Ah, but that's assuming something very much in debate. Humans are actually quite predictable in many ways, though not as well as springs (currently). Aggregate behavior can often be predicted to reasonable accuracy, at least as well as with other complex, non-human systems like the weather. And even individual behavior can be predicted with enough information (and neuroscientists can even predict some specific decisions seconds in advance, given the right instrumentation). Just knowing some demographic and contextual information about a person hugely reduces your error on predicting what their "choices" will be.
It's a little different because the weatherman isn't forcing his predictions on you.
The debate takes on a different dimension when you're talking about political policy, when the weatherman passes a law forcing everyone to wear raincoats on days of high chances of precipitation.
Comments
It is very different.
Physical objects do not have free will. They don't act towards goals. They conform to unchanging mathematical patterns.
Humans do not. What I do today cannot be accurately used to determine what I will do tomorrow.
Ah, but that's assuming something very much in debate. Humans are actually quite predictable in many ways, though not as well as springs (currently). Aggregate behavior can often be predicted to reasonable accuracy, at least as well as with other complex, non-human systems like the weather. And even individual behavior can be predicted with enough information (and neuroscientists can even predict some specific decisions seconds in advance, given the right instrumentation). Just knowing some demographic and contextual information about a person hugely reduces your error on predicting what their "choices" will be.
It's a little different because the weatherman isn't forcing his predictions on you.
The debate takes on a different dimension when you're talking about political policy, when the weatherman passes a law forcing everyone to wear raincoats on days of high chances of precipitation.