Is the future predetermined?

[sam77]

Could the future already exist?

The idea of quantum mechanics is that nature is inherently probabilistic. Particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed.

However, even though probability waves would still retain a use in statistical prediction, we find that all testable observations, such as those which make computers run and physics work, continue to function if we adopt predeterminism as the principle driving force for reality. In fact, it seems like many big mysteries of QM such as entanglement, dark energy and the double slit experiment make a lot more sense.

Why is there such a strong past-present-future time bias? It's entirely possible that human perception of time is the result of evolution and nothing more. Life must collect energy from states when it is readily available to survive, and the laws of thermodynamics state that things become more disorganized over time. Now, organic intelligent life must be able to predict the future, so evolution has given us this time bias of past-present-future. If this is true, time is free to travel both forwards and backwards and there is no reason for Quantum Mechanics to suggest that the future is decided by chance.

Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, we know that time passes at a different rate depending on the energy state of an observer. For example, an atomic clock on Earth synchronized with an atomic clock on a space rocket will desynchronize over time. The passage of time is not uniform throughout space. Our solar system is moving towards Lamba Herculis at a rate of 45000mph. Therefore, not all regions of space may travel through time with equal impetus. Distant galaxies accelerating away from us may be the difference between energy states of the two systems. What pulls time forwards? The answer is attraction. The future exerts an effect on the present and vice versa. Many such forces have been defined, but there may be more to discover i.e dark energy.

Quantum entanglement is defined as the 'spooky action at a distance' one or more particles can exhibit on each other. Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other, for example. The speeds of these interactions travel faster than light, seemingly breaking the laws of physics. However, according to predeterminism, these particles are not traveling, but being inferred, so the speed of light is not violated. This could be the basis behind FTL communication or FTL teleportation.

The spontaneous appearance of antiparticle pairs has long suggested the magical nature of quantum mechanics. However, this has been a red herring. There is nothing magical about a chemical reaction. The antiparticle existed and exerted its effect on the present particle. It did not randomly decide to pop into existence, but already had its part to play ordained since the dawn of creation. Particles move freely backwards and forwards through time as defined by the physical laws of the universe.

The double slit experiment shows how light and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles. In the original experiment, a laser emits photons through a double slit setup onto a photo-receptive plate, resulting in an interference pattern suggesting that light behaves as a wave. However, the light absorbed is always found in discrete bands as individual particles. Furthermore, when a detector is placed at a slit we find that each photon only passes through one slit, functioning like a particle. This phenomenon is known as complementarity - the act of measuring a particle interacts with it such that the original trajectory is destroyed, and the interference pattern disappears.

Now consider the experiment from the particle's point of view. It exists on the plate until such time that a force draws it towards the double slit, backwards through time and into the photon emitter. When undisturbed, it can take either pathway through the double slits, owing to the unpredictable movement of microscopic particles. When we try to detect the particle, it already 'knows' that it cannot take one pathway over the other. Of course, the past has equal effect on the future state, so the particle in the future originates from such a point that the intereference pattern does not exist. This represents the fundamental nature of predeterminism.

[swansont]

What pulls time forwards? The answer is attraction. The future exerts an effect on the present and vice versa. Many such forces have been defined, but there may be more to discover i.e dark energy.

Time isn't a substance, nor is it an interaction, so this makes no sense.

 

Quantum entanglement is defined as the 'spooky action at a distance' one or more particles can exhibit on each other. Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other, for example. The speeds of these interactions travel faster than light, seemingly breaking the laws of physics. However, according to predeterminism, these particles are not traveling, but being inferred, so the speed of light is not violated. This could be the basis behind FTL communication or FTL teleportation.

No, that's not what happens, no it doesn't break the laws of physics, and no it can't be used as the basis of FTL communication.

[sam77]

Thanks.

 

Please can you define quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance and what exactly is happening?

[swansont]

In entanglement, you don't know the state of the particles, so you can't say you are changing the state of one particle. You are measuring that state. Then you instantly know the state of the other. Kinda like when you flip a coin and find out it's heads, you instantly know the other side is tails. Because you have a system where the two states have a definite relationship. But before you make the measurement, you don't know which side is up.

