B Layman asks 2 basic questions regarding gravity & free will

[layman wannabe]

Thank you for your valuable time sorry I don't know appropriate place to get clarification.

1. I've read that if one could know the position, speed etc of every atom or particle in the universe one could predict how everything would turn out. If this is true then is there a scientific argument to be made in favor of free will and what, in general terms would it be?

2. If the speed of an object's motion through space plus the speed of an object's motion through time always equals the speed of light and there is no time at the speed of light why can't we dismiss troublesome gravity and claim success in the unified theory with just the other three basic forces and consider gravity an observational distortion? I am a layman, not a kook. Please be gentle re my ignorance. Physicists rock!

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Thread re-opened so we can offer some answers to your questions...

 

[jedishrfu]

Your second premise is not right hence your conclusion won't be either. To get a better understanding of Relativity, I would suggest that you read Ben Crowell's excellent free ebook on the subject. His books may be found at:

www.lightandmatter.com

 

[PeroK]

Thank you for your valuable time sorry I don't know appropriate place to get clarification.

1. I've read that if one could know the position, speed etc of every atom or particle in the universe one could predict how everything would turn out. If this is true then is there a scientific argument to be made in favor of free will and what, in general terms would it be?

Suppose you solved the problem, say, of exactly what I was going to say next. You've put all the variables into your equations and calculated precisely what I am going to say and when.

So, I say: "let me see". You've predicted all that - your system knew I would ask to see what I was going to say. But, after "let me see", I can read what I'm supposed to say next. And, then, I can use my free will to look you in the eye and say something else entirely!

 

[bsheikho]

Dont forget about the unknown unknowns,

 

[Sturk200]

So, I say: "let me see". You've predicted all that - your system knew I would ask to see what I was going to say. But, after "let me see", I can read what I'm supposed to say next. And, then, I can use my free will to look you in the eye and say something else entirely!

I knew you'd say that.

 

[berkeman]

if one could know the position, speed etc of every atom or particle in the universe one could predict how everything would turn out.

Are you familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? Even if you knew the postition and velocity to within some precision, that would probably not be enough to make longer-term predictions of the future behavior...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

 

[Khashishi]

1. Quantum mechanics predicts that the outcome of any measurement is random, not deterministic. Free will isn't defined well enough for science to answer.

2. Motion is defined as a change in position over time. It doesn't make sense to talk about motion in time. You are messing up some concepts here.

 

[cosmik debris]

Thank you for your valuable time sorry I don't know appropriate place to get clarification.

1. I've read that if one could know the position, speed etc of every atom or particle in the universe one could predict how everything would turn out. If this is true then is there a scientific argument to be made in favor of free will and what, in general terms would it be?

2. If the speed of an object's motion through space plus the speed of an object's motion through time always equals the speed of light and there is no time at the speed of light why can't we dismiss troublesome gravity and claim success in the unified theory with just the other three basic forces and consider gravity an observational distortion? I am a layman, not a kook. Please be gentle re my ignorance. Physicists rock!

Free will, tricky will ignore. Your second question seems to be an idea taken from Brian Greene, is that right? If so I think he uses that explanation as a sort of analogy, I wouldn't try to make to many predictions using it.