Is a deterministic universe as profoundly counter intuitive for you too?

[koti]

I'm curious what are purely philosophical opinions on this subject. For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality. Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list. What do you think ?

[Strange]

Quantum mechanics is one reason why the universe is not (as far as we can tell) fully deterministic.

 

So one counter-intuitive thing cancels out another!

[koti]

Strange - I agree and hopefuly you are right that modern QM shows that a fully deterministic universe is not a reality, Hawkings work shows that. I guess I'm kind of mad that something so profoundly contradicting my nature is the subject of debate (speaking purely from philosophical point of view) I kinda like your canceling out analogy but unfortunately that is not how things work

[studiot]

OK so I am going to do you the courtesy of assuming you are not another preacher (we have had too many just lately).

 

So I will ask what you mean by your first post as it seems to me to have a contradiction. (second sentence v the third)

 

Are you for or against determinism?

 

What do you you think are the alternatives?

Edited August 19, 2016 by studiot

[koti]

OK so I am going to do you the courtesy of assuming you are not another preacher (we have had too many just lately).

Your assumption is very correct. I went throught some topics on this forum and I see what you are reffering to.

 

So I will ask what you mean by your first post as it seems to me to have a contradiction. (second sentence v the third)

Which 2 sentences are you reffering to ?

 

Are you for or against determinism?

I'm against determinism.

 

What do you you think are the alternatives?

Chance. Isn't it obvious ?

Edited August 19, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

OK so I am going to do you the courtesy of assuming you are not another preacher (we have had too many just lately).

Your assumption is very correct. I went throught some topics on this forum and I see what you are reffering to.

 

Very glad to hear it, welcome.

 

 

 

 

So I will ask what you mean by your first post as it seems to me to have a contradiction. (second sentence v the third)

Which 2 sentences are you reffering to ?

 

(your) Post#1 contained three sentences.

 

Sentence 2 seemed against determinism, sentence 3 seemed against one of the alternatives.

 

Confusing in a logical discussion.

 

 

Hence the next question.

 

 

 

Are you for or against determinism?

I'm against determinism

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

What do you you think are the alternatives?

Chance. Isn't it obvious ?

 

 

Is chance the only possibility?

 

This is where it gets difficult, philosophically.

 

We have had several thread discussing these difficulties.

I will try to find them for you.

 

But you need to be sure what you mean by 'chance'.

 

(Also determinism but that is more readily) defined.

Edited August 19, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Also worth noting that chaos theory tells us that there are things which are completely deterministic but not predictable.

 

So, it seems that the universe is not deterministic but even if it were, it wouldn't be predictable. That's good enough for me.

[koti]

Let me try to put my thoughts on this into perspective but first...

I'm very glad that you are very glad Studiot. Although don't judge me yet...I have been accused of "preaching" in drunken debates. Mainly by conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists though so I guess it doesn't count
I presume the 2 sentences you are reffering to are:
1. "For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality"
2. "Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list"

English is not my first language so please excuse me and explain how these 2 sentences contradict each other ?

 

As I wrote in the title of this thread, a deterministic universe feels profoundly counter intuitive to me. On the physics level, Heisenbergs and Plancks ( about 100 years ago if I'm correct) works in its essence debunk a deterministic reality - all good here.

What I'm ranting about is why do people have an intuition so profoundly different then mine - my philosophical rant. As for putting my thoughts into perspective, here's an example of what I'm talking about...the other day me and my wife watched a movie called "127 hours" by Danny Boyle about a guy who got trapped in the mountains by a rock clinching his arm for 127 hours. The poor guy (its a pretty good movie based on a true story btw) had some emotional moments in which he "accused" the rock of flying in space for millions of years before fullfilling its goal of trapping him in that mountain. He also mentioned that all his life, every step he took, every action he made took him to that morbid moment when he tripped and got trapped. I've never been in such a crappy situation (not gonna spoil it for you with details in case you want to watch it) but I had my share of mayhem in life and I'm pretty sure that his philosophical aproach is BS in my book.

