The Universe - Deterministic?

[SebastianOakes]

I quite simply want to get a discussion rolling about the concept of a deterministic universe; that is, one in which every event, from the tiniest atomic collision to the individual thoughts and feelings of a living being, is entirely predetermined by a set of initial conditions.

In this situation, would a big bang event with the exact same initial conditions play out in an identical fashion?

Or do you feel it is more likely we hold a firm grasp on our free will?

 

With standard physics, it seems to me that a deterministic universe is entirely feasible, but am I missing something in terms of quantum behaviour of particles? Can anything happen at random that could upset a predetermined path?

 

Any opinions would be most welcome, as food for thought!

[SamBridge]

"Is the universe deterministic ? Nope, there's 3 different branches of mathematics which combined prove its not. There's of course quantum physics, which by observation and experimental trials has stated that "the measurements of the future and the past are in no way causally connected to the present" which is essentially extrapolated from matter itself existing not as solid objects, but as fields of probability, which of course was observed by looking at where exactly electrons showed up. There's chaos theory which explains how systems change and sometimes can never return to a previous state and fractal mathematics which shows there are patterns which have a correlation extending to an infinitely small realm, which combined with chaos theory shows that things can never be perfectly predictable because there are infinitesimally small and immeasurable changes that end up creating large impacts.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[SebastianOakes]

There's of course quantum physics, which by observation and experimental trials has stated that "the measurements of the future and the past are in no way causally connected to the present"

What does this mean? that atomic events happen with some degree of randomness? (It cannot be a great deal of randomness, otherwise nothing would happen with any structure)

 

 

There's chaos theory which explains how systems change and sometimes can never return to a previous state

Does chaos theory not state that a system is determinable, but affected by the most minor change? The idea is that we any change no matter how minor would affect the outcome, making long term prediction impossible. However, If you did have the exact initial conditions you could surely still determine the outcome?

 

The fractal maths theory seems to make sense, i understand that any change, however infinitesimally small will yield a hugely different outcome, but again if we could somehow know the exact initial conditions, it would still be deterministic.

 

Obviously the idea of ever being able to know the exact initial conditions is more or less impossible, but in a theoretical sense, if we could, would the universe be deterministic?

 

Try to think of this as a thought experiment; ' Is it possible that the universe is determinable? ' not 'Is it possible that the universe is determinable by us'

Edited January 23, 2013 by SebastianOakes

[SamBridge]

What does this mean? that atomic events happen with some degree of randomness?

Nope, the observations you make are resulted by complete randomness, however there still exists different probabilities, but the measurements are not causally connected.

 

Does chaos theory not state that a system is determinable, but affected by the most minor change? The idea is that we any change no matter how minor would affect the outcome, making long term prediction impossible. However, If you did have the exact initial conditions you could surely still determine the outcome?

Chaos theory on it's own does not make something unpredictable it merely states certain predictions are impossible, however that is why it's used with other mathematics, such as fractal mathematics to show the infinitesimally small correlations that exist, an infinitely small pattern can't be predictable simply by nature, since those patterns occur, we can say there are infinitely small patterns which create large impacts which arise from measurements which are not causally connect or events which by nature cannot be definite.

 

With out current physics, it is not possible for all physics and outcomes to be projected in one system or model.

Edited January 24, 2013 by SamBridge

[kristalris]

My guess is it is deterministic if you were to know the begin state and one as short as possible time frame later as a second state. Yet it subsequently becomes more and more governed by pure chance in which any of all - possible - scenario's is played out. I assume thus an absolute truth yet also the absolute attainability of knowing that truth. As I understand Gerard 't Hooft also feels there's an infinitely small chance of two particles ever to hit absolutely dead center.

 

And if we were to take what I understand to be the most commonly held view by scientists that there is an in essence stable infinite multiverse then all scenario's are played out all the time. Scenario's that would cause an unstable multverse are absolutely (i.e. predetermined) impossible.

 

Look on it like a ship that is sailing by. By this predetermined begin state knowing its speed and direction I know a priori where the ship will probably be in time t + x. I also know that it will be absolutely impossible for the ship sailing near New York to be sailing near Tokyo within the hour. I don't know whether there is an atom bomb in the ship that might go off or that a meteorite might hit it. Being possible yet extremely unlikely scenario's.

 

This would then solve Schrodinger cat. All possible scenario's are being played out all the time.

 

If you then also take the assumption that it can't be a one off and that every universe like ours is thus cyclic then there is no beginning or end of time.

 

We are then unique yet as unique as two industrial glasses are at a given level exactly the same yet at a deeper level absolutely different.

 

It is thus that I believe that structure formed by particles from a basic beginning like a fractal can create extremely complex structures. So complex that they can think about themselves. I thus believe that there is - on a reasonable definition - something that can be called free will. Yet it still eludes us what that exactly could be.However I'm convinced that without a notion of free will, and thus accountability for say crime the scenario that we are uniquely part of will turn for the worse.

