what you're saying is:
God knows you will pick the red socks
OR
God knows you will pick the blue socks
OR
God knows you will pick the green socks and eat them cause they look like green eggs and ham
ect
and the only true one is the one that is true based on which decision you make.
(Also note that due to our informal use of language here, theres an implied "when you make the decision we're talking about" at the end of each option. The options above technically aren't knowledge, since you could pick red socks, and later pick green socks, which would make "you will pick red socks" false, but with the appended phrase they will always be true since we're limiting the scope to the decision we're talking about.)

However, we know that God knows which pair you will pick before the decision is made, since only one of those options is true at all times. To appease jhuni's "special relativity" stuff, we'll even say God has this knowledge at some point outside of the light cone of everyone involved, so that all reference frames can agree he had this knowledge in the past, which we know to be true, since we know he is omniscient. Since one and only one of these possibilities is true, prior to the resolution of the actual decision, the outcome of the decision must reflect the true possibility, and only the true possibility. If the outcome of the decision reflects a false possibility, then we are left with
["God knows you will pick X" is true] is false. If that is false, then God is not omniscient. We now have
Assumption: God is omniscient
Outcome: God is not omniscient
Unless there's some way for omniscient && not omniscient to simultaneously be true, we have a contradiction.

From there, we can say that you cannot choose any option but the true one (the one god knew you would choose), since if you do, we arrive at a contradiction.

If you cannot choose any option but the predetermined one, you don't have a choice. If you had a choice, you could pick any option, but here you cannot.

If you still disagree, it would be helpful to me to understand your points better if you picked apart the logical argument above some.

Well, I have a problem with your example in terms of time. If the decision is made at time = t, then your knowledge of the decision comes at some time t + e (e might only be a second or so) then you travel back in time 10 seconds (which presumably happens instantly), then the time of the knowledge of the observer is still t+e, despite the fact he went back in time 10 seconds, and the decision he already has knowledge of will occur at time t+e+10, instead of at time = t, so he doesn't have prior knowledge.

Well we could assume some random guy Bob, who can't transcend time or anything, somehow acquires this knowledge of your decision, through some extraordinary means.

Well, I see the same reasoning for them as I do for an omniscient god.
Assuming: the outcome you see in the crystal ball is true
Person chooses otherwise
=> Outcome from the crystal ball is false, which is a contradiction with our assumption that it was true.
So if the crystal ball vision is true, the person must choose how the crystal ball said he would choose, which again means he can't choose otherwise, i.e. no choice, no free will, w/e you wish to call it.

Oh and the cartoon was funny

Just want to throw in a remark regarding the seemingly contradictory nature of God giving us free will and God's all knowing power which supposedly determines all our choices.

This God knows all things and his knowledge is eternal so therefore he must know what we are going to choose before we ever choose it. Ultimately we'd imagine two terrifying conclusions: That first human freedom/free will is impossible; and second God is the author of sin. These are one of the greatest polemics of all, both in the Christian and non christian world. So what's the Christian take on this?

Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, put it this way: The thing is when we say that God's knowledge is eternal or that he knows from all eternity the choices you are going to make, we do not mean that he knows at a time in the distant past that you will do something in the future and that this knowledge determines you to do it. We mean instead that the kind of knowledge God has (like the kind of being he has) is not limited in any way by temporal constraints as our knowledge is. Time is the measure of moving, changing beings; in other words, time is a creature every bit as much as these things are. God, the creator, is beyond such measure. His being transcends time and all such temporal categories.

We naturally think of God's eternity as if it were a temporal extension stretching infinitely back into the past and forward in the future. That is because our language reflects the kind of being we have: finite, changing, timebound. We know that God's being is not like that (otherwise he wouldn't be a "god") and therefore that his knowledge isn't about looking forward or back. Here's the tricky statement: He sees in a single and eternal act of vision all our free choices as they really exist, embedded in their times and places and circumstances. Remember this statement is different from saying "God's all knowing knowledge sees and determines all the choices we will make."

I personally found this a bit tricky to understand but from what I discern the key different is where this "God" exists, either in our time bound world or in a place outside of time. If he does exist in this time bound world then indeed we can all agree that his knowledge would be, like Peter said, a temporal extension which then determines our actions at their respective junctures (thus eliminating our freedom and choice). However if he exists in a world outside of time and our constraints, we cannot so simply say if God is all knowing, then we have no free will or vice versa.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 22 2010, 12:54 am by MillenniumArmy.

The problem with that sort of explanation, is that we can't do anything with it. We cannot analyze or understand anything to do with a God that doesn't exist in our universe, so that sort of definition is pointless to consider. Further, I think that sort of definition is a cop out. Its essentially saying "we can't know anything about God, so there is no problem in accepting both God and that we have free will." I think a real christian would be, to put it bluntly, less of a pussy.