[Delta1212]

Quantum entanglement is a lot less flashy sounding than most pop science articles tend to make out, because what it actually is doesn't sound all that exciting unless you have a little bit of background in QM to begin with.

 

Quantum entanglement is just a correlation between the states of entangled particles.

 

Imagine you take a coin, split it in half, place one half in one box and another half in the other box. Separate them by a couple of light years. Open one box and you instantly know what the other box contains. If you have heads, the other box has tails, and vice versa.

 

That sounds very dull, except we're using a quantum coin that, for very reasons that we have evidence for outside of this experiment, we know that whether a half of that coin becomes heads or tails is determined randomly when you open the box. So it truly could be either before you open it, but as soon as you do, the other half-coin is immediately relegated to being the opposite of the one you got, despite being light years away with no way for a signal to travel all the way there to tell it that the state of the other one has been determined.

 

You can't use this to send a signal, because you can only see the correlation once you've brought the two halves together or otherwise communicated their state through slower than light channels.

 

Edit: heh

Edited September 21, 2015 by Delta1212

[sam77]

So if I understand correctly, is it impossible to change the state of one particle in order to affect another?

 

I mean, if you discovered a particle-pair and somehow caught them in a box at each end, then continually changed their spin to send a binary message, this would not be possible?

 

At any rate, even if the entanglement is broken after measurement, this doesn't disprove predeterminism. It proves FTL communication is less likely to find an application in entanglement.

Edited September 21, 2015 by sam77

[swansont]

So if I understand correctly, is it impossible to change the state of one particle in order to affect another?

You could do it, but it would not be because of entanglement, nor would it happen FTL.

 

I mean, if you discovered a particle-pair and somehow caught them in a box at each end, then continually changed their spin to send a binary message, this would not be possible?

 

At any rate, even if the entanglement is broken after measurement, this doesn't disprove predeterminism. It proves FTL communication is less likely to find an application in entanglement.

Unless there was some interaction in play, changing the spin of one would not affect the other. If it did, it would happen because of that interaction and that would be limited to light speed.

 

FTL communication isn't going to find an application anywhere unless some new physics is discovered.

[Delta1212]

So if I understand correctly, is it impossible to change the state of one particle in order to affect another?

 

I mean, if you discovered a particle-pair and somehow caught them in a box at each end, then continually changed their spin to send a binary message, this would not be possible?

 

At any rate, even if the entanglement is broken after measurement, this doesn't disprove predeterminism. It proves FTL communication is less likely to find an application in entanglement.

Once you do anything to affect the entangled property, entanglement is broken.

 

And no, that doesn't disprove determinism, but I don't think quantum entanglement itself is often pointed to as a reason why the universe is not deterministic. That generally lies in other areas of QM.

[Bill Angel]

Consider these relations:

The motion of billard balls can be described in a deterministic manner.

But for subatomic particles whose lifetimes are extremely short, the uncertainty in their energy becomes large, as does the uncertainty in their momentum. These uncertainties makes a deterministic prediction of their movements and the characteristics of the products of their decay not possible.

[swansont]

Consider these relations:

xp.gif

et.gif

The motion of billard balls can be described in a deterministic manner.

But for subatomic particles whose lifetimes are extremely short, the uncertainty in their energy becomes large, as does the uncertainty in their momentum. These uncertainties makes a deterministic prediction of their movements and the characteristics of the products of their decay not possible.

 

Some characteristics of their decays are well-known, because we have conservation laws.

[Bill Angel]

Some characteristics of their decays are well-known, because we have conservation laws.

I agree. I just meant that if for example one observed a crystal composed of identical atoms that exhibited radioactive deçay, it would not be possible to specify deterministically the sequence or the order in which the atoms would decay, just the probability that each atom would decay within a certain period of time.

[Hybr1d]

 

Some characteristics of their decays are well-known, because we have conservation laws.

 

Yes, however in response to the topic at hand the future is demonstrably fundamentally indeterminate. In regards to quantum system particles clearly obey the born rule, and evolve via probability distribution. Albeit the equations describing said functions are obviously determinate, otherwise quantum mechanics wouldn't be such a success.

 

 

Could the future already exist?

 

The idea of quantum mechanics is that nature is inherently probabilistic. Particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed.

 

However, even though probability waves would still retain a use in statistical prediction, we find that all testable observations, such as those which make computers run and physics work, continue to function if we adopt predeterminism as the principle driving force for reality. In fact, it seems like many big mysteries of QM such as entanglement, dark energy and the double slit experiment make a lot more sense.

 

Why is there such a strong past-present-future time bias? It's entirely possible that human perception of time is the result of evolution and nothing more. Life must collect energy from states when it is readily available to survive, and the laws of thermodynamics state that things become more disorganized over time. Now, organic intelligent life must be able to predict the future, so evolution has given us this time bias of past-present-future. If this is true, time is free to travel both forwards and backwards and there is no reason for Quantum Mechanics to suggest that the future is decided by chance.

 

Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, we know that time passes at a different rate depending on the energy state of an observer. For example, an atomic clock on Earth synchronized with an atomic clock on a space rocket will desynchronize over time. The passage of time is not uniform throughout space. Our solar system is moving towards Lamba Herculis at a rate of 45000mph. Therefore, not all regions of space may travel through time with equal impetus. Distant galaxies accelerating away from us may be the difference between energy states of the two systems. What pulls time forwards? The answer is attraction. The future exerts an effect on the present and vice versa. Many such forces have been defined, but there may be more to discover i.e dark energy.

 

Quantum entanglement is defined as the 'spooky action at a distance' one or more particles can exhibit on each other. Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other, for example. The speeds of these interactions travel faster than light, seemingly breaking the laws of physics. However, according to predeterminism, these particles are not traveling, but being inferred, so the speed of light is not violated. This could be the basis behind FTL communication or FTL teleportation.

 

The spontaneous appearance of antiparticle pairs has long suggested the magical nature of quantum mechanics. However, this has been a red herring. There is nothing magical about a chemical reaction. The antiparticle existed and exerted its effect on the present particle. It did not randomly decide to pop into existence, but already had its part to play ordained since the dawn of creation. Particles move freely backwards and forwards through time as defined by the physical laws of the universe.

 

The double slit experiment shows how light and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles. In the original experiment, a laser emits photons through a double slit setup onto a photo-receptive plate, resulting in an interference pattern suggesting that light behaves as a wave. However, the light absorbed is always found in discrete bands as individual particles. Furthermore, when a detector is placed at a slit we find that each photon only passes through one slit, functioning like a particle. This phenomenon is known as complementarity - the act of measuring a particle interacts with it such that the original trajectory is destroyed, and the interference pattern disappears.

 

Now consider the experiment from the particle's point of view. It exists on the plate until such time that a force draws it towards the double slit, backwards through time and into the photon emitter. When undisturbed, it can take either pathway through the double slits, owing to the unpredictable movement of microscopic particles. When we try to detect the particle, it already 'knows' that it cannot take one pathway over the other. Of course, the past has equal effect on the future state, so the particle in the future originates from such a point that the intereference pattern does not exist. This represents the fundamental nature of predeterminism.

 

 

Time isn't a substance, nor is it an interaction, so this makes no sense.

 

No, that's not what happens, no it doesn't break the laws of physics, and no it can't be used as the basis of FTL communication.

 

I have to agree with swansont here; I would also like to add that it seems as though the vast majority of your "proposition" appears to be utter garbage pseudoscience. Now some pseudoscience is good and logical speculation can be interesting. This is very far from an idea that was formed through honest logical reasoning, or a deduction(s) from objective observations. Literally most of this is inconsistent, but it appears as though you're arguing for a sort of deterministic quantum interpretation. Let me tell you as a physics major this is asinine and futile for the most part. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't in anyway make it the truth. Ad hominems aside it would appear to me that you're insisting upon some sort of time symmetric, retro-causal interpretation. Interpretations like Two-State vector formalism, and the Relational blockworld make these sorts of claims. These retro-causal interpretations are also fundamentally indeterminate(even if the authors of RBW would disagree), and at the end of the day your particularly archaic notion of a "predetermined" universe is no longer objectively reasonable with our new found knowledge of how the world works.

 

The last (real) legs you have to stand on for a deterministic universe view is the many worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics. If you take a deterministic perspective, and the many worlds interpretation, you end up with quantum immortality. You could do away with QI and still have MWI if you take away determinism as well, and I would elaborate more on this but can't at the present time. Also the measurement problem is a large enough hole to render MWI completely futile, along with any other infinite multiverse/parallel worlds trash. The brane multiverse postulated by string theory isn't necessary either, and most inflationary models do not require eternal inflation. Bohmian mechanics are broken and so far removed from objective reality I don't even know what they're trying to say, so many problems. John S. Bell showed that any local realist(determined) theory can not produce the predictions made by quantum mechanics. Non-local hidden variable theory have been taking a beating as well.

 

Links:

Bell's Theorem

Experimental loophole-free violation of Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3km

 

MWI Links:

Many worlds pseudoscience, again

Arguments for and against Many Worlds

Does it Make Sense to Speak of Self-Locating Uncertainity if the Universal Wave Function? Remarks on Sebens and Carroll

Many worlds: A Rozali-Carroll exchange

 

Bohmian Links:

Problems with Bohmian Mechanics

Bohmian mechanics, a ludicrous caricature of nature

Why do people still talk about Bohmian mechanics/hidden variables?

 

Hidden Variable "Theories":

It's been a tough week for hidden variable theories

Falsifying non-local realism

Bell's and sycophants' criticism of von Neumann's hidden-variable no go theorem is misguided

Edited October 2, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

The original post is a bit, very speculatory, but linking to the title about is the future predetermined, and the mention of time flowing one way. We get into a bit of a sticky situation when messing with these subjects, because we can't answer truthfully what reality actually is.

 

The screen your seeing right now, you aren't actually seeing. your not seeing the screen, your seeing, your PERCEPTION of the screen.

Now it could be totally different to me and you, thus because we are only seeing our perception of whats around us we can't prove whats actually around us completely, we can only prove it beyond reasonable doubt, with our current understanding.

 

Its a bit like a theory, which we can neither prove or disprove, this is Last Thursdayism. Its the idea the universe, and all your memories of it were created last thrusday. Your memories and thoughts (to our current understanding) is part of the universe, thus the universe could have started at any point. Even last thursday.

 

 

Now, a lot of people have put down this thread of its negative points, I quite like that mention that time might not be flowing one way, because how we understand time, might not actually be how time behaves. Its merely we don't know how to surpass it moving a single way, if we can stop time in place, then it could be reversed, thus its not how we believe it works. Its a bit like heat, we can't get anything to 0 kelvin, that is the point at which it stops moving. So what happens, if it was at -1 kelvin. It might not be possible, but if it were, would it move in a different fashion, what traits would it exhibit, would it still be cold?

 

And finally, to the title about the future being predetermined. Time for a bit of a 'quantum answer' . the future IS and ISNT predetermined (to our current understanding).

Now, this beautifal effect called the butterfly effect, that the floods in britian were a result of a butterfly over in the amazon flapping its wings 1 to little times 300 years ago.

This would mean, the future is predetermined, and we could read the future if we knew everything that has happened everywhere. For example, free will doesn't exist, its down to your genetics at birth, and your experienced (Which have effected your genetics as well). This means if you knew all about a person, you'd know their responce to any question or action.

 

Now, of course this could have absolutely no application in the forseeable future, maybe if quantum computers work even better then they do, we might be able to calculate every single variable in the universe, and know whats happening next. but we'd need to be able to scan every variable in all of the current timeline everywhere in the universe and feed it into a quantum computer for that to work.

 

 

Anyway, after the first event in the universe, the next event was determined, which determined the next event, causing the next event to be determined, and so on...

[Hybr1d]

Anyway, after the first event in the universe, the next event was determined, which determined the next event, causing the next event to be determined, and so on...

 

Coming from a physics major, this isn't at all how reality works. Please take the time to read my post above and understand that this view is now irrational and irrelevant in modern science.

 

This was a poll of 33 physics PhD's and clearly shows a massive favoritism of a probabilistic/indeterminate interpretation to quantum mechanics. Quantum Bayesianism, Objective-collapse, and obviously Copenhagen are all probabilistic. Information based is agnostic, although if all "you" are is information there's no empirical reason why that information could not ever "appear" in another information-based universe which could, in theory, be substantially different from this one(if this interpretation is correct), and as such where you appear would be in essence, random.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

 

Coming from a physics major, this isn't at all how reality works. Please take the time to read my post above and understand that this view is now irrational and irrelevant in modern science.

 

This was a poll of 33 physics PhD's and clearly shows a massive favoritism of a probabilistic/indeterminate interpretation to quantum mechanics. Quantum Bayesianism, Objective-collapse, and obviously Copenhagen are all probabilistic. Information based is agnostic, although if all "you" are is information there's no empirical reason why that information could not ever "appear" in another information-based universe which could, in theory, be substantially different from this one(if this interpretation is correct), and as such where you appear would be in essence, random.

 

I did read you've above post, though other theories are generally more popular now-a-days, its by no means a 'minor theory' that everything is predetermined. This also doesn't require another universe (though doesn't rule out the possibility of one).

Now, im not expert in quantum mechanics by far shot. Personally I don't like the whole idea of how it explains things, for example the double slit experiment, and so on, if the proton can 'know' if its wave-like or particle-like characterics are being observed, well that just sounds like a very over-technical version of creationism, and there being a 'higher power' instructing what happens in the universe.

 

Actually, at one point steven hawkings also shows support in the idea that there isn't free will, its just way to many variables for us to find that decide stuff. That would make quite sensible sense as well, if you wish to go on a more visible sort of example, the 'hive mind' of a crowd or group of peers. People follow other people, because the other people, are a variable influenced the person, then influencing the other people.

[swansont]

I did read you've above post, though other theories are generally more popular now-a-days, its by no means a 'minor theory' that everything is predetermined.

 

What was presented was not a list of different theories. It was different interpretations of one theory.

[LjSpike]

 

What was presented was not a list of different theories. It was different interpretations of one theory.

 

I know the graph was different interpretations of one theory, but I was just saying about the theory that everything is predetermined by the previous events.

[Hybr1d]

 

I know the graph was different interpretations of one theory, but I was just saying about the theory that everything is predetermined by the previous events.

 

I did read you've above post, though other theories are generally more popular now-a-days, its by no means a 'minor theory' that everything is predetermined. This also doesn't require another universe (though doesn't rule out the possibility of one).

Now, im not expert in quantum mechanics by far shot. Personally I don't like the whole idea of how it explains things, for example the double slit experiment, and so on, if the proton can 'know' if its wave-like or particle-like characterics are being observed, well that just sounds like a very over-technical version of creationism, and there being a 'higher power' instructing what happens in the universe.

 

Actually, at one point steven hawkings also shows support in the idea that there isn't free will, its just way to many variables for us to find that decide stuff. That would make quite sensible sense as well, if you wish to go on a more visible sort of example, the 'hive mind' of a crowd or group of peers. People follow other people, because the other people, are a variable influenced the person, then influencing the other people.

 

As swansont said these are all interpretations of one experimentally proven theory, and there is no interpretation where everything is predetermined that I have not yet discussed; perhaps other than what is referred to as "superdeterminism." Superdeterminism is a gross explanation of the anthopric principle and is more in line with creationism then what I'm arguing for, as all I said was it is in all likelihood completely random, and non-local hidden variables(if you had actually taken the time to read the blogs and documentation that I had linked to) have all but been ruled out already. Fundamental reality is probabilistic, and is in no way, shape, or form predetermined. Just because you want this to be true simply doesn't make it true.

