Quantum Future Decided

[foodchain]

I got this idea from the MWI of quantum mechanics. What if in our own universe the future has already been selected.

 

Basically that a future was selected quantum mechanically out of many possible futures that could happen, and the present is a reality that will eventually get to that point?

 

I know this sort of implies deterministic stuff, but only to a certain extent and not totally.

[michel123456]

In order to avoid sliding into useless discussion about determinism, destiny, fate & kismet, you can simply ask if future exist.

If the answer is yes, you get your endless discussion.

If the answer is no, there is hope.

[john5746]

The future exists, we are just uncertain as to how we will get there.

[michel123456]

The future exists, we are just uncertain as to how we will get there.

 

Can you give me a single observation of the future in order to prove your claim?

[john5746]

Can you give me a single observation of the future in order to prove your claim?

 

1. my death

 

2. the death of the sun

 

3. your irritation to my answers

[michel123456]

1. my death

 

2. the death of the sun

 

3. your irritation to my answers

 

O.K. my question was abrupt.

 

To speak honestly, your first question is a deep one, and I am balanced between the answers, although I have the conviction that the future is not already existing. A point in favour of this interpretation is that the future has never been observed. Nor the present. Only the past.

 

The problem arises immediately: if you negate the existence of the future, you must also consider the non-existence of wathever is not the past, including the present. And negating the present is little bit extreme.

But if you consider the future as "already" existing, then blahblahblah...........

 

That kind of reasonning don't drive anywhere. I truly believe that we have (all of us) something wrong right from the beginning. We have to transform our understanding of time first.

[Akhenaten2]

obviously you do not need me to point out that these 3 "observations" are merely unavoidable consequences of proven natural behaviour. Living is dangerous after all. You would need to forecast exact instants and circumstances to claim an "observation"

I'm perfectly satisfied the future does not exist.

I totally agree with your last sentence - this is a must because a proper understanding would confirm my previous sentence.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Akhenaten2

[foodchain]

That kind of reasonning don't drive anywhere. I truly believe that we have (all of us) something wrong right from the beginning. We have to transform our understanding of time first.

 

Yes, but at the same time one could say that the universe is constantly observing itself, for every particle of its reality is in contact constantly with itself. Yet if you get down the the boundary between classical and so on why would that uncertain world produce stable reality like so many times questioned.

 

Then you have time, which is what, only a classical concept, yet gravity is to be quantum. Relativity makes time along with gravity somewhat the same thing though in terms of spacetime. On top of this you have the MWI of QM. If we can have any number of possible worlds, does that include that our current world is on the verge of any of those possible worlds, as what makes it so any normal physical behavior persists past some static flicker of weirdness for a universe, how can we have time and QM in that context.

 

I think the most simple answer is no one knows yet, followed by QM just for the subatomic scale, and on top of that its just current physical theory. Neither of which helps me stop thinking about questions like this.

[salcicha]

I beleiev Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen said it the best.

 

"I can see the past present and future, but there is nothing I can do."

 

Yes, we are all decided already. Why do I know this? Well, if time travel existed imagine looking through a door at yourself. You see yourself 24 hours from now.

 

Free will says that in 24 hours you can choose to not look at yourself. Well, missing this event in history cannot happen, period. You have already seen yourself, you need to see yourself in the past now, because your past self saw you. So, history has already happened, you don't have a choice in the matter.

[Baby Astronaut]

A point in favour of this interpretation is that the future has never been observed. Nor the present. Only the past.

Well if you really think about it, only the effects of the past can be observed, not the past itself. All we've got is memory to go by, some (fuzzy bits) of it remembered in living brains cells, and some of it captured by technology.

[michel123456]

I beleiev Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen said it the best.

 

"I can see the past present and future, but there is nothing I can do."

 

Yes, we are all decided already. Why do I know this? Well, if time travel existed imagine looking through a door at yourself. You see yourself 24 hours from now.

 

Free will says that in 24 hours you can choose to not look at yourself. Well, missing this event in history cannot happen, period. You have already seen yourself, you need to see yourself in the past now, because your past self saw you. So, history has already happened, you don't have a choice in the matter.

 

I disagree completely with that point of vue.

[KennyC]

1. my death

 

2. the death of the sun

 

3. your irritation to my answers

 

Ah but can you determine the time or #1 and #2 and the level of irritation of #3?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I disagree completely with that point of vue.

 

But do you subscribe to the multiverse concept where each decision/change splits to another future and all possible futures exist? Or are you saying that no future exists til it happens?

[michel123456]

But do you subscribe to the multiverse concept where each decision/change splits to another future and all possible futures exist? Or are you saying that no future exists til it happens?

 

_I don't suscribe to the multiverse concept because it looks to me as a logarithmic expansion of the energy. But I may be wrong on this.

_ your second description is much more about what I am thinking, but not exactly. We should first agree on the definition of the verbs "happen", "exist" and "is".

[KennyC]

_I don't suscribe to the multiverse concept because it looks to me as a logarithmic expansion of the energy. But I may be wrong on this.

_ your second description is much more about what I am thinking, but not exactly. We should first agree on the definition of the verbs "happen", "exist" and "is".

 

True, in that view.