/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12163403
You are confused about free will in very similar ways as I was before I thought about it carefully and came to conclude that we have free willl.
>By Laplace's demon I mean someone who has the knowledge of laws of physics and the current state of the universe. According to QM he couldn't predict universe's next state completely, there's some probabilities involved.
But the probabilities and outcomes are such that in effect the demon can predict nothing at all about where I am going to do, as I demonstrated in the thought experiment with quantum observations.
To give an example, imagine my claim that I can predict your message. You ask me to predict it and I return all possible character combinations that fit into a 4chan post with equal probabilities. You would probably say that my prediction is completely useless and doesn't even deserve to be called a prediction.
Now my argument about the Laplace's demon is that it has to function in an analogous way as to render its predictions completely useless and not predictions at all.
>Now whether Laplace's demon is literally possible I think is a bit beside the point, but at least there's no reason to think that some kind of entity or artificial intelligence or whatever couldn't have enough information about a person (rather than the state of the whole universe) that he could just treat you as a collection of atoms and predict what you are going to do accordingly, with some QM probabilities maybe there.
But I just gave you an argument that there is no reason to believe such an entity could exist, and even if it did the probabilities involved in its results would contain so little actual information as to be completely useless.
>Why does determinism take an agent's ability to make a choice while indeterminism doesn't?
Because indeterminism is not an agent. Indeterminism is just the notion that the knowledge of the universe at a point in time is NOT enough to determine the state at all further times. <cont>