HN Explorer

Ask HN: Does Hacker News hate the idea of super determinism?

4 points by Layke1123 ↗ HN
I've been exploring the type of thinking that gets upvoted and allowed on here, and I'm curious to see what the thoughts and opinions of the idea that we lack free will means to individuals here.

10 comments

[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] thread
h2odragon
If our free will is an illusion, can we do anything about it?

so just make sure our possibly illusory free will is something positive rather than another means of self flagellation (or the other way around if that's your bag), and try to enjoy the ride.

ironmagma
The question seems meaningless. Does it matter that our free will doesn’t exist if for all intents and purposes it feels as though we have free will? Maybe if I pick a random number, I was always going to pick that number, but it doesn’t mean that I didn’t choose it randomly. The perception is the whole part that matters IMO.
netizen-936824
The point is that nothing is truly "random"

The underlying mechanics are just currently unknown to us

ironmagma
It’s a metaphysical distinction. If a process occurs in a way that’s totally indistinguishable from actual randomness, who can honestly claim to know it’s not random? Why do you claim to know?
wnkrshm
Even if the mechanics are known and everything is deterministic, it may be impossible to predict something in practice.

Usually, when e.g. a physical model is deterministic, we can have an assumption of some initial conditions and then evolve the system from there - even if our model's initial conditions don't exactly match the conditions we see in a real physical system, the result of our prediction will deviate a bit from the value we see in the real system. An error of prediction that results from our error of determining the precise initial conditions of the physical system.

Usually, the error in the initial conditions of the model and the error of the prediction can be approximated quasi-linearly: small initial error, small prediction error. But, when your physical system is nonlinear, as virtually all of nature is (e.g. N-body problem, turbulent fluids, weather), it can be chaotic - which means that a small initial error can produce an almost arbitrary error in prediction.

To correctly predict the state evolution of a chaotic nonlinear system from initial conditions, you need to know the initial conditions with infinite precision. (Edit: which is impossible in practice)

leafygreene
It takes me a couple hours to watch a movie, a couple days to read a book. I can re-watch the movie or re-read the book, and enjoy them again even though I already have. The plots won't change; they are predetermined; nonetheless, I am entertained on repeat consumption.

A suitably advanced entity could do the same: consume the entirety of my life (for whatever purpose, entertainment), its trials and tribulations, as easily as I do a book or a movie. A century of time would be a small nothing to an entity who could intake 100 quadrillion fps to my 35 fps. It could "play" my life for its amusement as easily as I play a DVD.

That said, the experience of déja vu, re: predetermination, will never stop giving me the creeps.

qq4
I have long attributed déja vu to a peculiar looping phenomenon in the mind. It's hard to describe. I don't have any real facts to base it on, just that when I experience it I often "skip down" a few more levels and revisit earlier times I had déja vu. It feels like recursion of neural pathways or something. It does make me feel strange, but I try to enjoy the ride when it happens.
leafygreene
It's that I can see the future for a few seconds that bothers me most. Not the “I've been here before” but the “I've been here before and I know what happens next” and that exact thing happens. It's that few seconds of clairvoyance I find superitchy.

I'm fairly rational, however. I'm sure there's an explanation that's not magical.

qq4
I've never felt a sensation of peering into the future. I can see it as a possibility depending on which end of the phenomenon you're processing first, the actual event or the repeated signal.
Jack000
The problem with "free will" is that there's no physically plausible system that can satisfy the definition. If you could re-arrange the laws of physics in any way you wanted in order to give humans free will, how would you do it?

Randomness isn't free will, you're not making any choices. Determinism isn't free will, your choices are pre-determined. Well how exactly do you get free will then, without invoking the supernatural? You've just defined an abstract quality that's impossible to achieve.

imo it's all a category error - the physical process by which you make decisions is your free will, it just means that your choices are irrevocable.