 

EDIT: So I also think that besides a deterministic and a pure chance side to it there is also a Yin and Yang of order (going to structure) and disorder (going to chaos) that is a result of what happens in the begin state. So given the begin state the rest is mathematics both deterministic and statistic. We observe Nature acting in a mathematical discernible way and we also observe more order than can be explained. Where did this order come from if it doesn't come back seeing mounting entropy?

 

I also find that it should be part of properly executed research into the physics of all that we can observe to address problems like these, in order to ascertain which a priori assumptions suit all known observations best on Occam's razor. This as part of correct scientific procedure. To which I believe Feyerabend would agree (i.e. that physicists should also do philosophy in to physics).

Edited February 1, 2013 by kristalris

[SamBridge]

My guess is it is deterministic if you were to know the begin state and one as short as possible time frame later as a second state. Yet it subsequently becomes more and more governed by pure chance in which any of all - possible - scenario's is played out. I assume thus an absolute truth yet also the absolute attainability of knowing that truth. As I understand Gerard 't Hooft also feels there's an infinitely small chance of two particles ever to hit absolutely dead center.

No idea what you are talking about and that's not right. Even if you were around at the big bang, atoms still had the properties they have now, or at least that's what the conjecture is. There's not an infinitely small chance particles will hit dead center, that's why particle colliders like the Fermi Lab and Hadron Collider are still funded. What you're taking about sounds more like computer science. You can't exactly program a computer to be random, so there can be a random number seed where it uses a formula to base the next number off of.

Also you misunderstood the purpose of Schrodinger's cat. There's no evidence that all possible "realities" are being played out at once, the purpose of Schrodinger's cat was to point out that the properties of particles in the quantum world don't make sense in the macroscopic world, Schrodinger's cat would never happen because the cat and the cat's brain and body cells are constantly making measurements.

Mathematics has deterministic results but reality doesn't necessarily have that because reality cannot be put into terms of any single mathematical system.

[kristalris]

No idea what you are talking about and that's not right.

I'm answering a question of the thread starter. That not right? Or is your understanding the norm?

Even if you were around at the big bang, atoms still had the properties they have now, or at least that's what the conjecture is.

 

 

Yes, and I have my conjecture. Difference is that my conjecture has a nice probability because it answers questions even though it is just as un-falsifiable as yours or any other on this subject. Mine is logically consistent.

Does your conjecture (or that of others) answer all the relevant questions? Mine does.

 

There's not an infinitely small chance particles will hit dead center, that's why particle colliders like the Fermi Lab and Hadron Collider are still funded. What you're taking about sounds more like computer science. You can't exactly program a computer to be random, so there can be a random number seed where it uses a formula to base the next number off of.

Ah, now I'm talking about the most fundamental particle or particles (without having to state how many different ones there are) that can't be split anymore I.e. actual atoms.and thus assuming that it isn't built up out of nothing. Believing in something from nothing is believing in a contradiction. I.e believing in magic. Do you believe in magic?

 

The reason I need to assume that these fundamental particles never hit - absolutely - dead center is that otherwise there would be a chance it would all stop being cyclic and playing out all scenario's all the time. I.e. if there's a chance that it will become infinitely stable and only one scenario it will happen given infinite time. It hasn't as we can observe. To have that I must logically assume that it can't even happen once. And this has nothing to do with Fermi lab. Much smaller particles.

 

You are either forced to believe in a one off, or you leave the philosophic question unanswered if it is cyclic or not.

 

A one off is IMO extremely improbable. Nothing => big bang (with your instant atoms) => nothing?

 

That computers can't model this: so?

Also you misunderstood the purpose of Schrodinger's cat. There's no evidence that all possible "realities" are being played out at once, the purpose of Schrodinger's cat was to point out that the properties of particles in the quantum world don't make sense in the macroscopic world, Schrodinger's cat would never happen because the cat and the cat's brain and body cells are constantly making measurements.

Well what are these chaps on about then?

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424073/multiverse-many-worlds-say-physicists/

Mathematics has deterministic results but reality doesn't necessarily have that because reality cannot be put into terms of any single mathematical system.

Well assuming that you could measure the begin state. I know you can't and never will. It's a thought experiment. You are in fact objecting to the question of the thread starter.

 

Why do this thought experiment? It is the same as you should do in a CSI. Make probable scenario's on what you do know and then fill in all the relevant questions on which you don't have as yet the data. This in order to see where you can best look and spend your limited resources in search of the culprit. In this case mass murdering Mother Nature. So yes, it's practical to do so. It is correct scientific procedure.