 

There is nothing creationist about probability, if anything it is more aligned with the polar opposite, that everything is in fact the result of blind cumulative processes over time(whether fundamental or emergent/timeless). There is no magic and I never said that protons "know" if they're being observed. That has nothing to do with many of the probabilistic interpretations that I had presented to you; for more information you could read up on Wikipedia, or Google. i also agree with Steven Hawking(not hawkings) that there is no free will, please note that the nondeterministic nature of quantum physics does not allow for freewill at all as you have no control of the underlying neuronal reactions in you brain, much in the same way that you have no control over the inner workings of your thyroid gland. Quantum mechanics is an experimentally verified indeterministic theory, and there really isn't much more room for a deterministic interpretation of it anymore. Please re-read my other posts, and also read the links, as I take it you must have skimmed if you honestly believe that reality is predetermined.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Hybr1d

[LjSpike]

 

 

As swansont said these are all interpretations of one experimentally proven theory, and there is no interpretation where everything is predetermined that I have not yet discussed; perhaps other than what is referred to as "superdeterminism." Superdeterminism is a gross explanation of the anthopric principle and is more in line with creationism then what I'm arguing for, as all I said was it is in all likelihood completely random, and non-local hidden variables(if you had actually taken the time to read the blogs and documentation that I had linked to) have all but been ruled out already. Fundamental reality is probabilistic, and is in no way, shape, or form predetermined. Just because you want this to be true simply doesn't make it true.

 

There is nothing creationist about probability, if anything it is more aligned with the polar opposite, that everything is in fact the result of blind cumulative processes over time(whether fundamental or emergent/timeless). There is no magic and I never said that protons "know" if they're being observed. That has nothing to do with many of the probabilistic interpretations that I had presented to you; for more information you could read up on Wikipedia, or Google. i also agree with Steven Hawking(not hawkings) that there is no free will, please note that the nondeterministic nature of quantum physics does not allow for freewill at all as you have no control of the underlying neuronal reactions in you brain, much in the same way that you have no control over the inner workings of your thyroid gland. Quantum mechanics is an experimentally verified indeterministic theory, and there really isn't much more room for a deterministic interpretation of it anymore. Please re-read my other posts, and also read the links, as I take it you must have skimmed if you honestly believe that reality is predetermined.

The problem occurs in that the neuronal reactions in our brain have already determined what we will do but everything is random, thus surely our neuronal reactions haven't decided what were going to do.

If the very building blocks of the universe is random, thus in turn everything else has to be equally random, making prediction completely impossible, it'd also mean that working out the probability of something is impossible as randomness follows no rules, so all outcomes are equally random. This would then completely contradict bells theorem as no matter what, it would always be a correlation that's completely random.

Yet its always 1, 0, or -1 in bells theorem.

Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random?

Visa versa, if the very lowest level of the universe is following a set of rules, thus not random, we don't have free will, as were following a set of rules, thus determinism/super-determinism would be correct in this case.

I mean, if were going all pro-randomness then the laws of nature don't exist? I mean, if its random it can't follow a rule, thus no laws of nature, and FTL is allowed, bells theorem is wrong, ooh lovely Galileo was wrong, the orbits are just randomly made of randomness so tomorrow we might fall into the sun. Most of science falls out the window because most of science says the universe follows X and Y rules.

[Hybr1d]

The problem occurs in that the neuronal reactions in our brain have already determined what we will do but everything is random, thus surely our neuronal reactions haven't decided what were going to do.

Please pick up a physics text book(as I have had to do) and start learning before you make irrational claims about things you don't even understand.

 

Yes at the classical level physics works determinstically, and at the subatomic level they don't. The indeterminancy gives rise to the determinism in the universe. My nine year old nephew understands this. As the brains are classical our neuronal reactions are determinstic yes(most likely, baring any quantum brain pseudoscience), so again as said before the classical determinism is emergent from indeterminate quantum physics.

 

If the very building blocks of the universe is random, thus in turn everything else has to be equally random, making prediction completely impossible, it'd also mean that working out the probability of something is impossible as randomness follows no rules, so all outcomes are equally random. This would then completely contradict bells theorem as no matter what, it would always be a correlation that's completely random.

Yet its always 1, 0, or -1 in bells theorem.

Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random?

 

You made the same argument twice, and no it is incorrect, please read up on bayesian probability.

 

Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random?

Visa versa, if the very lowest level of the universe is following a set of rules, thus not random, we don't have free will, as were following a set of rules, thus determinism/super-determinism would be correct in this case.

