High School Predicting the future of a deterministic universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter raphalbatros
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of a deterministic universe and whether a computer could predict its future if given the universe's complete state at a past moment. Participants concluded that if the computer is external and non-interactive, it could theoretically calculate the future. However, if the computer interacts with the universe, it creates paradoxes, particularly regarding an intelligent being's knowledge of the future. The conversation also touched on the limitations of the assumptions made about intelligence and the nature of the computer's calculations. Ultimately, the thread was closed due to its philosophical focus, which did not align with the forum's scientific mission.
raphalbatros
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
I was discussing with some friends the other day. We were philosophizing about a hypothetical universe which is governed by the principles of causal determinism. (Go look at the Wikipedia page on determinism for more details about causal determinism.)

Our first concern was: Could a computer, knowing the exact state of the entire universe at one moment, in theory, calculate the future of this universe?

We quickly came to the conclusion that, if the computer is outside the universe and cannot interact in any way with it, it can, in theory, calculate the future of this universe. But if the computer can interact with the universe, things get weird.

So some questions and assumptions arose.

Let's say an intelligent being, called Robert, in that universe, build such a computer and gives it all the information about the entire universe at one precise moment in the past (let's say 1 year ago exactly).A first assumption poses problem:

A universe in which exists an intelligent being who knows the future is an incoherent universe. What I mean by that is: there is no possible configuration allowing such a universe to exist.If that assumption is true, then we know the computer won’t show his future to Robert.So what happens between the beginning of its calculation and the moment Robert look at the results?First of all, when you think about it, you find that the computer will experiment a loop. When its simulation reaches the beginning of that said simulation, it will create a sub-simulation, which will encounter that same problem. So the computer will not be able to make progress.But let’s say this is a computer we can’t even imagine, that can surpass that kind of problem (the loop). So what would happen in that case? I think it would simulate until the point where an intelligent being look at the result, and then the computer won’t be able to calculate/simulate a coherent continuation, just because such a continuation cannot exist.

Also, in the simulation, the computer simulates the moment he shows his future to Robert, but for that to happen, it must have already calculated the future, but for that to happen, it must have calculated the moment where Robert look at the result.Well, my questions to you guys are:Do you think my assumptions are right?
Is there something I did not consider?

And finally, did I post this in the right place?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Space news on Phys.org
Answering your last post first: No, this is mostly philosophy and, to a lesser extent computer programming, and I have requested it be moved.
Is there something you did not consider: Yes, a couple of things.
1) Your "intelligent being" doesn't have to be intelligent, only able to hold information.
2) Your intelligent being doesn't have to have a complete or completely accurate notion of the future.
3) You underestimate your computer. When the computer encounters recursion (parts of the universe that contain all of the universe - or at least parts that include itself), it can encode those cases without actually replicating the data.
 
  • Like
Likes raphalbatros
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
Hi raphalbatros,

I'm sorry but we don't discuss topics which are primarily about philosophy here at PF. They tend to generate very little useful discussion, get bogged down with people who have little knowledge of philosophy, and are not part of our mission to teach people about mainstream science. I recommend finding a forum dedicated to philosophy. I'm sure you can find plenty online.

Since this thread doesn't meet PF posting requirements I'm afraid it will have to remain locked.

Thanks for your time.
 
  • Like
Likes raphalbatros
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
780