[SamBridge]

I'm answering a question of the thread starter. That not right? Or is your understanding the norm?

Or you're wrong.

 

 

IYes, and I have my conjecture. Difference is that my conjecture has a nice probability because it answers questions even though it is just as un-falsifiable as yours or any other on this subject. Mine is logically consistent.

Does your conjecture (or that of others) answer all the relevant questions? Mine does.

The difference is that your conjecture isn't backed up by any physics. It would be scientifically impossible to know at this point if the universe is deterministic if we didn't have our knowledge, but it is possible to say that it isn't deterministic because we see that measurements between particles have no causal connection to past and previous particles and those particles create patterns that correlate to an infinitesimally small and incalculable realms.

 

I

Ah, now I'm talking about the most fundamental particle or particles (without having to state how many different ones there are) that can't be split anymore I.e. actual atoms.and thus assuming that it isn't built up out of nothing. Believing in something from nothing is believing in a contradiction. I.e believing in magic. Do you believe in magic?.

If you are talking about an exact number out of considering all numbers at all times then everything has a 1/infinity chance of happening, there's a 1/infinity chance any value is ever obtained, but this does obviously not mean a hit cannot be made, obviously if you throw a dart at a dart board even though there are infinitely small surface areas which to hit it still has to hit something, so the notion that even if there's a 1/infinity chance means it's impossible is wrong.

 

I

Well what are these chaps on about then?

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424073/multiverse-many-worlds-say-physicists/

 

Its an extrapolation of complicated and not very well understood mathematics and science fueled by pop culture. I do not see another person around me looking around my room right now, and if there was then that would mean matter can cross between different planes of existence which means all realities should be viewed simultaneously, except we don't see any evidence of that. An observer has mass, yet somehow we see the same matter and another reality observer observes it doesn't something different, but if we both see the same matter then the matter that we are also made out of should be visible to each other so I should be able to see alternate realities. Aside from that problem, when measured matter goes into an Eigenstate, which means only 1 possible outcome is observable, which means there cannot be multiple observers observing the same matter in multiple states in the same instant of time, such as the cells in the body of an organism.

 

I

.You are in fact objecting to the question of the thread starter.

No I'm answering it and saying "nope". The initial conditions wouldn't play out exactly the same because the events at the atomic scale which have fractal patterns that correlate on the macroscopic scales which will never enter the same exact states in any future time are not causally connected.

 

I

Why do this thought experiment? It is the same as you should do in a CSI. Make probable scenario's on what you do know and then fill in all the relevant questions on which you don't have as yet the data. This in order to see where you can best look and spend your limited resources in search of the culprit. In this case mass murdering Mother Nature. So yes, it's practical to do so. It is correct scientific procedure.

Regardless of what you said, you still did not properly interpret the intent of Schrodinger when presenting that problem. It is absolutely not scientific to randomly guess at answers of which we have no evidence to base on and assume they are true.

Edited February 2, 2013 by SamBridge

[kristalris]

Or you're wrong.

Well, stating as I did that its a guess on a broad subject implies that it near absolutely certain will be in (even a large) part completely wrong. And then again in another part possibly correct. If the latter leads to looking in a certain corner and testing, following this method often enough will generate a result. Simple probabilistic reasoning. And, using the brain for what it was built for and at which we humans are very apt: guessing. This is a tried and tested method at crime scenes, this is Mother nature mass murder scene is no different.

 

This game does however have rules. Look at - all - the primary data AND answer - all - relevant questions. The question by the thread starter is such a relevant question. It is BTW not only the question is it deterministic? But also if you read the OP how then with free will?

 

Problem with free will is, if it exists, it is contradictory to both it being deterministic sec and also to it being pure chance sec. I haven't seen you go into that question.

 

I have at least answered the question. That doesn't thus per se mean that I say it is thus correct. It's a rough sketch. A sketch is something you alter as you get a better view of the object of study I.e. more data that on this question is obviously not only missing big style but also will never be had either. Hence it is philosophy. But you should use it as a tool to quickly get more relevant data after transforming the philosophy into a speculation. The latter needs then to be testable.

 

The only way to "test" a philosophic idea it is to view the logic, the completeness (addressing all questions) and the non conflict with what we do know, i.e. all the data. You can subsequently compare these on Occam's razor. A common mistake I see quite often is to do a comparison on Occam on part issues. Such as a single universe wins out on a Multiverse on Occam. That is wrong procedure. You should only compare ideas that comply to the above stated rules.

 

Because it is all so bloody vague the correct "mathematics" is word salad logic, for getting to a concept.

 

So Sam, you've left a lot of questions unanswered. Please then do so. Because otherwise you actually can't state anything on the issue at all. You first place all your pieces on this chessboard of reason and then play. You haven't as yet.

