this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
72 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44148 readers
1283 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's no functional difference, unless you can accurately predict someone's actions, and to do that you'd need to predict the environment in which someone is making choices as well, which requires omniscience. So, there's no functional difference.
Unpredictability is not the same as free will.
Yes, but if there is true free will, the universe would not be perfectly predictable. If it is, then there could not be free will. Luckily, it isn't.
I would say deterministic rather than predictable.
I think the universe is deterministic and that there isn't something inside our heads that bypasses determinism and creates free will.
But we know for sure that the universe is not deterministic.
From a fundamental level, it is probabilistic.
Simple experiments can show this chaotic action.
Take for example the dripping tap experiment. The time for next drop cannot be predicted by knowing the timing of the previous drops!
This is not a random process, there is a pattern, but it is also clearly not deterministic.
We can't predict it because we can't possibly know everything. But unpredictably isn't the same as randomness or implies nondeterministic behaviour.
If you are really interested, look into the uncertainty principle.
At this point in science we are as convinced as is possible to be; that the universe is probabilistic in nature.
The uncertainty principle says what the limits are on our knowledge of a given scenario, not that the universe which is running the show has such a limit.
Your argument is circular.
In your view, determinism requires impossible perfect knowledge. It only seems probabilistic, because we can't do the impossible.
This is also not a technology problem. These are not limits we can overcome.
I'm saying 'we'- humans, don't enter in to it at all. Knowledge and prediction are human things. I'm saying they don't apply to the universe itself which is what is running things. The state of things is what it is, irrespective of ourselves. We humans will never know enough to be able to predict perfectly, but that doesn't mean the matter and nature aren't running deterministicly.
It is not "just" quantum physics that shows the deterministic universe is impossible.
Relativity theory shows, there is no "universal clock", this is distinct from Newtonian physics which assumes a single universal clock.
You may not want to accept that the universe is not deterministic, and there are big gaps in our understanding of reality, but this isn't one of them. On a fundamental level, the universe is probabilistic.
You are in good company however, Einstein famously said "god doesn't play dice with the universe", when he initially discovered this fact. He came to accept its reality, at the evidence is overwhelming.
Sure, that's consistent.
Remember the reasons we have punishments? To discourage further misdeeds. Also, to restore justice by inflicting suffering on those who deserve it. Punishments would still be dished out for pragmatic reasons, but retributive punishment would be rendered entirely meaningless.
It would also shatter all sense of acomplishment an individual could have. All that would be left is maybe a perverse pride in knowing you where born "better" than others.
I don't think society would survive if it was a common knowledge.
Like I said, how can you prove that free will exists now? We could very well already live in your scenario, and the world isn't ending because of a lack of free will (if it doesn't exist). I mean, it is ending, but not because of free will or the lack thereof.