Hacker News Reader

Comment by salmonellaeater | Hacker News Reader

The world can be deterministic and still allow free will with respect to a real observer. In some sense it doesn't matter if a person's actions are in principle predictable when there is no observer who can actually make those predictions. You'd have to measure and simulate the entire universe to predict a single particle's future.

View on HN

But it would just be an illusion no? If the discovery were made that the universe is entirely deterministic it wouldn't matter whether any one person could, or any number of people, could produce accurate meaningful predictions. The truth alone would VERY disruptive.

> The truth alone would VERY disruptive.

This is clearly untrue. The discovery has already been made that events in the universe happen in one of two ways:

1. "deterministically", the way you think would be VERY disruptive

2. determined by chance

This isn't disruptive; people just ignore it.

Sources?

The great Australian philosopher David Stove was of the opinion that the main function of philosophers is to save the rest of us the trouble of thinking about these sorts of things.

When a useful professional in another field such as you or I starts wondering about these sorts of issues, he can simply pick up a philosophy book, note that a bunch of smart people have already thought this issue through, put labels on every possible position, argued through the consequences of each, and still failed to come to any consensus about it. And then we can say "Whew, glad someone's already taken care of that" and get back to our useful lives without worrying our pretty little heads about it too much.

So if you do find yourself worrying about free will, I suggest reading the vast amount of pre-existing literature on the subject and unburdening yourself of feeling like you should be making progress on it.

If you want humanity to progress then you should encourage critical and rational reflection. It's the capacity of thinking which society often lacks.

What would be "disruptive" about it?

It does matter, because determinism generally (but not always) depends on causation. People making (determined) predictions would still influence the (determined) future actions of other people. Punishing people who acted in a (determined) way would still affect the (determined) actions of other people. Lived experience allows for the possibility of a number of different ontological theories, which is a large part of why there are so many different and conflicting ones.

it would just be an illusion? no, not necessarily. consider that the deterministic particles in the universe could be receptors and the actual thing that has free will exists outside the universe and sends signals to those receptors in some way. this is where the concept of souls would come in, and that would make determinism and free will compatible.

In your model, the "deterministic" particles do not actually behave in a deterministic way, unless the thing sending them signals sends those signals in a fully deterministic way. But in that case, there's no reason to bother including it in the model.

Um, no. The model suggests that particles would be entirely predictable unless acted upon by an outside force. It doesn't matter at all if "signal-sending things" are deterministic or not. This "free will" wouldn't exist in the physical world, it's metaphysics.

If the pool table were the universe, the course of the billiard balls is predetermined until the shooter shoots. No shooter, no change.

If the solar system were the universe, the planets would be deterministic until the aliens blow up Jupiter. Aliens don't exist? Then the planets would be entirely deterministic for the full course of their lifetime.

If the universe were the universe, all particles are completely deterministic, unless spooky ghosts make magic. Whether the spooky ghosts are real is a question of gullibility.

As I attempt to interpret my parent comment using the framework you provide, I get this:

- The particles making up the universe are deterministic, unless free will is exercised.

This would amount to a concession that while free will is possible, it has never been used. I don't think that's what parent had in mind.

I suppose you could call it an illusion, but I don't think that needs to be considered a bad thing. By the same token, your senses are an illusion. That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to say that we do have senses, and it doesn't mean our senses aren't often extremely useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com