Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 19, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:
(November 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Something that can be falsifiable. The deterministic view Schopenhauer proposes outright rejects random events. He provides no justification for this other than claiming there is a hidden variable that we're missing.
I suppose one way that Schopenhauer's determinism could be falsified is if an actual "miracle" occurred and we were to observe a consequent lacking any sufficient ground... which is not even the case at the scale of quantum events. Even then, to quote Brian Greene, "Wave functions--the probability waves of quantum mechanics--evolve in time according to precise mathematical rules, such as the Schrodinger equation... This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism: Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients of the universe at some moment allows a 'vast enough' intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or future time. Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave functions at any time" (italics his). The scientific enterprise rests on the assumption that the same conditions necessitate the same outcome. Of course, Schopenhauer is writing before the revolution in physics at the turn of the twentieth-century so he's only discussing determinism as it relates to the classical image of the world, but even so, if you want to argue that it is appropriate to speak of human thoughts and behaviors in the context of quantum mechanics, 1) probabilities are still determined, and 2) free will cannot be salvaged by suggesting that actions can somehow spring forth from uncaused causes.
In principle, an event outside a quantum probability would falsify the classic determinism. What happens when the random behavior directly comes from some inherent quantum behavior?
Brian Greene excluded an important piece of information about evolving wave functions, they generally get more broad over time. This means the that the error on your predictions will grow. At some point, you cannot predict anything.
I agree that probabilities are still determined, and random picking doesn't salvage free will.
