Is Determinism the Only Logical Explanation for the Past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrianopolis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinism
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of determinism and whether the past could have unfolded differently. One participant argues that it is illogical to suggest alternative pasts exist outside of causality, while another counters that such beliefs stem from intuition rather than logic. The conversation highlights the complexity of understanding time and causality, with one contributor asserting a deterministic view of the universe akin to a quantum clock. They emphasize that common sense does not always align with the universe's behavior, and disagreements on foundational axioms can lead to differing conclusions about determinism. Ultimately, the debate illustrates the philosophical complexities surrounding the nature of time and causality.
adrianopolis
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Logically, doesn't it seem rediculous to postulate that the past "could have" occurred differently than the way it did, as if choices were being made by something outside of the governance of causality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there something I need to understand about time that would make the question less cut and dry?
 
adrianopolis said:
Logically, doesn't it seem rediculous to postulate that the past "could have" occurred differently than the way it did, as if choices were being made by something outside of the governance of causality?

No, I don't think so. Thats not logic, that's your intuition or belief.
 
ModusPwnd said:
No, I don't think so. Thats not logic, that's your intuition or belief.

Can you justify your logic as to why there part of nature is disconnected from causality?

Also by your logic why did the past happen the way it did as opposed to some other way?

I guess your response would be something to do with randomness which is a cop out in my opinion because it means causality has to be abandoned on the small scale. Why is it accepted that causality does not govern? How would that make sense to people?
 
Last edited:
This really isn't physics, there used to be a philosophy board but alas it is gone. This'll probably be moved or locked, but until then...

I am a determinist. It is my firm believe that the entire universe behaves like a complicated quantum clock.

That being said, two things need to be made abundantly clear:

1. The OP keeps referencing 'making sense'. We already know that the universe does not behave like we think it should. Our common sense and what we think 'should happen' does not apply here.
2. My belief on the determinism of the universe is based off a single axiom: everything that can be affected or affect the universe follows a set of physics similar to what we use today (I'd like to say "is a QFT", but I don't have the background for that).

The important thing here is that it is quite possible to disagree with that argument, and if you disagree with that axiom, then you can quite easily conclude the universe is non deterministic - or at least not uniquely so.
 
Sorry...this isn't physics.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
119
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K