If everything can be predicted if we were to hypothetically be completely aware of all of the atoms and molecules in the universe, doesn't that mean that everything is predestined and free will doesn't exist?
>>8109254
>filename
kek'd
everything can't be predicted though
>still gorilla-posting
Legitimate philosophers define free will in such a way that it is compatible with a deterministic universe.
>>8109254
I've never heard a definition given for "free will" that wasn't incredibly vague or circular.
yes if god doesn't play dice
kicker: god does play dice
Yep, you are right. Also if humanity knows about that predictions, those predictions will fail. You can still predict something after that reaction, but only if you keep the second prediction in secret. Like in Foundation book series.
And, yes, there is not such a thing as a true free will. Humans are still dumb and cant predict anything, so theoretically you have freee will, but universally you dont.
>>8109254
You can't predict what you're going to predict before you predict it. This implies that anything which your prediction effects cannot be predicted.
>>8109450
>Yep, you are right. Also if humanity knows about that predictions, those predictions will fail. You can still predict something after that reaction, but only if you keep the second prediction in secret.
That's silly.
If the first prediction was any good, it would have included predictions of how people would react to learning it.
>>8109297
same.
>>8109530
>it would have included predictions of how people would react to learning it.
That means you would have to predict what your prediction is going to be before you predict it.
>>8110250
What is the outside in this context? Be intelligent to recognize that you are spouting nonsense which has no bearing on discussions of determinism vs. predictability. What happens when you try to predict while being a part of the system is the only thing that is relevant. We are not gods and we do not make predictions simply to make predictions.
>>8109254
No anon.
You see there are magical invisible beings that can operate outside the realm of physical laws which give them free will which also proves that we have free will.
If you choose not to believe it, you're a dogmatic indoctrinated zombie and I can't help you.
>>8109254
>doesn't that mean that everything is predestined and free will doesn't exist?
It's not like there is room for "free will" in an unpredictable universe, either.
>>8109254
Who ever said that free will must be a physical phenomenon?
The very idea of free will rejects physicalism.
Yes, OP. The universe is deterministic (i.e. it's predictable, theoretically).
However in quantum mechanics there are some probabilistic formulas. Hence the meme that the universe is not deterministic. However the existence of these formulas does not prove that there are no deterministic laws behind them which were not discovered yet.
>>8110380
>determinism means predictable
When will this meme die?
>>8109254
How would you plan that we would run a simulation or build a model to predict events that occur at the smallest level of physicality?
Build an exact replica? Because that's not gonna offer any insight.
>>8110410
Technically predictable yes.
>>8110410
I meant that there is no randomness and no free will.
>>8110439
No. It's impossible to infallibly predict things your prediction would effect. For example, if John always does the opposite of predictions he hears, you can't predict what John will do after you tell him your prediction.
>>8110446
Nope, you would predict that he will do the opposite of what you tell him, and you would be right.
>>8110452
I predict you will be you. See, I can perfectly predict everything.
>>8109258
>everything can't be predicted though
THIS
The Newtonian-Brownian model is very appealing to /sci/entists because it's fndamentally simple and logical.
But it's time-reversible.
Which means that if the universe really did work that way, there would be no difference between the two directions of time.
Events in the past cause things to happen in the future, but if shit was time-reversible, it would work the other way as well.
You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.
We should embrace QM because it's more logical in relation to the "arrow of time".
As far as free will goes, it really doesn't relate to determinism.
I have free will as long as I make my own decisions, regardless of whether I'm a deterministic system, or not.
Saying I'm constrained by my genetic predispositions, or my life experiences is moot because those are a part of who I am.
So it's still me making the decisions.
>>8110454
>I have free will as long as I make my own decisions, regardless of whether I'm a deterministic system, or not.
Saying I'm constrained by my genetic predispositions, or my life experiences is moot because those are a part of who I am.
So it's still me making the decisions.
By that logic, a computer following an algorithm also has "free will". So you've defined free will so broadly as to make it meaningless.
>>8110454
>We should embrace QM
There was this dude named Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM and did not believe in randomness. Randomness in the QM did not seem logical to him. So it does not seem logical to me.
>I have free will as long as I make my own decisions
No, you have conditioned reflexes (behavior learnt through life experience) and unconditioned reflexes (from genetics)
>>8110454
>You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.
What ? Why ?
>We should embrace QM because it's more logical in relation to the "arrow of time".
We should embrace an hypothesis because... The other one hurt your feelings ? What ?
>free will
That's a theological concept that have no basis whatsoever in science. Even philosophy itself doesn't concern itself much with free-will, since it requires axioms more retarded than the ones it usually uses ( and that's saying much ).
I want to buy a dog, but i don't know if i should buy a male to suck his dick and be sodomised, or a female for just fucking. Any advice ?
>>8110470
>There was this dude named Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM and did not believe in randomness. Randomness in the QM did not seem logical to him. So it does not seem logical to me.
Wow, so you're just going to ignore that Einstein's local realism was BTFO experimentally by the experimental proof of Bell's Theorem? Straight argument from authority fallacy. Your intuition does not trump empirical fact.
>>8110459
>So you've defined free will so broadly as to make it meaningless.
OK, that's true, but how else would you define it?
Google's definition largely matches my own:
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;
>the ability to act at one's own discretion.
If you count internal predispositions as "fate", the definition is still largely meaningless.
I think the definition implies a conscious being, which gets us to the hard problem of consciousness, which might not be meaningless, but it definitely involves some unanswerable questions..
Free will is a philosophical issue anyway, not a scientific one, so maybe "meaningless" is to be expected.
>>8110470
>Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM
His objections were based on his emotional need to believe that "God does not play dice with the universe", and not any scientific theory or observation.
>>8110485
>>You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.
>What ? Why ?
Read my post before replying.
It's because if physics were time-reversible (like Newtonian-Brownian motion), there would be no "arrow of time", no reason for cause to always lie in the past and effect in the future.
>We should embrace an hypothesis because...
QM is not a hypothesis.
>I want to buy a dog, but i don't know if i should buy a male to suck his dick and be sodomised, or a female for just fucking. Any advice ?
It's hard to say based on just one post, but you sound like a cocksucker to me.
>>8110278
Yes, these are called 4D beings, beings that would live in Bulk space, a higher dimensional and more primary space than our own 3D plane. They would be able to see every conceivable angle of us all at once and could change things through space and time at will. They probably don't intervene too much but who knows.
>>8110454
>>8111517
>It's because if physics were time-reversible (like Newtonian-Brownian motion), there would be no "arrow of time", no reason for cause to always lie in the past and effect in the future.
Uh, if physics was time-reversible then "past" and "future" would just be names given towards and against the direction of your experience anyway. You still wouldn't be able to "remember the future", because the creation of memories would just be another event in time - looking at time "in reverse" would just be looking against the direction of memorization.
All of this is bullshit of course, because you don't need to invoke anything other than Newtonian Mechanics to get reversibility.
