Is Determinism the Only Logical Explanation for the Past?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter adrianopolis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Determinism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of determinism and whether it is the only logical explanation for the past. Participants explore the implications of causality, the nature of time, and the philosophical underpinnings of determinism versus non-determinism.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that it seems illogical to suggest the past could have occurred differently, positing that choices must adhere to causality.
  • Others question whether there are aspects of time that complicate the determinism versus non-determinism debate.
  • One participant challenges the notion that parts of nature could be disconnected from causality, suggesting that randomness undermines causality at small scales.
  • A determinist perspective is presented, asserting that the universe operates like a complex quantum clock, though it acknowledges that common sense does not always align with physical reality.
  • Another participant emphasizes that disagreement with the determinist axiom could lead to a conclusion of non-determinism or at least a lack of unique determinism.
  • There is a suggestion that the topic may not fit within the realm of physics, indicating a potential philosophical nature to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on determinism and its implications, with no consensus reached on whether determinism is the only logical explanation for the past.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of common sense in understanding the universe's behavior, and there are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between causality and randomness.

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.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Does Time-Symmetry Imply Retrocausality? How does the Quantum World Say “Maybe”?
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
7K
High School Do all events in my past lightcone have fewer past events in theirs?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
Graduate Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
High School Time Travel & Causality in General Relativity
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Strict forum rules vs learning science
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad Why can’t entanglement be explained by a signal?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the fork in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument correct?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Undergrad Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Bell's Statements on Freedom of Choice
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
9K
Is the criteria for the present perfect tense in Warriner's textbook inadequate?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K