Mathematica Are Our Thoughts and Actions Determined by Mathematics? | A Curious Inquiry

[Bannon]

I am wondering if every one of my moves and thoughts are mathematically linked to the beginning of time, and that changing this long chain of event is mathematically impossible.

A yes or no answer will do.

 

[linux kid]

I am wondering if every one of my moves and thoughts are mathematically linked to the beginning of time, and that changing this long chain of event is mathematically impossible.

A yes or no answer will do.

edited, sorry for the dumb comment. :)

 

[Gokul43201]

I am wondering if every one of my moves and thoughts are mathematically linked to the beginning of time, and that changing this long chain of event is mathematically impossible.

A yes or no answer will do.

No. /* ...*/

 

[Bannon]

It simply was an argument i was engaged in, to prove that everything happens as a result of what happened prior to it, and whatever happens in the future, including our own thoughts and decisions, are part of a sequence of reactions dictated by the laws of physics.

But apparently not. This must be untrue and that there will always be uncertainty in the universe.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I think the answer is unresolved at this stage in time (although dominant QM interpretation is that everything is fundamentally random rather than determinate).

 

[mubashirmansoor]

From my point of view Yes.
But followed by the laws and equations that are not yet discovered...
About the QM , EPR paradox might be correct... Its not yet totally rejected.

 

[neurocomp2003]

It depends on if you view the universe as having a fundamental set of objects/geometries/primitives and that the entire set obeys some set of rules(??countable/uncountable??)...if yes then there will be no uncertainty and everything will be predictable...but infeasible for your lifespan.

else the universe would be made of infinitely many things of "infinitely" many small sizes.

Uncertainty is a result of "magic" or incomplete comprehension of the system.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Extreamly beutifull neurocomp2003

 

[DaveC426913]

I am wondering if every one of my moves and thoughts are mathematically linked to the beginning of time, and that changing this long chain of event is mathematically impossible.

A yes or no answer will do.

Look up "classical Newtonian deterministic universe" and "quantum mechanics" and "Uncertainty".

The Newtonian world thought the answer was yes. The newer quantum world thinks the answer is no.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I think yes. A single inhomogenity has developed the complexity of our Universe.

 

[gabee]

I used to think yes, and I believed the universe was deterministic; but, since learning a little more about quantum mechanics, I have to say I'm not sure.

 

[light_bulb]

yes, but big numbers and only if the universe is not infinite, find a boundry first. if those two thing can't be quantized then it's a no.

 

[Crosson]

The answer is yes, to say anything else is to have little faith in mathematics.

How silly that people think QM is relevant to Determinism.

 

[verty]

I don't see how it is relevant at all, to tell you the truth.

 

[Bannon]

if yes then there will be no uncertainty and everything will be predictable.

So, if this prediction were exposed to us, we could deliberately change it. I am thinking this is a problem.

If so, what happened to the predetermined universe? is it the existence of multiverses that allows randomness? or undeterminability? I really lose hours of sleep trying to answer myself.

 

[light_bulb]

The answer is yes, to say anything else is to have little faith in mathematics.

faith in math? i thought the thing about math is that it's either right, wrong or a conjecture not yet proven.

 

[neurocomp2003]

Bannon: you are a part of the system, but in essence you be bring up the concept of psychology's free will...and if there exists free will then mostlikely you will be able to entice/change the system IF you were able to find out the laws of nature and hte universe.

but then again, as you and everyone else are a part of the system you would need to predict your behavior and everyone else's...unless you were talking about just altering a local region of space.

 

[gabee]

The answer is yes, to say anything else is to have little faith in mathematics.

How silly that people think QM is relevant to Determinism.

How is it silly? Quantum mechanics is probabilistic and quantum interactions (to the best of our present knowledge) do not occur in deterministic ways, unlike interactions in the classical realm. And apparently there is something wrong with hidden variables theories, which argue that there may be deterministic behavior in the quantum realm, we just don't have all the knowledge to predict it.

Quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, meaning that it generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it merely tells us what the probabilities of the outcomes are. This leads to the strange situation where measurements of a certain property done on two identical systems can give different answers. The question naturally arises whether there might be some deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables_theory

So does God play dice with the universe? I think this is a relevant question when dealing with determinism.

 

[light_bulb]

what happens you use something like chaos theory as representive of free will?