I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed
Oh and yes, apparently I came here to complain and rant about a movie but please don't ban me yet.

PS.
Studiot...please do post the links to the threads you mentioned.
Strange...from the physics point of view - good enough for me to.

[ajb]

To some extent this all depends on what you mean by deterministic. Standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics of a single particle is deterministic - give me the state at time t = 0 and I can give you the state at any other time. It is just that the results of measuremants are now stated using probability theory.

 

Non-determinstic really means that stochastics plays a role - the dynamics itself involves randomness and probability.

 

We usually see this when we make approximations when dealing with large numbers of objects. For example, the whole subject of statistical phsyics is just that - using 'averages' to get at bulk properties.

 

Another thing, as Strange speaks of, is chaos theory. Here the system is determanistic (usually) but very sensative to initial conditions - even if you start at two near by initial conditions after finite time you may end up at states that are very different. Models of the climate are like this and so people run many computer similations with similar initial conditions and then average over all this to make statistical predictions.

 

So, is the Universe deterministic - I think so, in the sense I have given above. The problem is that we can mathematically deal with only a few interacting objects at a time and are forced to use statistical methods rather quickly.

[koti]

ajb...What you wrote is clear and I agree with it. What is your aproach purely on a plilosophical level on the issue from the film I described above? What would be your thoughts in this guys situation?

[ajb]

What would be your thoughts in this guys situation?

You question if the rock had any purpose and that part of this purpose was to trap this guy?

 

I don't think there is any great purpose to anything, we make our own purpose as we are able to. The rock is just a rock.

[koti]

You question if the rock had any purpose and that part of this purpose was to trap this guy?I don't think there is any great purpose to anything, we make our own purpose as we are able to. The rock is just a rock.

I can already see that coming to this forum will do my nerves a great deal of good. Glad to be here.

[Memammal]

Very interesting narrative/analogy. Block-Universe Determinism/Eternalism suggests that the accident depicted in the referenced movie would have been unavoidable. The character has indeed, since the day he was born, moved along his "predetermined" or "fixed" personal path through a static environment/universe, experiencing his reality (his life) spacetime-slice at a time, towards that particular (inevitable) spacetime-slice of reality, that directly experienced qualia...the accident and the time that followed it. Similarly he would have no free will in determining his next step...it has already happened...he has just not experienced it yet.

 

Allegedly our brains have highly evolved mitigating mechanisms to alter our sense of reality so that we can cope with our experiences in a "meaningful" (or "chronological") way...i.e. we perceive "our reality" as events unfolding around us (randomly) with the passing of time. Which is why we "instinctively" feel uncomfortable with the notion that it is in fact us who are moving through- and experiencing different slices of our static (deterministic) world line.

 

A deterministic universe does not necessarily imply a supernatural designer/god. Admittedly one could argue in favour of a deistic or pantheistic "god", but a personal and/or involved god would hardly fit such a paradigm.

 

There seem to be quite a few parallels with the other ongoing thread "Is Space-Time a Physical Entity or a Mathematical Model?"

 

PS. The irony of it is that a deterministic block universe could also be compared to a movie...it is a done event, we can rewind or forward, watching any part thereof but nothing will change...

Edited August 22, 2016 by Memammal

[koti]

Very interesting narrative/analogy. Block-Universe Determinism/Eternalism suggests that the accident depicted in the referenced movie would have been unavoidable. The character has indeed, since the day he was born, moved along his "predetermined" or "fixed" personal path through a static environment/universe, experiencing his reality (his life) spacetime-slice at a time, towards that particular (inevitable) spacetime-slice of reality, that directly experienced qualia...the accident and the time that followed it. Similarly he would have no free will in determining his next step...it has already happened...he has just not experienced it yet.

 

Allegedly our brains have highly evolved mitigating mechanisms to alter our sense of reality so that we can cope with our experiences in a "meaningful" (or "chronological") way...i.e. we perceive "our reality" as events unfolding around us (randomly) with the passing of time. Which is why we "instinctively" feel uncomfortable with the notion that it is in fact us who are moving through- and experiencing different slices of our static (deterministic) world line.

