Alright, let me see if I can explain better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InJoy  Assuming you are talking about accurate predictions here, it seems to me that there is no choice, only the illusion of choice. If you know (due to some algorithm) that I'm going to scratch my nose exactly ten seconds from now, and I do, then that action is predetermined. |
Let's begin impersonally.
I'm going to suppose that, in the future, we will be able to predict the weather down to the minute. I can tell you that, at 5:34 PM EST, May 18, 2343 A.D., there will be a minor thunderstorm starting. At 6:32, same day, there will be a lightning strike in the middle of New Haven, CT at X degrees west and Y degrees north.
Did I predetermine the weather? Of course not. I have no control over the weather; I simply understand what led up to it, and so I know what will happen afterwards. The existence of choice is irrelevant. I'll go over what choice actually is in the next section.
Let's move back to people.
I'm going to suppose that, in a thousand years, we'll know everything about people. We probably won't, but that's irrelevant for the hypothetical. Now, knowing everything, we place a person before a maze. This person has been studied and observed for his entire life, by us, so not only do we know everything in general about people, but we know everything in particular about this person.
First junction, does he turn left or right? Next, same choice. Next, same choice. Does he turn back? How long does it take? We're not intervening in this study: we put him in front of a maze, gave him a reason to get to the end (100 dollars!), and watched. I would say that you could predict his choices accurately, but we're not predetermining it. He makes the choice, at that time, of his own free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InJoy when you say that personal actions are ultimately predictable, (with the "given enough info" model) do you mean to say 100% accurately predictable? And, if so, I'm missing the step of logic that leads you to that conclusion. |
Yes.
Think about what it means to make a choice. It has nothing to do with what
will happen. Instead, choice involves an analysis of everything that
you think could be, and then
your conclusion as to which nets the ultimate gain, or at least the minimal loss. Let's toss out the word "physics", which is really annoying to me, and advance the word "economics". See my signature below for a definition of economics.
Thus, a choice can be predicted based on past knowledge. I can predict that my girlfriend will absolutely love the stuffed animal I give her. I can predict that my parents will be proud of me at my graduation. Do they have a choice in the matter? Furthermore, I can predict that my teacher will give a lecture (well, actually, he likes to make us talk) in a couple hours. Does he have a choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InJoy Therefore, it may seem to me that I am choosing to scratch my nose, but the fact is, it was already destined to be and my choice had nothing to do with it. |
This is well-known as the problem of free will in theology. It's unsolvable in theology because we necessarily posit God as our Creator, and that negates any solution. But removing an intelligent creator as a factor re-enables free will very easily.
Why? Think of us as those mechanical cars that you wind up, set on the ground, and release. Suddenly, we're buzzing off!, racing down the track or down the driveway, or wherever. Now, if God were involved, we'd have to admit that he created the cars, the track, the driveway, the fluctuations of air pressure, the humidity, everything that might have the slightest effect on the path of the cars.
But without God, by simply saying things are, we realize that, if we knew all of these variables, the irregularities in the pavement, the slight wind that pushed the car a bit to the left, the humidity messing with the internals just a bit, then we could trace the exact path that the car would take
before it took it. Prediction.
Similarly with humans. If we understand everything that factors into our choices, we can then predict what a choice will be based on our knowledge of all those factors. I can predict that a staunch, stereotypical conservative will pull out his shotgun and demand a pair of gays to get off his lawn.
Now, the ultimate philosophical question of free will stems from a practical question of law. If said person shoots the two gays, is it his fault, or is it "just his nature"? Should he be punished for murder? And without choice, without free will, the common argument is "no", because he had no say. But if we merely predict it, then he
does have a say. The only difference is that we anticipated what his decision would be before the fact: and we are given the opportunity to prevent it. (ref: Minority Report)
Quote:
Originally Posted by InJoy If I do indeed choose not to scratch my nose (in the face of your knowing), then you did not accurately predict my actions. |
And in science, when the data does not support the theory, we say that the theory is wrong or incomplete. In this case, this means that a factor was either not taken into account, or its effect on the result incorrect.
The failure to predict does not mean it is unpredictable: more often, it means that the predictor was simply ignorant. If I'm walking down the street and walk right into someone else, I could have easily predicted that by looking up. But I didn't, and so I didn't have all the information needed to predict that collision. If someone had been tracking the two of us, they would have predicted that with no fancy maths or crazy statistics. They'd probably just start laughing (after leaning forward in anticipation).
I hope that explains it better.
