Can the Universe Be Determined?

[An Average Joe]

Somebody call the p-o-l-i-c-e, I just killed determinism.

Free will is derivable via physics, by a slight modification of Planck time !

Here is the outline of the derivation.


1) Max Planck was almost right, but not quite. Time is not finitely
divisible in an absolute sense. Rather, there is a smallest subdivision
which is observable, further subdivisions are simply not observable.

2) Anything smaller than this will appear to be nonexistent, but the
phenomena is relativistic because it is a mirage caused by extreme
differences in relative scales. There is a sub-Planck realm which appears to
be nonexistent.

3) Initial conditions of any dynamical process will always have a footprint
in this sub-Planck realm. It's unavoidable.

4) Man cannot know these initial conditions, and neither can the universe
itself. Those initial conditions are, in part, relatively nonexistent.

5) Therefore, the universe cannot be determined. And, this explains why
everything you look at seems to be a mixture of order and disorder.There is
no such thing as perfect disorder, nor will you ever see perfect order.
Everything in nature is a blend of these. Chaos - everywhere.



I know it sounds crazy, but I am seriously wondering if such a thing can be true !

 

[selfAdjoint]

I know it sounds crazy, but I am seriously wondering if such a thing can be true !

What it sounds is Wrong. You are trying to critique and replace something you don't really understand. Determinism is alive and well, at least as much as it ever was.

 

[An Average Joe]

Can you identify the specific errors please.

Determinism died on Sept 15 2005, in Chicago.

A very slight modification of Planck time yields this surprising result.

If you don't believe it, please cite errors.

 

[hypnagogue]

1) Max Planck was almost right, but not quite. Time is not finitely divisible in an absolute sense. Rather, there is a smallest subdivision which is observable, further subdivisions are simply not observable.

How do you know this? What evidence or theory supports this?

2) Anything smaller than this will appear to be nonexistent, but the phenomena is relativistic because it is a mirage caused by extreme differences in relative scales. There is a sub-Planck realm which appears to be nonexistent.

See above.

All of your premises are questionable, but let's start with these two. What's your justification?

 

[An Average Joe]

OK - I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

1) Max Planck was almost right, but not quite. Time is not finitely divisible in an absolute sense. Rather, there is a smallest subdivision which is observable, further subdivisions are simply not observable.

Justification:
Planck time, were it absolute, could be used to argue that the universe itself does not exist. If there is an absolute smallest subdivision of time, then below that boundary you would have absolute nonexistence. Cant happen. All you get is a paradox. Consider R3, and consider that there is a smallest possible subdivision of any axis. Crazy things start happening.

Quantum weirdness suggests dynamics in 3-space where time is nonexistent. This cannot happen - unless the transition from 4-space to 3-space is an illusion, or a mirage caused by time becoming "unobservable".

I could go into greater detail, but trying to keep it short.


2) Anything smaller than this will appear to be nonexistent, but the phenomena is relativistic because it is a mirage caused by extreme differences in relative scales. There is a sub-Planck realm which appears to be nonexistent.


OK - there is a triviality regarding time, and it goes like this. "Anything can be said to happen in zero seconds. Also, anything which happens in zero seconds is trivial."

Watch this - "I just jumped over the moon. I really did. I did it in exactly zero seconds, and returned to my exact position and nobody even saw it happen." OK - this statement is not really false because it's trivial. So, extend the idea -and you get :

If time becomes "unobservable" on extremely small scales, then things will begin to "appear" nonexistent. So, Planck scale is NOT an absolute bottom, this is an illusion. We see the bottom due to vast differences in scale, but it's a mirage. There really is more universe on smaller scales, but it "appears" nonexistent, because as time becomes unobservable things will seem to not exist.

After all - "I was the wealthiest man on Earth, for zero seconds.". Not a false statement. Is it true ? I don't know, but certainly not false. It's trivial.

I could cite many experiments from QM showing how each experiment suggests dynamics in 3-space with no time dimension, but things would start getting long. The only reasonable explanation is that time becomes unobservable on extreme scales. It cannot simply cease to be subdivisible as Planck said.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

Justification:
Planck time, were it absolute, could be used to argue that the universe itself does not exist. If there is an absolute smallest subdivision of time, then below that boundary you would have absolute nonexistence. Cant happen. All you get is a paradox. Consider R3, and consider that there is a smallest possible subdivision of any axis. Crazy things start happening.

i think you don't quite know what the plank time is.

I could cite many experiments from QM showing how each experiment suggests dynamics in 3-space with no time dimension

please do.

 

[Pi_314B]

1) Max Planck was almost right, but not quite. Time is not finitely
divisible in an absolute sense. Rather, there is a smallest subdivision
which is observable, further subdivisions are simply not observable.

I would agree that time is infinitely divisible.
You lose me when you say that there are smaller divisions unobservable. I'm guessing that you make this assertion because time is infinitely divisable, therefor time is infinitely chopped into smaller and smaller pieces, but I fail to see what makes this so. Can you post a few sentences that follows some logical path that would buttress this possibility?

There are two different breeds here.
Infinitely divisable time and the smallest unit of time. One is defined and one is not (Same beast different breed).

 

[bola]

Just because Planck time doesn't have any meaning below that scale, doesn't mean that there is no time there, you say non-existant as if we trusted our current scientific view to be correct.

 

[hypnagogue]

I'm going to close this thread, since the primary territory it covers is more physics than philosophy, and this physics is speculative. Average Joe, if you are interested in continuing to pursue these ideas at Physics Forums, you might want to try submitting your ideas (without withholding necessary details to keep it short) to the Independent Research forum (see the sticky in that forum for rules of submission).