 

A deterministic universe does not necessarily imply a supernatural designer/god. Admittedly one could argue in favour of a deistic or pantheistic "god", but a personal and/or involved god would hardly fit such a paradigm.

 

There seem to be quite a few parallels with the other ongoing thread "Is Space-Time a Physical Entity or a Mathematical Model?"

 

PS. The irony of it is that a deterministic block universe could also be compared to a movie...it is a done event, we can rewind or forward, watching any part thereof but nothing will change...

 

I like the irony which you caught. I don't think I can agree with that view on the universe but the irony is sleek When you talk about "slices" are you loosely referencing the holographic universe theory or the multiverse theory or some other theory? I'm not familiar with "Block-Universe Determinism" I will have to put it on my list of stuff to check out. I'm having a real difficulty in coping with: "the accident depicted in the referenced movie would have been unavoidable" It's like drinking freshly squezed lemon juice

[Memammal]

^ Block Universe (or Eternalism) is a well-established scientific view based on the theory of relativity and of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block". I posted quite a lengthy post on it some time ago, which may be a good starting point: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89861-is-it-the-universe-created-alone-yes-or-not-only-yes-or-not/page-12#entry925429.

 

You may also want to explore these clips taken from an episode of "Through The Wormhole": http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/playlist-can-time-go-backwards/

Edited August 24, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

I'm curious what are purely philosophical opinions on this subject. For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality.

 

I'm not sure why the old-fashioned idea of a "clockwork universe" is so counter-intuitive. It seems kind of obvious that if you knew the position and velocities of all particles you predict where they would end up - like a giant game of snooker.

[koti]

^ Block Universe (or Eternalism) is a well-established scientific view based on the theory of relativity and of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block". I posted quite a lengthy post on it some time ago, which may be a good starting point: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89861-is-it-the-universe-created-alone-yes-or-not-only-yes-or-not/page-12#entry925429.

 

You may also want to explore these clips taken from an episode of "Through The Wormhole": http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/playlist-can-time-go-backwards/

 

Will do, thank you for sharing.

 

 

I'm not sure why the old-fashioned idea of a "clockwork universe" is so counter-intuitive. It seems kind of obvious that if you knew the position and velocities of all particles you predict where they would end up - like a giant game of snooker.

 

To me it doesn't feel right. And it's not just because of QM which states that the universe is not fully deterministic - I felt that way before I knew that.

[studiot]

 

I'm not sure why the old-fashioned idea of a "clockwork universe" is so counter-intuitive. It seems kind of obvious that if you knew the position and velocities of all particles you predict where they would end up - like a giant game of snooker.

 

 

 

Strange is right

The 'clockwork universe' idea goes back a long way, and held sway in scientific and philosophical circles from the renaissance right up to the late victorian times.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe

 

The block universe is a much newer idea

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

 

 

The former is falsified by radioactivity as we know it.

 

The latter suggests the intriguing thought that both determinism and chance are false since they both rely on change.

[koti]

 

 

 

Strange is right

The 'clockwork universe' idea goes back a long way, and held sway in scientific and philosophical circles from the renaissance right up to the late victorian times.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe

 

The block universe is a much newer idea

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

 

 

The former is falsified by radioactivity as we know it.

 

The latter suggests the intriguing thought that both determinism and chance are false since they both rely on change.

I will need to read up on the "block universe" idea before I can continue this discussiin as I clearly do not have the tools.

[Ten oz]

 

Let me try to put my thoughts on this into perspective but first...

I'm very glad that you are very glad Studiot. Although don't judge me yet...I have been accused of "preaching" in drunken debates. Mainly by conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists though so I guess it doesn't count

I presume the 2 sentences you are reffering to are:

1. "For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality"

2. "Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list"

English is not my first language so please excuse me and explain how these 2 sentences contradict each other ?

