Bannon said: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 said: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.
Bannon said: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.
neurocomp2003 said:if yes then there will be no uncertainty and everything will be predictable.
Crosson said:The answer is yes, to say anything else is to have little faith in mathematics.
Crosson said: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.
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
faith in math? i thought the thing about math is that it's either right, wrong or a conjecture not yet proven.
How is it silly? Quantum mechanics is probabilistic ...
what happens you use something like chaos theory as representive of free will?
Crosson said: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.
whereas if you interpret the wavefunction as being the "probability of classical coordinates" rather than part of reality itself, QM is nondeterministic.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
Crosson said: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
Crosson said:(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?)
Bannon said: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.
whereas if you interpret the wavefunction as being the "probability of classical coordinates" rather than part of reality itself, QM is nondeterministic.
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?Crosson said:(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).
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.Bannon said: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