The difference is that your conjecture isn't backed up by any physics. It would be scientifically impossible to know at this point if the universe is deterministic if we didn't have our knowledge, but it is possible to say that it isn't deterministic because we see that measurements between particles have no causal connection to past and previous particles and those particles create patterns that correlate to an infinitesimally small and incalculable realms.

I think you didn't quite grasp that I hold an intermediate position on the question whether God plays dice or not. See above.

 

Further more I state that my idea doesn't infringe on any observation and thus doesn't infringe on physics, as far as there is any physics on this issue.

 

And it is the latter where you have another problem. You state to have backing by physics for your point of view. I.e. science in the sense of knowledge. You get this by extrapolating quantum mechanics that incorrectly isn't defined as holding the by far strongest laws of nature that mankind has had up till now outside its regime where it brilliantly holds true, into a field where it near certainly doesn't hold true. I.e. the Big Bang. And you claim then to be backed by physics.

 

My old maths-teacher more that twenty years ago taught me that all math's can be done with a straight stick and a string on a sandy beach. And that all formulas have there regimes in which the apply. The latter you forgot. So you've marched right into the renowned Escher Institute of Silly Mathematics.

You know that GR and QM aren't married yet. Yet you boldly extrapolate QM into the big bang and claim that atoms there already existed. And, you simply ignore the question what came before the BB. Yet you state to have knowledge on that point. Let me help you there. We have a lot of questions and hardly any knowledge on that issue whatsoever. So you are stating pseudo science.

 

So, you will adhere to the rules of string and stick, as stated above. Ergo: back to basics mate. And that starts off with word salad.

 

We have obviously an enormous measurement problem. Don't draw to many conclusions then on what small and fast stuff might actually be around.

 

 

 

If you are talking about an exact number out of considering all numbers at all times then everything has a 1/infinity chance of happening, there's a 1/infinity chance any value is ever obtained, but this does obviously not mean a hit cannot be made, obviously if you throw a dart at a dart board even though there are infinitely small surface areas which to hit it still has to hit something, so the notion that even if there's a 1/infinity chance means it's impossible is wrong.

You might be correct in pointing out a logical flaw in my reasoning. Maybe I can get round that in assuming instead that every hit of these (quite certainly) as yet (probably in part) as yet unobserved most fundamental particles can be dented. (Problem is I first held the prior assumption of these assumed fundamental particles to be absolutely conductive. Then I needed to get some chaos into the system in order to keep it to always be able to regenerate life in a cyclic way. I should of seen that leaving absolute conductivity I should of left the need for absolute not dead center strikes as well.

 

Anyway work in progress.

Its an extrapolation of complicated and not very well understood mathematics and science fueled by pop culture. I do not see another person around me looking around my room right now, and if there was then that would mean matter can cross between different planes of existence which means all realities should be viewed simultaneously, except we don't see any evidence of that. An observer has mass, yet somehow we see the same matter and another reality observer observes it doesn't something different, but if we both see the same matter then the matter that we are also made out of should be visible to each other so I should be able to see alternate realities. Aside from that problem, when measured matter goes into an Eigenstate, which means only 1 possible outcome is observable, which means there cannot be multiple observers observing the same matter in multiple states in the same instant of time, such as the cells in the body of an organism.

IMO this whole SC problem stems from the fact that physics at the moment doesn't even want to contemplate speeds > c. If you don't then you obviously can expect exactly the kind of conundrums you are in now observing particles to be here there and nowhere at the same time. Easily explained if you accept speeds > c of extremely small particles. QM can then at the deepest level be seen as Newtonian and easily be married to GR.

 

Assuming (? we actually know this, but anyway) a measurement problem in stead of all the blatant magic as a explanation is far far more probable.

No I'm answering it and saying "nope". The initial conditions wouldn't play out exactly the same because the events at the atomic scale which have fractal patterns that correlate on the macroscopic scales which will never enter the same exact states in any future time are not causally connected.

On the deterministic bit see above.

 

I said - like - a fractal. I.e. simple basic set of elegant rules, an be assumed at the heart of it all. That as probably the best bet. MN is an illusionist IMO. What do you think?

Regardless of what you said, you still did not properly interpret the intent of Schrodinger when presenting that problem. It is absolutely not scientific to randomly guess at answers of which we have no evidence to base on and assume they are true.

An educated guess is not a random guess.

 

And as I stated elsewhere you had best get the most creative physicists together in a research project on reaching a Grand TOE funded to do these educated guesses.

If you agree that MN is just an illusionist then writing the goal on the straight stick and saying to the correct research dogs by heart go fetch! Will render fast results. Just as Kennedy stating the goal to get a man on the moon before the end of the decade. tried and tested. That is the way it works.