Besides, the fact that God transcends time doesn't solve the problem of us transcending time. If God knows something, it is true, and it will be just as true ten minutes ago as it will be now, as it will be an hour from now, as it always will be. The truth of his knowledge concerning our choice is still about our choice, which does not transcend time, else our choices would have to transcend time too.

As far as I can see, the problem with God and logic is not to determine what he can do, or what can be true if he can do the impossible, because if he can do the impossible, then logic is useless, and we already know he can do everything. The real question is to find out what can be without saying "God can do the impossible."

Well, this was original to me, at least... not much else in this discussion has been. =o

A community which has a net desire to do "evil" (utilitarian-wise) cannot sustain itself. Because of this, communities which encourage against chaos by whatever means necessary self-select for their continued existence. To go back to Lewis's example: you don't see ducklings who want to walk because the ones who wanted to walk were killed. Men feel sexual desire because the ones who don't feel sexual desire didn't ever reproduce. Until (relatively) recently, Lewis's desire for an otherworldly experience makes sense: it was simply more healthy for individuals in a society to believe that there was another future than to not. This ties directly to the loaded question that religious people often ask of non-believers: "If God doesn't exist, what do you have to live for?" which is another topic.

A cannibalistic tribe is more likely to kill each other than people who feel that the gods will strike down someone who tries to do so, or burn them forever and ever. As a more modern example: Men feel desire for multiple women, and yet most communities have conditioned us to ignore that impulse because it is destructive in a utilitarian sense. And yet, it still happens everywhere because society's control is not absolute. Religion is an excellent tool for controlling people, historically paralleled by absolutely nothing. In earlier times, this was beneficial to the growth of society, I don't doubt that. In my opinion, though, religion has long overstayed its welcome. I'd make the argument that a country is not truly civilized as long as there is public indoctrination of children in anything; religion certainly still qualifies all across the world. I wish it good riddance and hope for a speedy exit.

The basic premise of Lewis's argument is that "we want something to exist, therefore it probably exists," which is just remarkably naive, to me.

To Vrael: Of course our natural tendency is to bind and claim this supernatural being to our materialistic universe, to our five senses so that we can comprehend his disposition. But is that right, relegating this being to our level? It's not a cop out, he is what he is: a spiritual supernatural being. Otherwise this would not be a "god" we're talking about. Either you believe there's something out there outside of our current materialistic science driven world or you don't, that's the dichotomy.

Of course the minutia regarding God's convoluted and transcending nature are hard to understand, that's why thousands of scholars, historians, and theologians are diligently studying this matter everyday for the past several millenniums (hence our discussions and almost varying views upon this matter). Sure we cannot fully understand this God but all we have to simply concede is that the laws, logic, and definitions that fetter us cannot be use to fully explain this complex nature of God.

...
but never mind all that. More importantly

We ask, so what is the best way to understand God's nature? Surely the religious people can't just simply say "Oh he is God, therefore no need to question his turbid character!" The answers can be found in the edification and moral teachings of the prophets and spiritual leaders in the holy scriptures. Through the teachings of Moses, David, Jesus, Paul, etc can we then gain a stronger understanding who God is because what's unequivocal throughout the holy scriptures is that God wants a relationship with us. And through the teachings can we then piece together who this God is, not necessarily the other way around.

I haven't got this TOTALLY sorted in my mind, but here's what I think at the current moment: God allowed/allows sin to exist. God doesn't sin. Man does have free will, but God foreknows what our choices will be, so it could also be said that we DON'T have free will.

Think about it this way. If you lift your hand up now and punch someone next to you, you're the one doing the action. Did God make you do that? No. But you did it, so you sinned, not God. HOWEVER, God also foreknew that you would do it, and due to His sovereignty made events transpire so that you would punch the person next to you. So it's free will and not free will at the same time.

First, I would note that the first sentence in both your sources make it clear that these processes are both hypothetical, and further reading into both sources note numerous problems with the actual process. There's a big gap between "hypothetical" and "scientifically possible" that we shouldn't be too hasty to leap, but if such processes were possible it would lead to interesting questions about the nature of free will, and even God.

The cop out is explaining everything away with the phrase "We can't understand, and we'll never be able to understand." God may or may not be beyond our understanding, or he may or may not be real, or he may be able to do the impossible or just the possible; all these possibilities exist when we talk about a being of such immense power. I wouldn't claim that he must be bound to our materialistic universe, only that the possibility that he is bound to our world and understanding is worth considering. If God can do the impossible, then we could prove he doesn't exist, and he could still exist, because that's impossible and he can do it; the truth of the matter is very likely beyond anything we can say about it. My problem is not with the truth of God, my problem is with this professor saying "Don't explore the possibilities, because my explanation says we can't understand." I realize nothing I can possibly do or say would change the transcendency or non-transcendency of God from our universe, but I'm also not afraid to say "ok, lets assume X Y and Z about God and figure out what that would mean." Sure it could be, or is even likely to be wrong, but its better than what the professor's quote would have us do.