Is this a Deterministic Universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tanelorn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of determinism in the universe, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics (QM). Participants explore whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic, and how this relates to concepts such as probability, existence, and the implications of various interpretations of QM.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the randomness observed in QM may imply a non-deterministic universe, while others argue that determinism could still hold through interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics.
  • A participant questions the probability of their existence if the universe were to restart multiple times, receiving varied responses from others regarding the likelihood of existing in each iteration.
  • One participant expresses a belief that inherent probability necessitates an underlying deterministic system, challenging the notion of uncaused events.
  • Another participant introduces the multiverse theory as a potential explanation for causality, while acknowledging that it raises further questions about the origin of the multiverse itself.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of time travel and its relation to determinism, with differing views on the feasibility and consequences of such concepts.
  • There is a contention regarding whether a system of probability can exist without an underlying deterministic framework, with some arguing for the necessity of determinism in understanding probability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on determinism and indeterminism, with no consensus reached. Some support the idea of a deterministic universe, while others advocate for indeterminism, particularly in the context of QM. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity and philosophical implications of the topic, with some noting that current understanding of QM may not be sufficient to definitively answer questions about determinism and existence. The discussion includes references to various interpretations of QM and their implications, highlighting the ongoing debates in the field.

  • #61
thanks Naty, well a Planck time slice is so thin that there is little difference between continuous and quantized in the macro world. It is probably is only important in the realm of QM.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Tanelorn said:
Advanced Math is like an alien foreign language to me unfortunately.

Unfortunately as far as UNDERSTANDING fundamental natural laws, and revealing its underlying beauty and simplicity math is necessary. If there is anything physics has shown us its that those laws are written in the language of math.

Two books at your level I would suggest are Feynman - The Character of Physical Law and Brian Cox E=MC^2 (I have that book as an audio-book because being a member of an audio-book club I get so many free as part of the membership and it really is surprisingly good - explaining many things including Noethers famous theorem)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679601279/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306818760/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You can also watch Feynman online:


Another excellent thing to read is Wigners famous essay:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
my farewell.

there are various "flavors" of determinism, or rather, degrees of determinism

Fatalism -> Predeterminism -> Adequate Determinism.

the high regularity of events in the world, assures that nature is not entirely indeterminate, ...at least.

dear tanelorn, your next breakfast is assured !

cereal-guy.jpg

.
 
  • #64
Thanks audio!

Bill one thing that would really help with maths like that is a companion. ie A full description in words of everything that each equation says and why it is being used. It wouldn't be hard yet mathematicians for some reason don't do it. Not everyone can or wants to learn this much math.
 
  • #65
Tanelorn said:
I agree, every time you think you have found first cause you can always ask what caused that?
First cause and final effect therefore do not exist, just like a place at infinity cannot.

If there is no first cause nor last effect then we must deduce that causality is an illusion, or that there is a first cause which is also its last effect, we just haven't yet arrived at it.

Circle is the name of the game.
 
  • #66
MathematicalPhysicist said:
If there is no first cause nor last effect then we must deduce that causality is an illusion, or that there is a first cause which is also its last effect, we just haven't yet arrived at it.

Circle is the name of the game.

MP, thanks for the reply!

Wait for it...

What caused this circle in the first place? lol
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
7K