Psychohistory

[MaxWeiss]

One thing that seems to get overlooked in most of the discussions about free will is the idea of psychohistory, which is coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the future will be based on probabilistic analysis of the tendencies of the current population. Free will is still there on an individual level, but humans as a whole are very predictable. I'm always annoyed when people make arguments about destiny versus free will since it's possible for everybody to have free will and yet still have the future course laid out pretty solid.

Anybody have any thoughts about this or disagreements??

[MrMon]

I think Goerge Will once said that the ability to predict the future can be proven by the ability to make money at it. Even on a macro level, it should be possible according to your theory to make massive returns in the stock market based on long-term trends by investing in companies or sectors that will benefit from these long-term trends. I'm not sure anyone is really doing this, or it would even be possible, although it seems it would. As it turns out, most long-term predictions of the future are wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Goerge Will once said that the ability to predict the future can be proven by the ability to make money at it. Even on a macro level, it should be possible according to your theory to make massive returns in the stock market based on long-term trends by investing in companies or sectors that will benefit from these long-term trends. I'm not sure anyone is really doing this, or it would even be possible, although it seems it would. As it turns out, most long-term predictions of the future are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most long-term predictions are going to have to be wrong, since only one future can exist, and anyone is free to make any sort of prediction that they want. This doesn't necessarily discount the idea that making probabilistic predictions of the future is impossible. There ARE people who consistently do well at this and make lots of money doing it (e.g. Kurzweil). I don't have a clue whether those people are actually good at it or if they are just the inevitable lucky outliers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
which is coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the future will be based on probabilistic analysis of the tendencies of the current population.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe its anything but science fiction. Even if the system isn't chaotic (which I strongly suspect it is) there's stuff that cannot possibly be taken into account such as scientific breakthroughs and cosmological events.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which is coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the future will be based on probabilistic analysis of the tendencies of the current population.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe its anything but science fiction. Even if the system isn't chaotic (which I strongly suspect it is) there's stuff that cannot possibly be taken into account such as scientific breakthroughs and cosmological events.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the idea would be that those CAN be taken into consideration, at least theoretically. They are extremely complicated, but if they aren't truly chaotic, it is theoretically possible to predict them. In fact, thats exactly the type of predictions we'd be interested in!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which is coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the future will be based on probabilistic analysis of the tendencies of the current population.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe its anything but science fiction. Even if the system isn't chaotic (which I strongly suspect it is) there's stuff that cannot possibly be taken into account such as scientific breakthroughs and cosmological events.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the idea would be that those CAN be taken into consideration, at least theoretically. They are extremely complicated, but if they aren't truly chaotic, it is theoretically possible to predict them. In fact, thats exactly the type of predictions we'd be interested in!

[/ QUOTE ]
but you can't make prediction of what unsuspected scientific phenomena will be discovered, by probabilistic analysis of the trends of the current population.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which is coming to a reasonable conclusion about what the future will be based on probabilistic analysis of the tendencies of the current population.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe its anything but science fiction. Even if the system isn't chaotic (which I strongly suspect it is) there's stuff that cannot possibly be taken into account such as scientific breakthroughs and cosmological events.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the idea would be that those CAN be taken into consideration, at least theoretically. They are extremely complicated, but if they aren't truly chaotic, it is theoretically possible to predict them. In fact, thats exactly the type of predictions we'd be interested in!

[/ QUOTE ]
but you can't make prediction of what unsuspected scientific phenomena will be discovered, by probabilistic analysis of the trends of the current population.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not. I've seen some analyses of the history of scientific progress, and while the 'when' of certain paradigmatic shifts may not be specificaly predictable, the overall rate of progress, including breakthroughs, is predictable in some fields. So, I might not know that X is going to occur in 10 years and Y in 20, but I can reasonably predict that both X and Y will occur in the next 30 years. Speaking in the most general terms, of course. The practicality of these predictions is probably close to nil, at present.

[latefordinner]

I'm always annoyed when people make arguments about destiny versus free will since it's possible for everybody to have free will and yet still have the future course laid out pretty solid.

isn't that the argument often laid out by theists - ie; of course god knows you will reject him and go to hell, but you have the free will to either choose or not choose to do it

"psychohistory" is pretty much only used to analyze the past and present I believe. AFAIK the only reference to it being useful to accurately predict the future is in Asimov's science fiction. I'm not saying that some combined theories of psychology, sociology, mathmatics, nueroscience and other fields won't someday have the ability to make more accurate predictions about possible future-scenarios and their probabilities than we can now, but I find it hard to imagine a future where it is not an extraordinarily inexact science

but in regards to your philisophical point, I don't think that the ability to accurately (even 100%) predict the future nec. impinges on free will

[Mr. Now]

You are on to something.

This guy is on to something, if you have not read him check him out:

de Chardin's noosphere (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/teilhard.html)

See also:
de Chardin links (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=I3e&q=Pierre+Teilhard+de+Chardin+ noogenesis&btnG=Search)

[latefordinner]

ahh i was way into Teilhard back in my heady teenage days of dropping acid and ego-dissolving -- now i find most of his ramblings to be confusing at best