 

(Grand TOE BTW being historically defined TOE with a bit more being DE & DM: again proving that physics doesn't define it's key objectives properly. You aren't historians but should define TOE and thus take it literately and thus systematically meaning marring all fundamental forces of nature the ones yet to be discovered as well.)

 

Anyway with my hardly educated guess I still don't see where I state anything other than what was stated in the link where they couple SC to a Multiverse, if I'm not mistaken that is. And I got there sooner than they did on that point. And that is just my point: speeding it up.

 

(BTW there is nothing wrong with the extrapolation method. Just don't overdo it. )

Edited February 2, 2013 by kristalris

[SamBridge]

W

I think you didn't quite grasp that I hold an intermediate position on the question whether God plays dice or not. See above.

 

Further more I state that my idea doesn't infringe on any observation and thus doesn't infringe on physics, as far as there is any physics on this issue.

 

And it is the latter where you have another problem. You state to have backing by physics for your point of view. I.e. science in the sense of knowledge. You get this by extrapolating quantum mechanics that incorrectly isn't defined as holding the by far strongest laws of nature that mankind has had up till now outside its regime where it brilliantly holds true, into a field where it near certainly doesn't hold true. I.e. the Big Bang. And you claim then to be backed by physics.

 

My old maths-teacher more that twenty years ago taught me that all math's can be done with a straight stick and a string on a sandy beach. And that all formulas have there regimes in which the apply. The latter you forgot. So you've marched right into the renowned Escher Institute of Silly Mathematics.

You know that GR and QM aren't married yet. Yet you boldly extrapolate QM into the big bang and claim that atoms there already existed. And, you simply ignore the question what came before the BB. Yet you state to have knowledge on that point. Let me help you there. We have a lot of questions and hardly any knowledge on that issue whatsoever. So you are stating pseudo science.

 

So, you will adhere to the rules of string and stick, as stated above. Ergo: back to basics mate. And that starts off with word salad.

 

We have obviously an enormous measurement problem. Don't draw to many conclusions then on what small and fast stuff might actually be around.

 

It doesn't make sense to ask what was before the big bang because if we assume the big bang was the beginning of the universe then there was no "before" the big bang, time and distance did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

Not only that, GR and QM "not being married" doesn't mean anything other than we need to tweak our physics a bit, but it is still scientifically confirmed that you cannot base the future measurements of particles off of previous measurements, which means they are not casually connected. There are no hidden variables, matter is quantized and therefore you cannot possess ever smaller amounts of matter and energy after a certain point, your just making random guess without evidence, not knowing about the big bang doesn't mean we should assume whatever we want about it, that logic makes no sense.

 

W

You might be correct in pointing out a logical flaw in my reasoning. Maybe I can get round that in assuming instead that every hit of these (quite certainly) as yet (probably in part) as yet unobserved most fundamental particles can be dented. (Problem is I first held the prior assumption of these assumed fundamental particles to be absolutely conductive. Then I needed to get some chaos into the system in order to keep it to always be able to regenerate life in a cyclic way. I should of seen that leaving absolute conductivity I should of left the need for absolute not dead center strikes as well.

 

The problem is you are not defining the set of what the probability is out of. Even if there are infinitesimally small values for a surface area, if I say "what are the chances of hitting 1 of 4 equal squares" will not only be different than "what are the chances of hitting 1/0 squares", but those probabilities are not 1/infinity.

 

W

IMO this whole SC problem stems from the fact that physics at the moment doesn't even want to contemplate speeds > c. If you don't then you obviously can expect exactly the kind of conundrums you are in now observing particles to be here there and nowhere at the same time. Easily explained if you accept speeds > c of extremely small particles. QM can then at the deepest level be seen as Newtonian and easily be married to GR.

 

Assuming (? we actually know this, but anyway) a measurement problem in stead of all the blatant magic as a explanation is far far more probable.

On the deterministic bit see above.

 

If you think you can contemplate speeds greater than the speed of light better than the physics of the entire human race then by all means go ahead and show us. The fact that you said "Quantum physics is Newtonian" shows you know nothing about what you are talking about. It is absolutely not like Newtonian physics and that's why there's problems using it on macroscopic levels. In order for a massive particle to travel greater than the speed of light it would need infinite energy, and we do not see particles with infinite energy.

 

W

I said - like - a fractal. I.e. simple basic set of elegant rules, an be assumed at the heart of it all. That as probably the best bet. MN is an illusionist IMO. What do you think?

An educated guess is not a random guess.

 

Sure, they occur everywhere all around you, and their correlation exists smaller than atoms can be, which should easily tell you that there are going to be unpredictable results because there are patterns which effect things that are by definition incalculable because of they fact that they have an infinitesimally small correlation which is smaller than atoms and particles. This is not to say however they are the "cause" of everything, fractal patterns wouldn't exist without atoms.

