If an oracle could exist which, given the current state of the universe, could predict every future state including human actions, then we would be deterministic entities, driven exclusively by chemical reaction. If such a thing can't exist, then we (or some other entity I suppose) are holding some idea like free will which is at least existing outside physical determinism.
This does not seem to me analogous to saying whether a human being would behave the same as itself in the same situation, as the presupposed information differs significantly.
I’m likely just getting it the way I want to, cause it seems equivalent to me. The difference is that you seem to find (no oracle) -> (free will) arrow having a structure, while I think it is too much of a stretch. It goes like that:
If the reason an oracle can’t exist is fundamental chaos, then that chaos cannot be connected to results of free will without handwavy logic, it would span too many abstraction levels to be useful and/or predictable. The assumption to be made here is that whatever free will is, it must be a similar oracle which predicts chaos instead. Not a direct contradiction but in the same spirit.
One may also view that second oracle as not predicting chaos, but instead acting on top of it, or simply being it. Not sure if you meant this or not.
If an oracle could exist, then yes the chaos is broken (it is no more). The case where an oracle can’t exist for a different reason is still to be explored.
Edit: realized that I’m using “chaos” in place of “uncertainty”, please assume they are the same here.
> I’m likely just getting it the way I want to, cause it seems equivalent to me
Really? I can't see how a good faith reading would lead you to think knowing the outcome of a situation having seen that situation and outcome before is in any way congruent with being able to predict an unseen situation given information strictly from before that situation.
I don't really see why I would respond further, that's pretty entry-level logic.
That’s unfortunate, cause I’d like you to reason about a “similar oracle” part, as if my first sentence wasn’t there to annoy you. Because the further text explains it not based on an equivalent premise, but on a contradiction in further reasoning. Makes me feel you ignored that part for some reason.
