Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is everything mathematical

  1. Jan 17, 2007 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 17, 2007 #2
    edited, sorry for the dumb comment. :)
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2007
  4. Jan 18, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. /* ....*/
  5. Jan 18, 2007 #4
    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 uncertanty in the universe.
  6. Jan 18, 2007 #5
    I think the answer is unresolved at this stage in time (although dominant QM interpretation is that everything is fundamentally random rather than determinate).
  7. Jan 18, 2007 #6
    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.
  8. Jan 18, 2007 #7
    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.
  9. Jan 18, 2007 #8
    Extreamly beutifull neurocomp2003
  10. Jan 18, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  11. Jan 18, 2007 #10
    I think yes. A single inhomogenity has developed the complexity of our Universe.
  12. Jan 18, 2007 #11
    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.
  13. Jan 18, 2007 #12
    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.
  14. Jan 18, 2007 #13
    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.
  15. Jan 19, 2007 #14


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I don't see how it is relevant at all, to tell you the truth.
  16. Jan 19, 2007 #15
    So, if this prediction were exposed to us, we could deliberately change it. im thinking this is a problem.

    If so, what happened to the predetermined universe? is it the existance of multiverses that allows randomness? or undeterminability? I really lose hours of sleep trying to answer myself.
  17. Jan 19, 2007 #16
    faith in math? i thought the thing about math is that it's either right, wrong or a conjecture not yet proven.
  18. Jan 19, 2007 #17
    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.
  19. Jan 19, 2007 #18
    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.

    So does God play dice with the universe? I think this is a relevant question when dealing with determinism.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2007
  20. Jan 19, 2007 #19
    what happens you use something like chaos theory as representive of free will?
  21. Jan 19, 2007 #20
    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]
  22. Jan 19, 2007 #21
    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.

    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?)

    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).
  23. Jan 20, 2007 #22
    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.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2007
  24. Jan 20, 2007 #23
    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.

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

    cheater. :P

    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!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  25. Jan 20, 2007 #24
    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.
  26. Jan 20, 2007 #25
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook