It should not be a surprise that the paradox of determinism and free will is easily resolved once you are aware of Gödel's incompleteness theory or Turing's Halting problem.
The paradox is simply stated that if the universe was deterministic then how could free will be possible. But what is the meaning of determinism? It implies absolute predictability in this universe.
Physics and mathematics has revealed via quantum mechanics, relativity, Gödel and Turing the first-person nature of reality and hence its lack of determinism. Computational irreducibility bounds predictability and hence demolishes the notion of a deterministic universe.
The appeal of this paradox is that it is analogous to Zeno's paradox (unmovable object vs irresistible force). A tug between two absolutes. A desire by human beings that free will must be an absolute truth. But just like determinism, free will exists in a spectrum.
Few take Zeno's paradox seriously. But it still surprises me that many take the determinism vs free will paradox seriously. The paradox can be reframed as a question of constraints versus agency. This is where it gets really interesting!
On one end of the spectrum, you have constraints and on the other end, you have agency. In the domain of physics, there are laws of physics that determine the behavior of everything. There is no agency, a particle doesn't have a choice to ignore the laws.
In a universe where particles are weakly coupled to each other, there's little complexity that's being generated. This is the proverbial heat-death universe. A universe that is devoid of free energy and hence unable to do anything creative. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat…
The universe in its current state is constructed out of a multitude of layers of constraints. Quantum physics and relativity constrain all matter. The Pauli principle constrains how particles form particles. At each layer, the constraints become more complex.
But what you will notice about the constraints at the higher layer is that they are not absolutely enforced. There is an element of slack where the constraints can occasionally be violated. There is an opening here where freedom begins its evolution.
The richness and diversity we discover in the universe as well as in our own mother ecosystem is a consequence of the establishment of layers of constraints. Said in a manner that appears to be a paradox is, there is no creativity without constraints.
The freedoms that exist in modern living are a consequence of the constraints we collectively conform to. People (unless intoxicated) do not drive on the lanes going in the opposite direction. There exists a multitude of constraints that make our lives convenient as it is today.
Anyone who believes freedom is the absence of constraints is an utter moron. It's unfortunate that we live in a world with so many people who do not realize how much a moron they actually are.
Constraints enable freedom, just as modern living enables the pursuit of science and art. Modern civilization has sufficient slack in its constraints that it can afford the pursuit of tasks that do not have immediate gratification.
Just as elementary particles have no choice in their agency, those who live their lives seeking only the most immediate of gratification eventually lose a broader agency in their lives. This is the essence of the marshmallow test.
The most advanced of technologies that humans have invented involves an immense number of constraints. It is our human ability to understand and thus navigate these constraints that make it possible for us to even construct these inventions.
The inventions of civilization are not magically conjured up. In the same way, our biological ecosystem is not magically conjured up. But imagine yourself as a person who is ignorant of how nature works. How do you make sense of your reality and the developments of the world?
You are unable to notice how constraints make possible what exists. In an alternate reality where stuff is magically conjured up, you fail to see the cause of constraints having an effect. Cause and effect are almost absent in your own thinking!
In a reality where constraints make possible our freedoms we discover a more enlighted and progressive understanding of freedom. Generations of our ancestors gifted us the civilization we live in today, we are duty-bound to ensure that we can do the same for future generations.
We are here today to invent the new constraints so that our descendants can prosper with new freedoms. Any activity that leads to the devolution of civilization is an utter disgrace to the sacrifices of our ancestors.
The last activity is in fact a constraint that I hope is a guide on how you make use of the freedoms gifted to you.
The innovation found in biology is a consequence of a development process that is absent of a centralized mind. This has benefits in that it leverages massively parallel processes. It can explore possibilities beyond that what a sequential mind can do.
However, the lack of a centralized mind also has its own downsides. Biology isn't able to consolidate its discoveries as efficiently as that of an integrated mind. A good analogy to explain this is refactoring found in software development.
In software development, rapid development eventually leads to the accumulation of what is known as technical debt. As technical debt increases, the developers refactor the code so as to reduce the debt. There is a mindful method of creation and destruction.
@pmddomingos It's also the same ignorance that leads to wild expectations when the algorithm games the results. Ignorance like naivety is a two-sided blade.
@pmddomingos The progress we make in deep learning is a consequence of our overall ignorance about general intelligence. There are many alternative ideas on cognition developed by other fields. But these were done without the benefit of computational models.
@pmddomingos It is the combination of empirical AI (i.e. Deep Learning) and theoretical formulation (i.e. Cognitive science, biology, complexity science etc) that lends us a more systematic strategy towards discovery.
The purpose of civilization isn't to make the law of the jungle the primary directive for all human activities. Its objective is to harness enough resources for humanity so we live our lives as if we were children.
The nations states that are successful in today's civilization are those that invest heavily in their children. The modern economy is exponentially becoming more complex and you need citizenry who are adaptive and open-minded to new kinds of endeavors.
An adult who knows only the law of the jungle habitually seeks self-preservation over adaptability. This is why we see the politics of today where there is a great fear by one side that their identity will be extinguished.
Psychohistory is a fictional science that Asimov imagined. It is a science that predicts the evolution of civilization that is independent of individuals. It's analogous to how we might predict the behavior of macroscopic objects with only granular information about the parts.
What is the closest thing in today's scientific culture that is like Psychohistory?
Over a decade ago, there was activity on a field known as Memetics. It eventually declined, but I'm unsure as to why it did. This is perhaps related to the fictional Psychohistory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
Many Americans want to turn back the hand of time, back to the days where you can just unexpectedly die by being infected by a virus. Before the 1950s, parents had more children to beat the odds that they could reach adulthood.
Too often we are nostalgic about the past which we never lived in. Before 1950, the world was mired in a world war. Before that, it was the Great Depression. There were the roaring 20s that ended with Wall Street crashing. The 1910s has a world war and the Spanish Flu.
Against this backdrop, children were still dying. It's was only by the 1950s that mass vaccination was the norm. Ever since the odds to survive childhood shot up tremendously (not just in the USA but all over the world). So outraged people want us to go back to a deadlier time?
We are wired to make repeat our own mistakes. I confess that I actually did short Apple and Tesla when both were below $20 (pre-split). Fortunately, I'm financially solvent to live to tell the unfortunate tale!
The moral of the story though is that financial instruments with exponential growth potential look overvalued at the very beginning. Do not have rationality cloud your own judgment!
I'm also the same guy who sold off every DOGE coin that I could mine when it first came out. I was mining it for two weeks at a $20 profit per day. Today that 2 weeks would have been worth $1.6 m today.