Based on our current physics, because the exact location of measured particles which includes simply interactions is not casually connected, means that even if you could somehow go back in time, events would have a very high likelihood of not playing out exactly the same way. This means the universe cannot be deterministic.

 

An educated guess is not a random guess.

 

And as I stated elsewhere you had best get the most creative physicists together in a research project on reaching a Grand TOE funded to do these educated guesses.

If you agree that MN is just an illusionist then writing the goal on the straight stick and saying to the correct research dogs by heart go fetch! Will render fast results. Just as Kennedy stating the goal to get a man on the moon before the end of the decade. tried and tested. That is the way it works.

 

(Grand TOE BTW being historically defined TOE with a bit more being DE & DM: again proving that physics doesn't define it's key objectives properly. You aren't historians but should define TOE and thus take it literately and thus systematically meaning marring all fundamental forces of nature the ones yet to be discovered as well.)

 

Anyway with my hardly educated guess I still don't see where I state anything other than what was stated in the link where they couple SC to a Multiverse, if I'm not mistaken that is. And I got there sooner than they did on that point. And that is just my point: speeding it up.

 

(BTW there is nothing wrong with the extrapolation method. Just don't overdo it. )

And educated guess is a hypothesis based off of evidence, we have no evidence that the every action in the universe can be predicted and therefore have no evidence that it is deterministic but we do have evidence that every specific action is not 100% predictable and therefore have evidence that it isn't deterministic.

Multiverse theory has no evidence, the same matter can only have 1 observed result at a time, called an Eigenstate, multiple realities do not cope with this well. There are infinite possible things that can happen, but that doesn't mean they all will happen or all are happening. The property of matter seemingly existing in multiple locations can be accurately described using Dirac's relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation and quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.

Edited February 2, 2013 by SamBridge

[kristalris]

It doesn't make sense to ask what was before the big bang because if we assume the big bang was the beginning of the universe then there was no "before" the big bang, time and distance did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

If you assume the Big Bang to be the beginning and thus a one off. That is indeed if you only want to look and look hardly further than you can observe. In the production department of physics that is understandable in a research department attitude and philosophical approach it is incomprehensibly shortsighted.

 

A one off meaning there was an infinite time of nothing (or no time or space or anything) then suddenly God or something decided or made a Big Bang and i all started. This is extremely unlikely. So scientifically you are at least forced to also go through the mental exercise of contemplating an alternate in which there was something before the BB. An see if that would change the way you have to view the data you do see, and see if that shows you directions of acquiring more data that possibly can be measured.

Not only that, GR and QM "not being married" doesn't mean anything other than we need to tweak our physics a bit, but it is still scientifically confirmed that you cannot base the future measurements of particles off of previous measurements, which means they are not casually connected. There are no hidden variables, matter is quantized and therefore you cannot possess ever smaller amounts of matter and energy after a certain point, your just making random guess without evidence, not knowing about the big bang doesn't mean we should assume whatever we want about it, that logic makes no sense.

Well this tweaking a bit in order to marry GR & QM has now taken how long? The claim that there are no hidden variables can't be true seeing all the admitted incomprehensible phenomenon that we observe: double slit, entanglement, DM & DE etc.. It is a belief vested in the assumptions that have gone into QM and GR in the first place. Those phenomenon - are - the - obvious BTW - evidence. Like the sail of a ship in the middle ages was that air was a something even though unobserved directly at the time.

 

Only if you've made a mathematical model with clocks instead of time slowing down and extremely small particles > c could you state that there are no hidden variables.

The problem is you are not defining the set of what the probability is out of. Even if there are infinitesimally small values for a surface area, if I say "what are the chances of hitting 1 of 4 equal squares" will not only be different than "what are the chances of hitting 1/0 squares", but those probabilities are not 1/infinity.

I already left that point. I was wrong not to change after I saw I didn't need absolute conductivity to get an infinite cycle.

If you think you can contemplate speeds greater than the speed of light better than the physics of the entire human race then by all means go ahead and show us. The fact that you said "Quantum physics is Newtonian" shows you know nothing about what you are talking about. It is absolutely not like Newtonian physics and that's why there's problems using it on macroscopic levels. In order for a massive particle to travel greater than the speed of light it would need infinite energy, and we do not see particles with infinite energy.

No it doesn't need infinite energy to do so. I can prove concept of that in a word salad thought experiment (being the philosophical forum). And thereby answer the question of the OP. Assume a sphere-like particle with mass > c in an absolute void as a given. It will travel in a straight line. An infinite amount of these particles assuming they can't be split and that they are (maybe needed more than) super conductive in an infinite space. They will start hitting each other and will remain in permanent motion. This would already provide pressure in the system. Now we observe order in the system. Actually more than we can explain it should disintegrate much faster. Lets assume these particles will go to order in a dynamic crystal. This is testable in a computer simulation using a super conductive box to see if it goes to order (like we observed fractals earlier on in a simulation.)

