posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by Sly1one
You reference determinism. You gave the analogy of a pool table. You said that if we could calculate all of the changes in direction and velocity and
the precise surface of the table and the currents of air and pressure above and the various textures of the balls and their masses and all of the
other conditions that we could see with 100 percent odds what the result will be when the balls are broke.
But that's not reality. I think Quantum Mechanics says that, broadly, there's a limiting factor which restricts determinism. Basically, there's a
99.99999999999 (give or take) percent chance AT BEST that our most precise SINGULAR calculations will be proven true. There's always that small
variance in the environment that prevents perfect calculations! Now when you combine MANY of these calculations what happens is that this (seemingly)
small imperfection becomes amplified and it becomes exponentially large and, essentially, prevents any form of determinism from taking place. The
reason this is significant is because everything on the classical level (including us) is massively complex and thus you have all of these interacting
masses and energies amplifying the small quantum jumpiness and thus preventing us from ever seeing our future with firmness.
What's ironic is that many people have said that determinism on steroids would completely destroy free will since whatever we happen to be could be
directly linked to countless preceding states and our future would be set without the ability to ever change it. These people very much enjoy that
determinism (on that level) has been ruled out by quantum mechanics. The problem I see is that with this input of random turbulence (via quantum
fluctuations) it absolutely prevents us from predicting the future. Basically, we're completely at the mercy of these fluctuations and have no
capability to ever overcome the limitations they enforce on us. When you look at this issue broadly, what it means is that our level of control over
this reality has been greatly reduced. Now, from my perspective, anything that reduces control also reduces free will. Why should it not? It's
imposing a strict limit on our ability to see into the past and the future. As a result of this, we're not dumb because we made a bad choice, instead
we're dumb because we CAN'T make a better choice. Isn't it ironic?
Ever heard "Gambling is not a strategy"? That's what I'm highlighting here. Randomness is not a choice. It's fate. Free will is about choice, not
fate. We are our choices, not randomness.
What it boils down to is that, in reality, we're the combination of choice and randomness.
It's not perfect free will if free will is solely about choices and not fate. But this shouldn't be surprising. People are idealistic about free will.
Idealism is syrupy and rarely truthful.
What I see is this:
Strict Randomness Strict Determinism.
On either end free will suffers. In the mid-range it's a mix of fate and choice.
edit on 27-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason