Regardless of if it’s practical to live that way in daily life, the world seems pretty determined. Everything happens because a vast amount of interactions between infinite factors causes it to. You can’t really say you choose between things as many influences have been taken in by you and many things have affected your psychological state. Has everything been practically decided by the big bang? Now, this is not to say we can know everything or predict the future, but we know what’s likely. Socialism or extinction may be inevitable, but we don’t know yet. Socialism can only happen if people keep fighting, regardless. People will be convinced or principled or not. Science seems to agree with this, and only few, like the wrong Sartre would propose we have ultimate free will. So are there any arguments against determinism? I know there is a saying that you’re freer when you recognize how your freedom is restricted, and that recognition may make your actions better, but isn’t there ultimately no freedom?
The thing I think you’re missing with the quantum angle is that its unknowable currently but that doesnt mean its unknowable, we might get to a point where that level of computation is possible for us to work out. I think the best way to put it is ‘no current models can predict this but thats not to say a model couldnt feasibly scale up large enough to work it out’; its something that might be a frontier we can work out if quantum computers ever become a feasable thing to apply to this.
Thats not to say it will disprove free will, it might very well become a ‘shit we need a post-quantum quantum computer for this’
I agree with you, it is a principle of materialism that the world and its laws are knowable, we constantly prove this concept by scientific advancements.
Certain mysteries of nature may seem impossible to understand currently, but in 1000 years they may already be solved
Everything is divisible into infinitely smaller parts, so yeah there probably will always be more to know no matter how much you know.
It starts to beg the question that if everything is computable with a big enough theortical computer pointed at a paradigm that exists, but is either found or not found given the unknown, doesnt that mean free will is moot?
Untill we find the unparadagimable matter its still up for debate.
I still don’t see an argument for free will here. Either way it means its random or predictable, not free. The only way free will could exist is if there was some sort of spirit beyond matter.
Im also actually still open to that idea that there is something beyond the veil, but resigned to the fact that it would be unknowable.
I doubt it, but noone can know for certain.
i’m likely dramatically oversimplifying something i don’t fully understand, but bell’s theorem tells us there’s not any model behind the scenes of quantum mechanics
More like we don’t have a paradigm to explain the model of quantum mechanics yet.
Bell’s theorem imposes that a hidden variable theory that makes the spontaneity of quantum measurement unspontaneous is only possible if it is nonlocal.
Nonlocality means two things can be correlated and their corresponding nature be known simultaneously at once due to this correlation. Once you know one, you know the other, without any relaying of information between them.
This is why it’s hard to talk about any scientific facts, even when surrounding a philosophical argument. Yes, maybe we could find a way eventually, but we need that evidence first, and as of right now, there’s evidence to show that we actually can’t have perfect knowledge.
But yeah, “anything could change” is like, always there, so, sure.