Check out this answer from Consensus:
The research suggests that the future is not fixed but is shaped by human actions and decisions. While technological advancements indicate that elements of the future are already present, the distribution of these advancements is uneven. Effective planning and a focus on alternative futures can help navigate the uncertainties and create a more equitable and sustainable world.
The question of whether the future is already determined is a profound one, touching on aspects of philosophy, science, and practical forecasting. Various research papers have explored this topic from different angles, providing insights into the predictability of the future and the role of human agency in shaping it.
Key Insights
- Uncertainty and Human Agency:
- The future is not predetermined but remains to be created through human choices and actions. Forecasting should focus on exploring alternative futures rather than predicting the most likely one1.
- Predicting the future based on past events is inherently difficult and often inaccurate, highlighting the unpredictable nature of future developments2.
- Technological and Societal Developments:
- The future is already here in the form of existing technologies and innovations, which are gradually becoming more widespread and integrated into daily life3 4.
- Unequal access to technological advancements and resources means that the future is not evenly distributed across different regions and populations4 5.
- Planning and Preparedness:
- Effective planning involves anticipating and preparing for future challenges, emphasizing the importance of proactive measures to shape a more equitable and sustainable future5.
Is the future already determined?
Shahn Majid has answered Extremely Unlikely
An expert from Queen Mary University of London in Mathematics, Quantum Physics
In quantum theory there is an intrinsic probability for events to happen, which therefore cannot be determined in absolute terms. For example place a geiger counter next to some uranium and decide to go to lunch, if there is a click in the next 5 seconds, else skip lunch.
The atomic transition governing radioactive decay is a quantum effect with some probability to occur in any interval which can be computed (it determines the half-life) but when an actual decay occurs cannot be determined as it is thought that this, probability is an intrinsic feature not just lack of data on our part.
More precisely there is a wave function which underlies this probability but we cannot access this directly other than a measurement process which introduced a random wave function collapse, intrinsically probabilistic. This is the conventionally accepted view of quantum theory.
Now, there are some people who believe that actually there are `hidden variables’ which if we knew them would mean we could get inside the probability and determine what is going to happen. I don’t subscribe to any of these hidden variable approaches as they seem too inelegant to be Nature’s answer but the so-called `measurement problem’ about how exactly to interpret quantum theory does need and answer, just I think not hidden variables.
And I do agree that there is something deeper than probability going on to resolve this, as probability is a made up concept relating to our lack of knowledge. However, this deeper thing I would guess is more algebraic to do with the nature of knowledge and measurement in relation to space and time and wont end up making things deterministic.
Finally, I think the question is misguided as our best understanding is, in my view, that `now’ and `future’ indeed our whole concept of time has a lot of incorrect assumptions in it. I personally think, again from quantum effects relating to the unknown theory of quantum gravity, that time itself as well as position in space are fuzzy concepts that acquire quantum uncertainty, but how exactly that works is still not understood.
Rather the state of the art is to explore such a `quantum spacetime hypothesis’ through model building without having a clear understanding, see my chapter in my popular science book of collected essays `On Space and Time’ or my associated blog posts associated with that in 2008.
In short I think its highly unlikely that it is all determined but it is also clear that the question is ill-founded and the whole concept of time and our place in it is up for a big revision at some point.