That's a clever joke. I however have radical freedom!
Chooses to put the book outside
I can’t turn to the page cuz it’s an image on a screen.
I would flip a coin and let the universe decide
Unless we have a way to find out what that predetermined future is, it's irrelevant and you should proceed as if it isn't a thing.
I mean technically, since we don't exist in a deterministic universe, we don't have a predetermined fate either, the concept of destiny or fate is a cope by itself. It's debatable that free will exists either. Perhaps neither fate nor free will exists, and everything is just a roll of the quantum die... Hopefully it's a D20.
Also maybe there's some concept currently beyond human comprehension that makes it so that a probabilistic universe, deterministic universe and free will can paradoxically work all together.
When I was like 7 my mom bought me a choose your own adventure book. I tried to read it cover to cover and was very confused.
So if you read it cover to cover, what did you think the instructions were about? What about the "turn to page X" parts?
I'm not judging - this is exactly the sort of oblivious thing I would've done as a kid too - but I'm curious how it happened.
I specifically remember doing this with one of the goosebumps choose your own adventure. There was a good ending page that referenced nirvana (the idea not the band) and I read that thing end to end choosing both choices for everything. No page ever sent you to it. It was just a contrivance that you were sent to glance at while flipping through.
I didn't know Fallout 4 had a graphic novel!
But the book only has 71 pages
Pg 72 is in volume 2.
If you are interested, buy volume 2. Else, buy volume 2.
One cauld rightfully argue "determination" and "predetermination" are wildly different concepts. The comic is wrong on this. But let's go page 72 anyway
I'm taking my towel to page 42. You can't fool me!
Quiet. Accept your servitude to propaganda and conditioning.
You could have stopped at (universal) servitude. But yeah, they say it all becomes clear p.72!
Hell yeah how good is determinism
That is yet to be determined.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebSfjmQNvs - Kurzgesagt - Lemmings will reee optimistic greenwashing.
Can Free Will be Saved in a Deterministic Universe? PBS Space Time - And it's counter argument page https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/11/15/free-will-video/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/ - I'm glad to the coincidence regarding see my semantics point regarding 'Free will' being a somewhat outdated term being a key point in this article.
And yet I can speak about my consciousness, and therefore deliver information to you based on an experience which can't be physically observed or quantified.
Perhaps the universe is naught but a comforting illusion.
deliver information to you based on an experience which can’t be physically observed or quantified
I'm not sure if "Black Box of electro-chemistry" is necessarily the same as "Non-determinism".
That said, we contain the ability to observe and react to our surroundings which causes a large and complex web of interactions that aren't trivial to map or anticipate.
That unpredictablity is what we ultimately define as freedom.
Yeah, I was curious if anyone would catch that. My comment doesn't necessarily ensure free will, it just rejects a physicalist model of reality as a basis for determinism. You can have neutral monism and still have determinism.
I was just trying to embrace the spirit of shitposting idealist takes in response to shitty physicalist takes. 🤭
That said, we contain the ability to observe and react to our surroundings which causes a large and complex web of interactions that aren't trivial to map or anticipate.
That unpredictablity is what we ultimately define as freedom.
How does higher uncertainty of my choices achieving what I strive for raise the perception of freedom of said choice?
You could be a Boltzmann Brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Of course, from my perspective, I would be the Boltzmann brain and you would be my dream.
ChatGPT can speak about its consciousness too, but there's no reason to believe it actually is conscious. It's just very good at writing text that imitates text written by beings that believe they're conscious. It's difficult to understand how ChatGPT generates that text. But, if anybody were sufficiently interested, it would be possible to trace the entire process, since it's just computers processing data.
Also, MRIs can observe the brain as it does things. Currently it's a pretty blunt tool and can only guess at what someone is thinking, but there's no reason to assume that a much more advanced version won't be capable of observing and quantifying the actions of every neuron in real time.
Would be nice if there was a hidden ending on page 57
I am disappointed in how long it took me to see the joke, but its a good one! I'm gonna have to go with page 72.
This reminds me of that one riddler comic (Found it, batman black and white #5 "The Riddle", here's a reddit link since that was the easiest to find https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/tn8b68/ )
It's a creative and very short choose your own adventure and I highly recommend it
Which book is this?
Source?
The deterministic universe may one day force you to visit your local library.
I am okay with that, although not sure if I would have another opinion under different circumstances
*turns to page 60 like a boss
"Welcome to page 60! Just as anticipated, your rebellious nature resulting from your lived experiences left you no choice but to rebel against the rules of the book and pick this page."
