# Determining the Future Using Probability or Perception of Time?

1. Jun 12, 2012

### legend_b0bby

Just something I was wondering about Schrödenger's cat. According to Schrödenger's cat, wether the cat is alive or dead can only be defined as a probability unless you observe it, but something else could be possible. What if we had 4th dimensional perception, so we could see the future. If we did, we would be able to observe the cat being either alive or dead. Anybody, at any given time could observe this event, therefore probability could not exist. Since Quantum Mechanics is based off of probability, it could not exist either. Now, what about the possibility of us having 5th dimensional perception, so we could see all possible outcomes. In this case, there are only two possible outcomes, so we could see both of them, but how do we know which one is reality? Well... think of it this way. You are in a car but you are not the person driving and you do not know where you are going. There is a fork in the road. Aha! You do not know which direction you are going so you can only define which direction you are going to go using a probability. This means that with 5th dimensional perception, there would be probability and Quantum Mechanics!

I am not an expert, I just started looking up stuff and getting books from my local library so I probably have something wrong (I usually do...).

2. Jun 12, 2012

### Demystifier

Hi legend bobby, welcome to the forum!

I think your intuition is very good, because conceptually similar (but technically much more elaborated) views of quantum mechanics (QM) already exist.

First, there are views of QM in which probability does not have any fundamental role. These are DETERMINISTIC interpretations of QM, such as Bohmian interpretation and many-world interpretation. In deterministic approaches, the future is already encoded in the present state of the system, so in a sense one can say that the future already exists. It is very difficult to see that future in practice, but in principle it is possible.

Second, there is even something that corresponds to your 5th dimension, i.e., the space of all alternatives. This is the many-world interpretation, in which all alternatives exist. However, there is one technical detail; the number of corresponding dimensions turns out not to be 5, but infinite. But your basic intuition was good.

3. Jun 12, 2012

### legend_b0bby

I talked to my step-brother last week about higher dimensions and he told me that for all we know we could be in the 45th dimension. I then thought that there are lower and higher dimensions of things beyond comprehension of our 3-dimensional brains that could have more than space and time. That led me to think that there could be the possibility of negative dimensions.

Also, thanks for a warm welcome! I appreciate it.

4. Jun 12, 2012

### merp

I'm no genius or expert but I don't think your step brother is understanding dimensions...

I can't post linke because I haven't met the posting standard yet, but do a youtube search for "Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2"...

5. Jun 12, 2012

### legend_b0bby

I was just messing around on youtube and i came across that video. Thats how i started getting into Quantum Mechanics. Then I talked to my step-brother and he explained to me that there are infinite dimensions, not just 10. Then he told me about lower dimensional entities with lower dimensional perception and then I really started to get interested.

6. Jun 13, 2012

### merp

You may want to read this then.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/12/07/how-many-dimensions-are-there/

7. Jun 13, 2012

### fissile_mop

It's unclear how many dimensions there are. It's wrong to say with certainty there are infinite dimensions, and just as wrong to say with absolution there are only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, or 10 dimensions, or 33 1/3 dimensions. There are many hypotheses on the matter. The interpretation that a theory describing extra dimensions must correlate to extra, 'walking through walls', 'worm-hole to the other-side' spatial dimensions is often the misconception, caused when theories are translated mangled and drip-dried into popular science articles, that mathematical dimensions must have a spatial meaning rather than taking them for what they are, at face value - mathematical objects.