If everything can be predicted if we were to hypothetically be completely aware of all of the atoms and molecules in...

>it would have included predictions of how people would react to learning it.
That means you would have to predict what your prediction is going to be before you predict it.

Alternatively, be intelligent enough to recognize that determinism depends only on predictability from outside the system. What happens when you try to predict while being a part of the system is irrelevant.

What is the outside in this context? Be intelligent to recognize that you are spouting nonsense which has no bearing on discussions of determinism vs. predictability. What happens when you try to predict while being a part of the system is the only thing that is relevant. We are not gods and we do not make predictions simply to make predictions.

No user.

You see there are magical invisible beings that can operate outside the realm of physical laws which give them free will which also proves that we have free will.

If you choose not to believe it, you're a dogmatic indoctrinated zombie and I can't help you.

>doesn't that mean that everything is predestined and free will doesn't exist?
It's not like there is room for "free will" in an unpredictable universe, either.

Who ever said that free will must be a physical phenomenon?
The very idea of free will rejects physicalism.

Yes, OP. The universe is deterministic (i.e. it's predictable, theoretically).
However in quantum mechanics there are some probabilistic formulas. Hence the meme that the universe is not deterministic. However the existence of these formulas does not prove that there are no deterministic laws behind them which were not discovered yet.

>determinism means predictable
When will this meme die?

How would you plan that we would run a simulation or build a model to predict events that occur at the smallest level of physicality?

Build an exact replica? Because that's not gonna offer any insight.

Technically predictable yes.

I meant that there is no randomness and no free will.

No. It's impossible to infallibly predict things your prediction would effect. For example, if John always does the opposite of predictions he hears, you can't predict what John will do after you tell him your prediction.

Nope, you would predict that he will do the opposite of what you tell him, and you would be right.

I predict you will be you. See, I can perfectly predict everything.

>everything can't be predicted though
THIS
The Newtonian-Brownian model is very appealing to Veeky Forumsentists because it's fndamentally simple and logical.
But it's time-reversible.
Which means that if the universe really did work that way, there would be no difference between the two directions of time.
Events in the past cause things to happen in the future, but if shit was time-reversible, it would work the other way as well.
You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.

We should embrace QM because it's more logical in relation to the "arrow of time".

As far as free will goes, it really doesn't relate to determinism.
I have free will as long as I make my own decisions, regardless of whether I'm a deterministic system, or not.
Saying I'm constrained by my genetic predispositions, or my life experiences is moot because those are a part of who I am.
So it's still me making the decisions.

>I have free will as long as I make my own decisions, regardless of whether I'm a deterministic system, or not.
Saying I'm constrained by my genetic predispositions, or my life experiences is moot because those are a part of who I am.
So it's still me making the decisions.
By that logic, a computer following an algorithm also has "free will". So you've defined free will so broadly as to make it meaningless.

>We should embrace QM
There was this dude named Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM and did not believe in randomness. Randomness in the QM did not seem logical to him. So it does not seem logical to me.
>I have free will as long as I make my own decisions
No, you have conditioned reflexes (behavior learnt through life experience) and unconditioned reflexes (from genetics)

>You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.
What ? Why ?

>We should embrace QM because it's more logical in relation to the "arrow of time".
We should embrace an hypothesis because... The other one hurt your feelings ? What ?

>free will
That's a theological concept that have no basis whatsoever in science. Even philosophy itself doesn't concern itself much with free-will, since it requires axioms more retarded than the ones it usually uses ( and that's saying much ).

I want to buy a dog, but i don't know if i should buy a male to suck his dick and be sodomised, or a female for just fucking. Any advice ?

>There was this dude named Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM and did not believe in randomness. Randomness in the QM did not seem logical to him. So it does not seem logical to me.
Wow, so you're just going to ignore that Einstein's local realism was BTFO experimentally by the experimental proof of Bell's Theorem? Straight argument from authority fallacy. Your intuition does not trump empirical fact.

>So you've defined free will so broadly as to make it meaningless.
OK, that's true, but how else would you define it?
Google's definition largely matches my own:
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;
>the ability to act at one's own discretion.

If you count internal predispositions as "fate", the definition is still largely meaningless.
I think the definition implies a conscious being, which gets us to the hard problem of consciousness, which might not be meaningless, but it definitely involves some unanswerable questions..
Free will is a philosophical issue anyway, not a scientific one, so maybe "meaningless" is to be expected.

>Albert Einstein who did not embrace QM
His objections were based on his emotional need to believe that "God does not play dice with the universe", and not any scientific theory or observation.

>>You'd be able to remember the future as well as the past.
>What ? Why ?
Read my post before replying.
It's because if physics were time-reversible (like Newtonian-Brownian motion), there would be no "arrow of time", no reason for cause to always lie in the past and effect in the future.

>We should embrace an hypothesis because...
QM is not a hypothesis.

>I want to buy a dog, but i don't know if i should buy a male to suck his dick and be sodomised, or a female for just fucking. Any advice ?
It's hard to say based on just one post, but you sound like a cocksucker to me.

Yes, these are called 4D beings, beings that would live in Bulk space, a higher dimensional and more primary space than our own 3D plane. They would be able to see every conceivable angle of us all at once and could change things through space and time at will. They probably don't intervene too much but who knows.

>It's because if physics were time-reversible (like Newtonian-Brownian motion), there would be no "arrow of time", no reason for cause to always lie in the past and effect in the future.
Uh, if physics was time-reversible then "past" and "future" would just be names given towards and against the direction of your experience anyway. You still wouldn't be able to "remember the future", because the creation of memories would just be another event in time - looking at time "in reverse" would just be looking against the direction of memorization.

All of this is bullshit of course, because you don't need to invoke anything other than Newtonian Mechanics to get reversibility.