Essay Abstract
There are two forces acting in the Universe 1. The laws of physics 2. the free will of conscious being. This leads to the following conclusion: Once a pot is cracked is cracked, but it is the decision of a conscious being whether to crack it or not.
Author Bio
Independent researcher. Seeker of truth. Likes apples and oranges.
Dear Sir,
You have raised the age old debate over determinism (laws of physics - as you call it) and freewill. Much has been written about it. But still the debate continues.
A prediction is a statement about the future based upon past experience, which follow the laws of physics, and knowledge derived from such experience. Hence something is predictable, if 1) we have similar experience in the past and 2) there are no additional factors that can influence the possible outcome. Then we can apply the laws of physics to the known facts to predict future. While 1) is simple, the 2) is not. Uncertainty is inherent in Nature. Our knowledge of the universe is never complete. This makes the field wide open. We may not and cannot know all factors that may affect the outcome of any event. This makes everything unpredictable. However, the cause-effect relationship, if applied correctly, makes all predictions probable. To that extent your statement: "predict what happens follows the laws of physics" is correct.
Each person has limitations. We are limited in all spheres: Physically, Mentally, Informationally, Intellectually, etc. We are not Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc. However, we are a small replica of the cosmos. This imputes the universal qualities in us in a limited manner. Limited Omnipresence appears as limited time-frame in us. Limited Omniscience appears as limited knowledge in us. Limited Omnipotence gives us degrees of freedom. The Limited Freedom appears as freewill in us. Hence, freewill is not really free. It functions within a band. To that extent, your statement: "computing this prediction belongs to the sphere of the free will of conscious beings" is correct, because we apply our degrees of freedom to deviate from the projected path. In my essay here, I have elaborated on this aspect by pointing out the Limits of Limit.
You are right about the "irreversibility of decision", once it is put to action. Because time is unidirectional. It cannot be reversed. We cannot go back in time like we can do in space. Even our efforts to rectify a system is another action sequence and not going back in time. Laws of physics enable us to calculate the state at some earlier epoch, but it does not help us to undo the past. We can only try to salvage the damage, if possible. Grandfather paradox is fiction. As you say: "once a pot is cracked, it is cracked". However, before that: "it is the decision of a conscious being whether to crack it or not".
Regards,
basudeba
Michael - a delightful, if short essay. I'd love to see you carry the pot analogy a bit further. I do think some cracks are predictable - and can think of some cracks (and crack-pots!) I would love to take a hammer to...
To add something to the pot, I will give your score a boost, and I recommend these verses from the Rubaiyat:
LXXXIII. Shapes of all Sorts and Sizes, great and small,
That stood along the floor and by the wall;
And some loquacious Vessels were; and some
Listen'd perhaps, but never talk'd at all.
LXXXIV. Said one among them--"Surely not in vain
My substance of the common Earth was ta'en
And to this Figure molded, to be broke,
Or trampled back to shapeless Earth again."
LXXXV. Then said a Second--"Ne'er a peevish Boy
Would break the Bowl from which he drank in joy;
And He that with his hand the Vessel made
Will surely not in after Wrath destroy."
LXXXVI. After a momentary silence spake
Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry:
What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"
LXXXVII. Whereat some one of the loquacious Lot--
I think a Sufi pipkin--waxing hot--
"All this of Pot and Potter--Tell me then,
Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"
Sincerely - George Gantz: The Door That Has No Key: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3494
Michael,
Short but sweet. And a nice unarguable argument, right on topic (many aren't, so that must be worth better than 2.5!). Humans are fickle!
My argument says we'll also all crack the pot differently!
Best
Peter
Short and to the point!
I cover similar ground in my essay, so its good to find a like minded essayist. My late vote will help you over the 2.5 hurdle.
Check out my essay if you have time!
Best wishes
Lockie Cresswell