Is it true that, according to Laplace's thought experiment, man has no free will?
If Laplace's thought experiment is correct, then the whole world is deterministic, which means that a person does not have any free will?All our actions are a consequence of the interactions of neurons in our brain and we do not have the ability to influence these processes, right?
Classical Laplace determinism is incorrect because of the existence of quantum mechanics. There is a fundamental randomness in it that cannot be avoided in any way. But classical determinism is being replaced by quantum determinism – all the probabilities of all possible events are determined in advance. And the choice of what event will happen does not depend on our will in any way (in fantastic works, sometimes it happens that it depends, it turns out quite interesting. But alas, not in reality).
What decisions we make are determined by some electro-chemical processes in the brain, and most likely quantum effects do not even play a special role, and the situation is close to classical determinism. In this sense, there is no free will. But it can be defined in different ways, and in some broader versions of the definition, you can get that it exists.
The main problem here is not with determinism, but with free will. Because the usual understanding of free will among people is incompatible with either determinism or its absence. And an understanding that is compatible with the absence of determinism is also compatible with its presence. And then I would have to explain the essence of compatibilism in detail, but fortunately, I just came across an old answer today, where everything is already explained for me: https://yandex.ru/q/question/esli_ves_mir_determinirovan_to_vozmozhna_f6d78f8c/?answer_id=32355&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=answer#32355
From the standpoint of sobriety, “a thought experiment indicating the lack of free will of the experimenter” is an ordinary casuistry (quirkiness in proving dubious or false ideas), and if there is a clear definition of “what is a person”, any talk about unconditional “freedoms” is pointless…
It turns out that Laplace wrote his nonsense regardless of what he wanted or did not want to write it, so how did he come up with it then ??? Does he even know that he is the founder of this theory or what ??? Maybe he wrote it in a dream let's say he was a sleepwalker and didn't know what he was doing then why was this theory named after him ??? Question of questions isn't it ??? It turns out that Laplace first of all had to prove that he wrote it regardless of his desire then it makes sense to get acquainted with it at all but as far as I remember there are impassable wilds of insanity and nothing more so this reading material should not be worthy of educated minds …
To summarize, Laplace spoke about:
material objects, the thoughts of a reasonable person have nothing to do with it
about the fact that “if grandma had a dick, then she would be a grandfather” oh ugh, well, in the sense that if there was a Magic Mind capable of knowing everything that exists, then it would continue to know everything that exists.
Both of these statements are obviously tautological and useless. The usual philosophical demagoguery around the difference between the concepts of Knowledge and the Process of cognition.
Knowledge can indeed be obtained in the form of a final working theory with one hundred percent predictive power, and the real world is really knowable, but the process of knowledge is always infinite.
In total, all our actions as intelligent independent individuals are not described in any way only within the framework of brain cells and neurons.
The very concept of the Human Mind means that a given object can not only” partially predictably ” rationally argue when solving previously unknown questions. but also completely independently invent generate create new things.
And “to foresee what has not yet been invented” is a logical absurdity.
Actually, the question of the topic is one of the simple examples that show that any philosophical discussions are absurd, unscientific and cannot be logically unambiguously discussed, and cannot be reduced to a Result.