Can you agree but also conclude that this knowledge has no real impact on our lives, and therefore our agency is preserved?
Relevant pbs spacetime video (discovery about microtubules relevant to theory of quantum consciousness)
Robert Sapolsky's books are challenging but worthwhile reads.
Time to mention Sapolsky with relevant context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNMLlX7tyQk
Your mind is a computer attempting to optimally fulfill several prerogatives which are determined primarily through evolutionary pressures. It is free to do this in the way it sees best and is free to adapt as the environment in which it operates changes, in the sense that it is not forced to override it's internal decisions and come to a different conclusion regarding how to act. I consider this to be free will. You may disagree, but that would be haggling over definitions, rather than facts.
Crucially, this definition is true regardless of whether the universe's course is predetermined or not. I personally don't think it is, because a good chunk of the universe is random and I find it hard to believe that that randomness was predetermined.
My personal tale on this is that given that the brain contains chaotic circuits (i.e. circuits in which tiny perturbations lead to cascading effects), and these circuits are complex and sensitive enough, the brain may be inherently unpredictable due to quantum fluctuations causing non-negligible macroscopic effects.
I don't know if the above is the case, but if there's anything like free will out there, I'm inclined to believe that its origins lie in something like that.
that would be haggling over definitions, rather than facts.
I find this true about most arguments...
If we're to rely on facts and facts only, I'll argue its internal decision making is itself clearly determined by several factors, most if not all of them being determined causally.
I'm quite sure this addition erases the mere idea "free(dom)" and "free will", which would somehow escape universal determinism, hence creating a special case in the laws of causality for humanity only.
Edit : changed phrasing because I answered after reading your first paragraph. Then I read the second one.
Being "free" to take in inputs and then output the corresponding outputs like a computer isn't what anyone I know would call "free will."
Redefining free will as exactly what a computer running code would do doesn't make sense to me.
My argument would go something like this: If you are the computer, then it is free will. If you could predict the computer, you could argue, but you can't. You can't even do this theoretically since you'd need more mass than the universe and can't initialize your predictive model. So you can only say "that decision was made inside that brain". That is at least one sensible definition of free will.
It's like looking at a motor that breaks down and then saying that it's not really the motor that breaks because the motor had no choice in it's parts breaking. That's just rhetoric.
The error I believe is that we don't want to accept that sentience can arise from mechanical universe and it's a matter of degree and that this can create meaning. People want to set the bar higher because they want the idea of some type of "pure mind". But since we're already discussing the meaning of all these things, arguing that what you are reading is just quantum physics is rhetoric.
Either what you are saying is supposed to be meaningful, or you concede that your words are meaningless. Then I anyone else wins the argument by default ;)
Basically the definition of free will can only be made by someone who claims that meaning exists, emerging from the material world. Therefor within that emergent layer of mind and meaning, a definition of free will other than basic physics is at least acceptable.
So those neuroscientists managed to disprove quantum physics?
If it is all predetermined, why is it nobody can predict events? And before any "psychics" chime in, even crapshooter rolls a 7 sometimes
In order to simulate the future of the universe, one would need a computer that could store every bit of data required to express the state of the universe, plus anything required to handle any temporary calculations and then extra if you want to store anything about that simulation.
There is only one such device known to exist: the universe itself. And it doesn't store any simulation history, though you can figure out some things by examining the current state.
We could simulate a smaller portion of the universe, but you still need to store every bit of information about the current state and things would diverge anyways because you won't be perfectly simulating the edges and those differences would cascade throughout the whole thing eventually.
That state for Earth would still take an earth amount of matter to store. But ok, let's say we repurpose Jupiter to be a perfect Earth simulator at least until the edge differences mess it all up, plus it has a ton of extra matter to store useful information about the simulation. First thing you'll need to do once it's ready is initialize it with the current state of Earth.
But, there's a problem: how do you measure every single thing about something without the earlier measurements changing the later ones? You can't measure something without interacting with it in some way. Even if you just look at it, it changes (though it's not your eyes that change it, it's the light that bounced off of it to get to your eyes). That change is miniscule for direct affects on us, but it's very relevant at a perfect simulation level of detail.
The universe might be deterministic (I don't think there's any real way to determine this for sure either way, like what would be different if it was or wasn't?), but it's not prederministic, at least not from within.
Maybe there's some kind of mechanism to see a reflection from the future or something like that, but even then, what would happen if someone saw themselves walk through the left door in the future but when the moment came walked through the right door instead?
Even a mirror can only reflect so much of what faces it being as it is a manmade tool and is as such inherently limited. Ourbrains are even hamstrung by the chemicals that flow within it.