 

If you now would introduce one larger particle with mass that is slower yet > c it then could't travel in a straight line. For every forward movement a standard deviation both vertical and horizontal would ensue. I assume that current off the shelf mathematics would show it to go into a spiral, in the skin of a huge sphere. Being super conductive there is no reason why it wouldn't then remain > c.

 

An infinite amount of these would provide an even distribution of these two sorts of particles per given volume of space.

 

The smaller particles will win the movement game in order to have the least chaos in the small particle crystal.

 

To cut this short given the correct ratio of the two particles the larger ones will form a non Euclidian-space in a Euclidian space crystal of the smaller one.

 

Surplus large particles will be forced in this theoretical beginning (there is no beginning or end) in starting there own crystals far apart from each other. Adding more and more large particles these will rise in a crystal sphere. At a certain point the amount of chaos in the small crystal will be kept smaller when the center of the large particle crystal collapses in the center.

 

After that we have the for stages of the Higgs field in an infinite amount of cubes each containing one universe. Ours being one. Inside more and more large particles are crushed but can't be split. They start to spin ultimately a yet to form galaxy being shot out > c up the collapsing Higgs field. Nearly coming to a stop just at the edge where the crystal is still intact. Here the larger particles become unspun a bit and are forced by the unspun large particle crystal together with the small particle crystal into strings via a surface tension scenario. The strings form spirals that can spin either way and wave through the crystal. Forming pairs of interlocked counter-rotating particles.

 

If the strings are large the crystal will short track them in the crystal at c max. They can build even larger particles that I guess even have 1/3 c max. They continually receive more unspun large particles out of the crystal. Being the Higgs mechanism. This causes an under-pressure that is perceived as gravity and curved space. It also accelerates the large stringed particle causing DE (Law of Hubble) due to gained momentum. The higher the speed the more the gravity rises being DM.

 

Magnetism is the temporary becoming unspun of larger particles when two counter-rotating strings start "shaving" each other breaking the surface tension of the string. This also causes entanglement.

 

Spiraling outward ultimately ending up in a black hole in the center of each galaxy we finally pop out of the double crystal into the single crystal in order to disintegrate and fall back in a never ending cycle.

 

Small strings like photons are so small that they seemingly instantaneous accelerate but they are short-tracked by the crystal and the photon kept at c. These particles are percieved mass less because they are to fast for the Higgs field to add mss. Yet they curve in a gravitational field, because the pressure then lets go a bit they become a bit unspun i.e. red-shifted in order to accelerate in order to hold c in the crystal. Like a car in a curve holding speed photons curve in a twice the Newton value.

 

Now that has the potential to marry Newton, GR and QM. No infringement on any observation. Now this assumption exercise shows you where to start looking: test the computer simulation and see a galaxy as a spinning gyro. Downsize and see if raining the speed of a gyro causes a rise in gravity.

 

Outside that sphere large particles are traveling in a medieval chain-mail in equilibrium.

 

Our observable universe is then that we are in the middle of the double crystal of the Higgs field that is like the earth's crust. We can only see part of it because no particles we can up till now observe travels in a straight line even if space wasn't curved. Which it is as well. Like the earth in the Middle ages it looks flat.

 

The large particles of the double crystal of the Higgs field slowly travel inwards like a glacier.

 

I could be wrong, probably even are. But what if I'm not. This has no infringement on logic, Newton, GR or QM or what ever, AND it addresses all problems, such as whether it is deterministic and how it relates to free will. Again it is both deterministic AND pure chance in a Yin and Yang structure of order and disorder. The latter we observe. And it fundamentally explains waves. Something physics or even the philosophy of it up to now can't.

 

And it provides a way to explain free will being neither deterministic sec or pure chance sec. So the question in the OP is answered.

 

And yes it adheres to the rules of string and stick and is testable i.e. falsifiable. And no it doesn't for this concept level require mathematics in order to prove concept. Due to proof of concept it should have the science put to it including the mathematics.

 

 

Sure, they occur everywhere all around you, and their correlation exists smaller than atoms can be, which should easily tell you that there are going to be unpredictable results because there are patterns which effect things that are by definition incalculable because of they fact that they have an infinitesimally small correlation which is smaller than atoms and particles. This is not to say however they are the "cause" of everything, fractal patterns wouldn't exist without atoms.

Based on our current physics, because the exact location of measured particles which includes simply interactions is not casually connected, means that even if you could somehow go back in time, events would have a very high likelihood of not playing out exactly the same way. This means the universe cannot be deterministic.

See above. You keep on saying that I say it's deterministic. I don't.