I mean, if were going all pro-randomness then the laws of nature don't exist? I mean, if its random it can't follow a rule, thus no laws of nature, and FTL is allowed, bells theorem is wrong, ooh lovely Galileo was wrong, the orbits are just randomly made of randomness so tomorrow we might fall into the sun. Most of science falls out the window because most of science says the universe follows X and Y rules.

 

After reading this, as with your similar post in the other thread, I'm giving up trying to argue with you. I feel as though I'm debating with a brick wall. You have no argument, please stop fabricating things. Everything you just said is so wrong it clearly demonstrates you lack of integrity in actually reading up on the subjects that you are taking a position on. No FTL is not allowed in ANY probablistic quantum interpretation. Not one. Where did you pull that fact from I wonder?

 

Bell's theorem isn't "wrong", can you prove it is? There's a nobel prize if you do I'm sure, but several expirements have proven it is a substantiated no-go theorem.

 

 

Whatever the very lowest level of the universe is, the rest has to follow suit, so if the very lowest level of the universe is random, we have free will as our actions are random?

Visa versa, if the very lowest level of the universe is following a set of rules, thus not random, we don't have free will, as were following a set of rules, thus determinism/super-determinism would be correct in this case.

 

We do not have freewill, and I never claimed we did.

 

ooh lovely Galileo was wrong, the orbits are just randomly made of randomness so tomorrow we might fall into the sun. Most of science falls out the window because most of science says the universe follows X and Y rules

 

This is so overblown it again shows you simply do not want to, or are intellectually incapable of thinking rationally.

[Cuba]

Time can be altered by speed. How can something be altered and yet not have substance or interaction?

 

Forgive me if thats a stupid question (just an interested philosopher a bit out of his depth) but it seems the basis for the argument stated here is proved or disproved by that assumption.

[Strange]

Time can be altered by speed. How can something be altered and yet not have substance or interaction?

 

Distance has no substance or interaction, but can be altered simply by moving.

[puppypower]

Randomness can lead to predetermination. This is possible in liquid state physics. One example of this is osmosis. In an osmosis, two chambers are separated by a semi-permeable membrane. One side is a pure liquid, like water and on the other side is water plus salt. The pure water will diffuse though the membrane in the direction of the ionic side, driven by an entropy increase, as the pure water randomizes on the ionic side. The water is randomizing and increasing entropy, yet this randomization generates a consistent predetermined pressure called the osmotic pressure.

 

The movement of the water, at the micro-level is random yet the pressure at the macro-level is consistent and predetermined. All we need to know is the concentration of water doing the randomizing. Osmosis is a colligative property meaning it only depends on concentration and not which ions or diluents are present. It is connected to only entropy. Most of physics uses gas and solid state analogies. This example is more obvious in chemistry which deals in liquids . If the universe was modeled as a liquid, than a random micro can lead to macro order.

 

One possible example of this is the quantum universe. We live in a quantum universe. In a quantum universe, only certain predetermined states are possible. The electron spectra of hydrogen has only distinct predetermined lines. This is not random. This is different from a continuous universe, where all states are possible. A quantum universe is less random than a continuous universe, In a quantum universe, all the dice are loaded compared to a continuous universe; six sided dice become two sided. Based on liquid state physics and a random micro leading to a order and predetermined macro, quantum may be the macro result.

Edited October 7, 2015 by puppypower

[Cuba]

 

Distance has no substance or interaction, but can be altered simply by moving.

Distance can be observed and measured in all directions. How is that not substantial?

 

Also is not distance a key factor in how all things interact? Maybe I'm just not good with the terminology.

 

But to say that time is insubstantial and that its effect on everything is not an interaction it makes me wonder what is and does.

 

Distance is space, time seems to be the antithisis of space. So more space less time and visa versa. I beleive thats part of Einsteins theory? They interact with each other in that way. Which seems to suggest they have substance. Or can something interact and yet not have substance and visa versa?

 

Correct me please, purely learning here.

[Strange]

Distance and time are equivalent measures of the seperation of events (in space-time).

 

If you think distance is "substantial" (a pretty unconventional use of the word) then so is time.