 

[Chien Yi Lee]

Revisit of Leibnitz, who started this

Subject: Revisit of Leibnitz, who started this

The study of the future might be more relevant than the study of the past, but the study of the past is essential in discovering time-invariant elements in our universe or multi-universe, such as non-violable laws of nature. For example, science is backward looking, and social science is forward looking. [Chien Yi Lee on Self-creation]

 

[Crosson]

faith in math? i thought the thing about math is that it's either right, wrong or a conjecture not yet proven.

I don't mean faith in the sense "I have faith in the axioms of ZF set theory and their consequences (theorems)" but rather I mean having faith in the ability of mathematical thinking to apply to the situation i.e. that their are "rules" of the universe.

How is it silly? Quantum mechanics is probabilistic ...

Quantum Mechanics is deterministic i.e. given the state of a particle at t_0 the state of the particle at any later time t is known exactly.

Please phrase to me what you think is nondeterministic about QM and how that feature of the theory implies nondeterminism in the universe.

(As a side note I think quoting wikipedia in a forum is funny; would I win the argument if I went and edited the wikipedia entry to conform to my view?)

what happens you use something like chaos theory as representive of free will?

Chaos theory applies to deterministic systems, so a description of the universe in terms of decohered quantum states (macroscopic bodies) acting according to (nonlinear) Newtonian forces is not compatible with metaphysical free will.

If you are asking "can the methods of nonlinear dynamics describe the richness of apperently free acts?" the answer is that although they might apply, it is unclear whether we will ever be able to integrate (produce solutions to) this description more quickly then Nature (itself a supercomputer if it is indeed subject to description by mathematics).

 

[Bannon]

If this universe is deterministic, then a supercomputer could reveal any region in spacetime, including past, present and future systems existing within it. This would create a new chain of reactions not included in the original determination of the universe, and could only be a determined event in another universe.

This is the only idea that doesn't seem to fall apart in my head.

 

[gabee]

Personally, I believe there may be a more complete theory than quantum mechanics that yields deterministic predictions. Right now, I'm only talking about quantum mechanics and its relation to determinism, but I do appreciate you discussing this with me--I haven't studied quantum theory yet.

Quantum Mechanics is deterministic i.e. given the state of a particle at t_0 the state of the particle at any later time t is known exactly.

Apparently that depends on your interpretation of what the wavefunction is:

So quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates). Since we have no practical way of knowing the exact magnitudes, and especially the phases, in a full quantum mechanical description of the causes of an observable event, this turns out to be philosophically similar to the "hidden variable" doctrine.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/Determinism

whereas if you interpret the wavefunction as being the "probability of classical coordinates" rather than part of reality itself, QM is nondeterministic.

I'm trying to correct my own understanding of all this, because the only way I can resolve the idea that two identical quantum systems can evolve differently is either to believe that there are hidden variables or that there is some kind of inherent randomness in the universe.

Please phrase to me what you think is nondeterministic about QM and how that feature of the theory implies nondeterminism in the universe.

One of the most famous examples (pre-entanglement) is that of radioactive beta decay. If one looks at the emission of one electron, as one atom decays, one can only determine the probability that the electron will emerge during a given period of time. Hidden variables (inside each atom) would be neccesary to determine the precise moment that each atom decays and emits an electron.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/Hidden_variables_theory

(As a side note I think quoting wikipedia in a forum is funny; would I win the argument if I went and edited the wikipedia entry to conform to my view?)

cheater. :P

If this universe is deterministic, then a supercomputer could reveal any region in spacetime, including past, present and future systems existing within it. This would create a new chain of reactions not included in the original determination of the universe, and could only be a determined event in another universe.

This is the only idea that doesn't seem to fall apart in my head.

I don't see why the creation of such a supercomputer would create another universe...it would exist in our own universe, since its creation was determined anyway!

 

[Crosson]

whereas if you interpret the wavefunction as being the "probability of classical coordinates" rather than part of reality itself, QM is nondeterministic.

If an electron is observed at position x_0 and time t_0 then quantum mechanics can do no better than to predict a probability spread for possible locations where the particle could be observed at a later time t. (If one talks about QM coherently, we are forced to recognize that the theory describes the evolving knowledge of some idealized observers, and hence the difficulty in quantum cosmology, the study of the quantum state of the entire universe, and hence the non-applicability of QM to the potential determinism of the universe).

