“Free will”, as almost anyone defines it, is completely indistinguishable from no free will.
Also: The universe exists as a manifestation of pure math. In the same sense that the answer to “What is 9827349328659327498327592432^98374239563298473298324253?” exists even if nobody bothers to actually calculate it, the answer to “What does a universe with [these] parameters look like at t = 13.7 billion years look like?” exists as well - and it looks like you. A lot of people agree that it might be in principle possible to simulate the universe - even if it requires something silly like a computer larger than the universe. I just take it a step further and say that if a simulation is possible, even only in principle, then actually carrying out the simulation isn’t a necessary step.
I just take it a step further and say that if a simulation is possible, even only in principle, then actually carrying out the simulation isn’t a necessary step.
My hunch (and this is just a hunch) is that in some cases this might be true but not in the general case. The universe contains turning machines. So one cannot arbitrarily determine a future state without also disproving the Halting Problem.
I’m not sure if you quoted the right portion of my message - but I don’t think the halting problem plays any part in this scenario. It’s perfectly possible to simulate a computer running a program with an unknown halting state - there’s no real need to know if or when a nested program will halt to simulate it anyways. The arbitrary future state you want to determine may just have it in a non-halted state. The simulation itself is likely non-halting.
I want to clarify that I say “simulation”, but I don’t mean it in the sense it’s usually used at all - I think our universe is as real as real gets. I think of it like this xkcd. If you accept that the universe can in principle be simulated (Such that you, as an inhabitant of the universe, would notice no difference), then why not accept that it can be so simulated with rocks? And if you can accept that your entire existence and subjective experience is determined by rock placement in a desert - then why require the rocks at all? To me, the fact that the universe is mathematically consistent is then enough for it to exist - at least as far as it and its inhabitants are concerned.
I will admit that non-determinism from quantum randomness makes this all a bit hairier / fuzzier, but I don’t think it invalidates the whole thing at all.
“Free will”, as almost anyone defines it, is completely indistinguishable from no free will.
Also: The universe exists as a manifestation of pure math. In the same sense that the answer to “What is 9827349328659327498327592432^98374239563298473298324253?” exists even if nobody bothers to actually calculate it, the answer to “What does a universe with [these] parameters look like at t = 13.7 billion years look like?” exists as well - and it looks like you. A lot of people agree that it might be in principle possible to simulate the universe - even if it requires something silly like a computer larger than the universe. I just take it a step further and say that if a simulation is possible, even only in principle, then actually carrying out the simulation isn’t a necessary step.
My hunch (and this is just a hunch) is that in some cases this might be true but not in the general case. The universe contains turning machines. So one cannot arbitrarily determine a future state without also disproving the Halting Problem.
I’m not sure if you quoted the right portion of my message - but I don’t think the halting problem plays any part in this scenario. It’s perfectly possible to simulate a computer running a program with an unknown halting state - there’s no real need to know if or when a nested program will halt to simulate it anyways. The arbitrary future state you want to determine may just have it in a non-halted state. The simulation itself is likely non-halting.
I want to clarify that I say “simulation”, but I don’t mean it in the sense it’s usually used at all - I think our universe is as real as real gets. I think of it like this xkcd. If you accept that the universe can in principle be simulated (Such that you, as an inhabitant of the universe, would notice no difference), then why not accept that it can be so simulated with rocks? And if you can accept that your entire existence and subjective experience is determined by rock placement in a desert - then why require the rocks at all? To me, the fact that the universe is mathematically consistent is then enough for it to exist - at least as far as it and its inhabitants are concerned.
I will admit that non-determinism from quantum randomness makes this all a bit hairier / fuzzier, but I don’t think it invalidates the whole thing at all.