• SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Due to quantum mechanics, we know this is not true. There is a level of uncertainty and probability and the smallest level of our universe. The deterministic model of the universe has been put to rest a century ago.

      • Victron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I chose the worst possible time to read this whole comment section. I’m high as fuck.

      • SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup! But i don’t think we can use the idea that the universe is predetermined.

        I did see another commenter mention super determinism but i don’t have enough knowledge on it to comment on it and its relevancy.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is a level of uncertainty and probability and the smallest level of our universe. The deterministic model of the universe has been put to rest a century ago.

      This is true, what we instead have is a probabilistic model of the universe, which still obeys very clear statistical rules and probabilities, also seemingly leaving no room for free will.

      A dice roll doesn’t have more free will just because it’s random.

      • kicksystem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact that we have a probabilistic model of the universe does not proof the universe is non-deterministic. It may just be computationally irreducible and therefore best modeled through probability. Quantum mechanics’ use of probability does not proof that the universe throws dice. There are many explanations possible, but the short of it is: we don’t know and quantum mechanics doesn’t give us the answer.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. On average things are average. So while not everything can be fully predicted you don’t usually need to. A laser, a transistor, a diode are all devices that depend on QM theories being true. We have lasers, we have screens, we have neat flashlights, we have computers. Just because we can’t say everything doesn’t mean we can say nothing. Every time your lungs fill it is only because vacuums are unlikely, not impossible just unlikely.

      Uncertainty doesn’t save free will, at most it sets limits to it.

    • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you are not getting it quite right. Those “low level” things are predetermined. Where you get the uncertainty is that there is always a bigger or smaller picture.

      Determinism and uncertainty are both perfectly compatible with each other.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      • if you agree to this hypothesis, turn to page 72 70% of the times
      • if you disagree, turn to page 72 40% of the times
      • if you’re viewing this through polarized glasses, turn to page 72 80% of the times
      • if you’re an electron, rotate 360° to page 72
    • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless superdeterminism is true. But does it make a difference anyway? “Free will” is overrated.

    • kicksystem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fact that quantum mechanics models physical processes stochastically does not mean that there is free will neither that the universe is non-deterministic. This statement is strictly true.