yeah, we got a bit disjointed there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duga
I'm saying in Tuna's world, it is perfectly predictable and without free will...which creates a stagnant universe that constantly just recreates itself the same way over and over.
|
Take this universe, remove all life (and hence any free will).
The big crunch looks increasingly unlikely, let's just assume it will not happen.
Surely in this scenario, the universe effectively undergoes pretty much exactly the same events as whether we existed or not and reaches the same conclusion. Any free will of ours is completely negligible within our solar system, let alone the universe in terms of our effect on the outcome.
There is no recreation, and the universe decays until it reaches maximum entropy. This will happen in a universe where we don't exist (no free will). This will happen where we exist (with free will)
------
As a side note, there are events at a atomic level which are unpredictable. Such as when a particular radioactive particle will decay, it's impossible to predict.
But when viewed as a group, statistically we can determine the material's half-life. And hence the outcome and it's effects.
If we assume free will isn't predictable for an individual, couldn't we theoretically determine the outcome of free will for a group of people. In some way, we already do. Given one person, we can't say for sure what they will do. But given a large enough sample size and previous experiments we can determine that 30% of people will select A over B or C. 50% will choose B ad 20% will choose C.