If a molecule is at position x_0 and time t_0 then classical statistical mechanics can do no better than to predict a probability spread for possible locations where the particle could at a later time t. The difference is that classical statistical mechanics is compatible with hidden variables and localized reality, and in Quantum Mechanics we are forced to accept one of these and reject the other.

This means that belief in hidden variable theories underlying QM is tantamount to the belief in non-locality. Local hidden variables are not compatible with QM or its certain quantum experiments.

 

[neurocomp2003]

supercomputer has memory:
the number of objects in the localized system of study is = ...? number of bytes to store an object is = ...? Total memory for one state of the localized system of study is the product of the two ... ?

resolution of time is = ...? number of frames that you want is = ...? total number of time frames is = product of the two ... ?

total memory storage of your simulation is = product of the two products...

now the number of physics calculations performed on an object is =... ?
do you emplo the naive algo or a neighbour finding algo ...?
speed of the neighbour finding algo ... ? Most current research employs some type of statistic smoothing operation to make these computations easier.

Given a set of objects/rules. the determinism can only permutate between the two fundamental sets. Given a large number for each. Then yes theoretically your system can grow pretty large, but it is still within the scope of this set. WHICH must also include the laws that your supercomputer obeys.

It will never create anything that cannot be explained by these fundamental sets ...but it can create complex things...think for instance about the proposed size of a fundamental particle in the Standard model...and compare that size to the largest star.

 

[Bannon]

What I meant was if a supercomputer made a prediction based on calculations within a deterministic universe, our free-will could defy its prediction!

Ie, your neighbours alarm clock WILL be going off monday morning at precisly so and so a time...

But, your free-will may entice you to walk over to your neighbours house and unplug the alarm clock, defying the prediction.

So you decide to go forth and unplug your neighbours alarm clock, which leads to an entirely different set of occurances.

Where are these occurances located within the original determination of the universe?

Though if a new prediction were made, it would include your neighbour purchasing a security system as a result of the interference with his alarm clock.

The fact that your neighbour purchased a security system doesn't exist in the equation of the orginal universe, but would seem to exist in a different one.

leading me to believe that there must be an infinite number of deterministic universes responsible for the unceratiny of our existence.

And only an infinite amount of deterministic universes could provide true randomness

 

[gabee]

(If one talks about QM coherently, we are forced to recognize that the theory describes the evolving knowledge of some idealized observers, and hence the difficulty in quantum cosmology, the study of the quantum state of the entire universe, and hence the non-applicability of QM to the potential determinism of the universe).

This makes sense, thank you. So according to this at least is there no such thing as true randomness on tiny levels in the universe, everything must obey deterministic laws?

What I meant was if a supercomputer made a prediction based on calculations within a deterministic universe, our free-will could defy its prediction!

Ie, your neighbours alarm clock WILL be going off monday morning at precisly so and so a time...

But, your free-will may entice you to walk over to your neighbours house and unplug the alarm clock, defying the prediction.

So you decide to go forth and unplug your neighbours alarm clock, which leads to an entirely different set of occurances.

Where are these occurances located within the original determination of the universe?

Though if a new prediction were made, it would include your neighbour purchasing a security system as a result of the interference with his alarm clock.

The fact that your neighbour purchased a security system doesn't exist in the equation of the orginal universe, but would seem to exist in a different one.

leading me to believe that there must be an infinite number of deterministic universes responsible for the unceratiny of our existence.

And only an infinite amount of deterministic universes could provide true randomness

That's an interesting idea. One thing I thought about that would probably make this kind of supercomputer incapable of really simulating the future is the fact that it would have to simulate itself--meaning that not only does it have to now keep track of such a huge system, but it also has to simulate itself simulating itself simulating itself... However, if it were somehow possible, I think that a deterministic universe would probably still only provide for one outcome, and the person would somehow be gridlocked into doing the same thing he sees himself doing in the future, so everything would remain the same. But it's difficult to imagine how this would be possible.

 

[neurocomp2003]

"The fact that your neighbour purchased a security system doesn't exist in the equation of the orginal universe, but would seem to exist in a different one."

How do you come about this statement? This is an assumption you have made.

There is no true randomness in a deterministic world, there is only pseudo randomness...granted the pseudo scale is largely infinite in interval.

Try to do teh combinatorial calculation of the number of objectss*number of rules * geometric configuration * time slices.

BTW: What is your definition of a universe?