/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15085559
>there is only two possibilities, things can either be fully deterministic or randomic
This falls apart quickly.

For determinism, this anon provides a decent framework >>15085769
Assume there's a machine that can perfectly predict what will happen and is completely honest. If a contrarian then appears and does the opposite of what the machine says (i.e. takes A if the machine says he will take B or vice versa), the system falls apart. Either such an actor cannot exist, or determinism is fundamentally broken (or both).
Free will resolves this conflict. If you replace the machine with an actor who has free will, then said actor can decide which path the contrarian takes with 100% accuracy.

For assuming things are fully random, then that means nothing is 100% certain - otherwise, your system is at least partially deterministic. But it's easy to come up with counterexamples that show otherwise. If you decide to pick up an object at a table, you will do so 100% of the time. Even probability theory seems to refute it - probabilities just measure the proportion of total outcomes that have a specific result.

If anything, rather than only the two extremes being viable, it's the exact opposite. There is something between absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty that best describes reality.