The Time Dimension and Non-Determinism

[Mr Skeptic]

I know quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-deterministic. Also, many call time a dimension. However, I think these are contradictory ideas. For time to be a dimension, it would seem to me that the future would have to be predetermined rather than made up as we go. What do you folks think?

[moth]

the short term future is in a way pre-determined by the present.but sensitivity to initial conditions makes the trajectories of the future diverge so it becomes unpredictable

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

while there could be a spacetime coordinate for all possible futures some will be more or less likely depending on past and current actions.freewill could affect (effect?) the future you experience even if all futures were pre-determined.

Edited January 28, 2009 by moth
spell check

[mrburns2012]

I know quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-deterministic. Also, many call time a dimension. However, I think these are contradictory ideas. For time to be a dimension, it would seem to me that the future would have to be predetermined rather than made up as we go. What do you folks think?

 

How did you come up with that connection? And if that's the case, how do you account for the other 3 dimensions?

 

Anyway, I believe that the future is predetermined in a different sense, ie. if there's a supreme being (like a god) that can observe and measure all possible events in the universe (or beyond), from the quantum world to macro-world without affecting them, he might be able to predict the future. (I may have heard the idea from somewhere, so it's not original.)

 

But in a more practical sense, I don't care whether or not the future is predeterministic as long as it is I who determine when (time) and where (place) I choose to do anything in the eyes of a human observer albeit some influence from my boss, family, etc...

[Kyrisch]

I know quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-deterministic. Also, many call time a dimension. However, I think these are contradictory ideas. For time to be a dimension, it would seem to me that the future would have to be predetermined rather than made up as we go. What do you folks think?

 

I think the branching universe hypothesis takes care of this one, but it's not like we have any evidence for or against it.

[Mr Skeptic]

How did you come up with that connection? And if that's the case, how do you account for the other 3 dimensions?

 

I figured that if things in the present don't exist in a defined way until we measure them, then the same would apply to the future. Any events that depend on previous measurements would be undefined. Eg Schroedinger's nuke: if I were to decide whether or not to detonate a nuke based on a quantum measurement. If the quantum measurement were not predetermined, then the nuking would also not be predetermined. Wouldn't that mean that anyone looking into the future from my past, would not be able to tell whether the nuke was to go off?

 

Whereas in the space dimension, you would be able to tell whether a nuke went off some distance away.

 

I think the branching universe hypothesis takes care of this one, but it's not like we have any evidence for or against it.

 

Wouldn't that make time a fractal dimension?

[Sisyphus]

 

Whereas in the space dimension, you would be able to tell whether a nuke went off some distance away.

 

It's just a kernel of an idea, but maybe it's this assumption that needs re-examining. (Or maybe not.)

[immortal]

I know quantum mechanics is supposed to be non-deterministic. Also, many call time a dimension. However, I think these are contradictory ideas. For time to be a dimension, it would seem to me that the future would have to be predetermined rather than made up as we go. What do you folks think?

 

It is this contradiction which forced Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose and others to say that quantum physics is incomplete. There has to be an underlying reality which exists even when someone is not observing it. According to Albert Einstein a particle does possess attributes even when someone is not observing it. According to special theory of relativity the events in the past are still happening some where and the future has already happened. I think that I don't have free will. The reason why Roger Penrose is with Albert Einstein is because special theory of relativity is a more accurate theory than quantum physics so if there is anything wrong it has to be with quantum physics.

 

 

I find some interesting connections with the interpretation of Quantum physics and the interpretation of Upanishads. One school of thought believes in Advaita, for them the universe is an illusion and it is not real. It gives a tendency to exist when someone observes it. The other school of thought believe in Visishtadvaita for them the universe is real and it exists even when some one is not observing it. I think you can figure out to which school of thought the various physicists belongs to. I will leave that to you.