 

As I wrote in the title of this thread, a deterministic universe feels profoundly counter intuitive to me. On the physics level, Heisenbergs and Plancks ( about 100 years ago if I'm correct) works in its essence debunk a deterministic reality - all good here.

 

What I'm ranting about is why do people have an intuition so profoundly different then mine - my philosophical rant. As for putting my thoughts into perspective, here's an example of what I'm talking about...the other day me and my wife watched a movie called "127 hours" by Danny Boyle about a guy who got trapped in the mountains by a rock clinching his arm for 127 hours. The poor guy (its a pretty good movie based on a true story btw) had some emotional moments in which he "accused" the rock of flying in space for millions of years before fullfilling its goal of trapping him in that mountain. He also mentioned that all his life, every step he took, every action he made took him to that morbid moment when he tripped and got trapped. I've never been in such a crappy situation (not gonna spoil it for you with details in case you want to watch it) but I had my share of mayhem in life and I'm pretty sure that his philosophical aproach is BS in my book.

 

I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed

Oh and yes, apparently I came here to complain and rant about a movie but please don't ban me yet.

 

PS.

Studiot...please do post the links to the threads you mentioned.

Strange...from the physics point of view - good enough for me to.

 

Depends on context. Causality is not voodoo. Just because we don't always see the relationship between what has happened and the reason for doesn't make it pure chance. A coin flip isn't pure chance. There are different odds for flipping tails twice in a row than just flipping it once and clear variables for why those odds are different. The more we learn the less chance seems to be a driver in life. Whether it is a genetic predisposition to cancer or or the increased likelihood that a daredevil canyon explorer who ventures into the desert without notifying people or bringing safety supplies ends up in a perilous situation there are reasons for many things.

[Strange]

I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed

 

That seems to be a completely separate question.

 

You can have a deterministic universe where things happen for a reason.

You can have a non-deterministic universe where things happen for a reason.

You can have a deterministic universe where things happen for no reason.

You can have a non-deterministic universe where things happen for no reason.

 

Although causality always applies. I assume you mean something more than that by "a reason" (e.g. karma, fate, god, whatver)

Edited August 24, 2016 by Strange

[koti]

"I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed "

 

This was sarcasm, nothing else.

 

 

 

Strange is right

The 'clockwork universe' idea goes back a long way, and held sway in scientific and philosophical circles from the renaissance right up to the late victorian times.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe

 

The block universe is a much newer idea

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

 

 

The former is falsified by radioactivity as we know it.

 

The latter suggests the intriguing thought that both determinism and chance are false since they both rely on change.

 

 

^ Block Universe (or Eternalism) is a well-established scientific view based on the theory of relativity and of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block". I posted quite a lengthy post on it some time ago, which may be a good starting point: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89861-is-it-the-universe-created-alone-yes-or-not-only-yes-or-not/page-12#entry925429.

 

You may also want to explore these clips taken from an episode of "Through The Wormhole": http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/playlist-can-time-go-backwards/

 

Wife keeps telling me to watch a movie with her so I havent had much time to either dig into these in detail nor I will have time to answer in detail so here's a very short summary of the concepts you guys gave me to check out studiot & Memammal :

 

- The 'clockwork universe' idea seems very crude. From what I read on the wiki it smells really bad to me.

- The wiki on the 'Block Universe' concept smells a lot better. I didn't get rid of my discomfort (the analogy from the movie) by reading about this concept but it does seem interesting. Especially the idea that the block universe might resolve the information paradox in black holes by treating time on equal rights with space seems especialy interesting. That concept which states that time is on equal rights with space is intuitively comfortable to me. Back when I was an early teenager and had no idea what GR or QM are this concept felt comfortable to me.

- The cutout from the Morgan Freeman episode Memammal posted does a great job at explaining the complexity of time and its fantastic relativistic implications. It is clear to me or at least I hope I'm right it is clear to me that Einstein's "everyone's now" from that episode does not explain my problem with the analogy from the movie. I'm thinking now something that I havent realised before...maybe my problem with this is of a religious nature not physical nature. Meaning that maybe my problem is with that hiker guy believing in the rock fullfilling its purpose and believing that his own existence inevitably brought him to the tragic moment of being trapped.

