Like, we’ll probably find out that eating boogers actually makes you immune to select illnesses or something crazy like that.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    There’s no functional difference, unless you can accurately predict someone’s actions, and to do that you’d need to predict the environment in which someone is making choices as well, which requires omniscience. So, there’s no functional difference.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes, but if there is true free will, the universe would not be perfectly predictable. If it is, then there could not be free will. Luckily, it isn’t.

    • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Remember the reasons we have punishments? To discourage further misdeeds. Also, to restore justice by inflicting suffering on those who deserve it. Punishments would still be dished out for pragmatic reasons, but retributive punishment would be rendered entirely meaningless.

      It would also shatter all sense of acomplishment an individual could have. All that would be left is maybe a perverse pride in knowing you where born “better” than others.

      I don’t think society would survive if it was a common knowledge.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Like I said, how can you prove that free will exists now? We could very well already live in your scenario, and the world isn’t ending because of a lack of free will (if it doesn’t exist). I mean, it is ending, but not because of free will or the lack thereof.