And educated guess is a hypothesis based off of evidence, we have no evidence that the every action in the universe can be predicted and therefore have no evidence that it is deterministic but we do have evidence that every specific action is not 100% predictable and therefore have evidence that it isn't deterministic.

Multiverse theory has no evidence, the same matter can only have 1 observed result at a time, called an Eigenstate, multiple realities do not cope with this well. There are infinite possible things that can happen, but that doesn't mean they all will happen or all are happening. The property of matter seemingly existing in multiple locations can be accurately described using Dirac's relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation and quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.

The multiverse I'm talking about is only an un-falsifiable construct OUTSIDE our universe. Needed in order to devise tests that I gave you.

 

 

And you've dodged several of the questions I put to you, about you infringing on proper scientific procedure as i stated them to be.

[SamBridge]

Ok I'm just going to stop because if you truly don't think the universe is deterministic you have no reason to be arguing with me and further more you are questioning the validity of the entire scientific community. There's no point arguing science with someone who doesn't consider science. Philosophy does not constitute proof and being in the philosophy section does not magically mean every scientist is wrong, I recommend you stop trolling. There is evidence that not every result can be predicted and there is no evidence that every result can be predicted, and there is a logical reason for why it can't, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Edited February 3, 2013 by SamBridge

[SebastianOakes]

I don't think this needed to become an argument.

[Ceasium]

Too bad this became an argument, so lets set it aside.

 

As I'm thinking about some reasonable input in this discuassion, my thoughts cease at: 'If everything is predetermined, where is the master plan of every single happening? Where is this plan heading to? What can be consedired a happening, one orbital of an electron? Why is there a masterplan, and why is it unfolding this way?'

 

On the other hand, if everything consists of comeplete randomness, how is then determined what the outcome is going to be? When was this chosen? How is this outcome selected out of the many others?

[SamBridge]

T

On the other hand, if everything consists of comeplete randomness, how is then determined what the outcome is going to be? When was this chosen? How is this outcome selected out of the many others?

At the atomic level, it's chosen randomly, there is no "cause", and scientists looked very hard for this and Einstein until his last day on his bed before he died looked for these "hidden variables" that may cause all measurements, and nothing, and it seems as though that with our current understanding of physics, there cannot be any specific cause because there cannot be an infintessimally small amount of matter causing events on the next higher level due to the quantinization of matter and energy resultant from the fundamental properties of matter and energy that are similar to a standing wave.

Edited February 4, 2013 by SamBridge

[kristalris]

I found this link on this subject from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism

 

Given the way they split the different parties I guess my view would then fit Compatibilism. I.e. making determinism fit free will.

 

This because I believe in hidden variables that stem from a measurement problem. I.e. Newton in his day didn't have hidden variable either. Yet we know now they were there. Especially so when confronted with rising unsolved problems, do the later enormously heighten the probability of hidden variables being there. Given unsolved problems there is no way to disprove the existence of them, you are forced to account for the possibility of their existence. That in the field were the laws of Newton are known to work there is no need to assume hidden variables thus doesn't prove they don't exist. Likewise that QM within the field were it neigh absolutely holds true, doesn't mean that the cosmos or even our universe in an as yet un-observable part QM collapses for the simple reason that all sub atomic parts disintegrate into these or part of these hidden variables.

 

These hidden variables provide thus a pre-determined begin state (that we never can observe this begin state absolutely exact is irrelevant.) We can observe a begin state at a certain level and know the probabilities that ensue through science and experience. To a degree that is then determinism, because the begin state determines to a degree what can't happen in the future. Especially if the begin state is to be taken as inherently dynamic when everything is cyclic. That would be consistent with the find that it all didn't stop when reaching zero degrees Kelvin.

 

I guess a lot of the dilemma stems from the question how to define free will? This because I don't believe in an absolutely free will. We know that our DNA limits the choices we can make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

Like I said not having the concept of free will would IMO result in chaos. If so we have the free will to cause rising chaos or not at least to influence that.

 

So dependent on the level of the question in the OP the answer is: we don't know at an absolute level.

On a level of for instance must we have a free will concept in courts of law? I'd say yes. Although I'm a staunch defender of taking far more into account the limits of someones actions due to DNA upbringing etcetera than someone taking hard free will and thus responsibility into account.

 

EDIT This would mean that depending if you want to define free will only looking at an individual the answer could be yes free will exists, and if you look at the entire surroundings as well you could say no free will doesn't exist because then you would have to either split it out in the pure chance or pure deterministic combination that both as such exclude the possibility of a free will.

Edited February 4, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I'm not sure why this was posted in philosophy, but it's clearly gotten off that track and I'm closing it. SebastianOakes, you are free to re-introduce this subject, but should make it more clear what kind of response you expect. If you want a science answer, it should be posted in the appropriate science sub-forum. If you truly want a philosophy discussion, re-post it here.