 

 

 

[studiot]

"I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed "

 

This was sarcasm, nothing else.

 

 

 

Wife keeps telling me to watch a movie with her so I havent had much time to either dig into these in detail nor I will have time to answer in detail so here's a very short summary of the concepts you guys gave me to check out studiot & Memammal :

 

- The 'clockwork universe' idea seems very crude. From what I read on the wiki it smells really bad to me.

- The wiki on the 'Block Universe' concept smells a lot better. I didn't get rid of my discomfort (the analogy from the movie) by reading about this concept but it does seem interesting. Especially the idea that the block universe might resolve the information paradox in black holes by treating time on equal rights with space seems especialy interesting. That concept which states that time is on equal rights with space is intuitively comfortable to me. Back when I was an early teenager and had no idea what GR or QM are this concept felt comfortable to me.

- The cutout from the Morgan Freeman episode Memammal posted does a great job at explaining the complexity of time and its fantastic relativistic implications. It is clear to me or at least I hope I'm right it is clear to me that Einstein's "everyone's now" from that episode does not explain my problem with the analogy from the movie. I'm thinking now something that I havent realised before...maybe my problem with this is of a religious nature not physical nature. Meaning that maybe my problem is with that hiker guy believing in the rock fullfilling its purpose and believing that his own existence inevitably brought him to the tragic moment of being trapped.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but this is a science forum; assertions like "it smells bad" are not adequate reasons for rejection, scientifically speaking.

 

You quoted my comments where I referred to the first and main phenomenon that disproves determinism, but made no reference to it ??

 

 

Again you quoted my reference to the Block Universe, without reference to my observation of the logical consequence of its construction, but did pick out the " equal footing" concept from one of the links.

In fact the footing is not quite equal since there is a factor of the speed of light needed to modify the time axis to 'equalise'. this footing.

Did you also pick this part out?

Edited August 24, 2016 by studiot

[koti]

 

I'm sorry but this is a science forum; assertions like "it smells bad" are not adequate reasons for rejection, scientifically speaking.

 

You quoted my comments where I referred to the first and main phenomenon that disproves determinism, but made no reference to it ??

 

 

Again you quoted my reference to the Block Universe, without reference to my observation of the logical consequence of its construction, but did pick out the " equal footing" concept from one of the links.

In fact the footing is not quite equal since there is a factor of the speed of light needed to modify the time axis to 'equalise'. this footing.

Did you also pick this part out?

I used a colloquialism to short cut my thoughts on the clockwork universe concept. I apologise if I offended you or bent the forum rules.

I will need more time to examine the "Growing Block Universe" concept.

[studiot]

I used a colloquialism to short cut my thoughts on the clockwork universe concept. I apologise if I offended you or bent the forum rules.

I will need more time to examine the "Growing Block Universe" concept.

 

No problem, but you had been arguing so cogently that I thought I'd mention it.

 

Intuition is a double edged sword that can lead one astray.

 

Determinism basically means predictable by a chain of reasoning

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary

 

The doctrine that everything that happens is determined by a necessary chain of causation.

 

Now this was fine and dandy and led to many spectacular scientific successes, not least the kinetic theory.

 

So it seemed a reasonable proposition in say 1890 that given enough data about every particle it would in principle be possible to predict the future course of each and every particle and therefore the universe.

 

It was not quantum theory or relativity (special relativity is deterministic) that put the cat amongst the pigeons).

 

It was radioactivity.

 

It is not possible to determine the future course of any radioactive particle, only averages of aggregates of them.

 

 

 

I said that the block universe refutes both chance and determinism.

 

Both of these are about the process of arriving at a future course ie a process of change.

 

In order for there to be a future course it is necessary for there to be change.

 

But since everything is already set in the block universe and is immutable, but definition, there is no change.

 

Does this help progress here ?

Edited August 25, 2016 by studiot