Universal Block Theory: Free Will

[Sciencelad2798]

TL;DR

And if so, what implications does it have?

Mostly about free will

 

[PeterDonis]

What do you mean by "universal block theory"? Do you have a reference?

 

[PeterDonis]

Mostly about free will

Free will is generally off topic here since it's generally a philosophical question, not a scientific question.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

What do you mean by "universal block theory"? Do you have a reference?

I read several articles:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2nonm9C1aIKx8G2ew1oPG1&ampcf=1

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...JxAB&usg=AOvVaw1nZONPHHAykx8G0k9KHoAt&ampcf=1

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0PhDBiBJhpG1fyvwUeJxUO&ampcf=1

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...UQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2V-51ACVjNJNOiGSW11e3h&ampcf=1

I've also seen that it's a pretty common theory and belief among physicists

 

[Sciencelad2798]

Free will is generally off topic here since it's generally a philosophical question, not a scientific question

My mistake, sorry

 

[PeterDonis]

I read several articles

None of which are textbooks or peer-reviewed papers, so they're not valid references.

If you search this forum, you will find a number of previous threads discussing the "block universe" interpretation of relativity. There is also quite a bit of scientific literature on the topic. I would strongly suggest taking some time to read valid sources before asking questions. (You have already been given this suggestion in two previous threads. Please take note.)

The short answer to the title question of this thread is that the "block universe" is not a theory, it's an interpretation of a theory, namely relativity. As such, it is not properly viewed as being either "true" or "false". It's an interpretation that some physicists find useful and others don't. But there is no way of testing it by experiment because any experiment that confirms relativity is compatible with any interpretation of relativity, not just the "block universe" interpretation.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

None of which are textbooks or peer-reviewed papers, so they're not valid references.

If you search this forum, you will find a number of previous threads discussing the "block universe" interpretation of relativity. There is also quite a bit of scientific literature on the topic. I would strongly suggest taking some time to read valid sources before asking questions. (You have already been given this suggestion in two previous threads. Please take note.)

The short answer to the title question of this thread is that the "block universe" is not a theory, it's an interpretation of a theory, namely relativity. As such, it is not properly viewed as being either "true" or "false". It's an interpretation that some physicists find useful and others don't. But there is no way of testing it by experiment because any experiment that confirms relativity is compatible with any interpretation of relativity, not just the "block universe" interpretation.

Ohhhhhhh so it's not a proven theory, just philosophical? So that means there's no real evidence pointing directly to it? Then why do so many articles I've read seem to assume it's true? Is it a misinterpretation?

 

[PAllen]

Ohhhhhhh so it's not a proven theory, just philosophical? So that means there's no real evidence pointing directly to it? Then why do so many articles I've read seem to assume it's true? Is it a misinterpretation?

No, it is one valid interpretation, not a misinterpretation. The key point is that there area other valid interpretations as well. Many articles use it (they probably don't all mean to "assume it is true") because the authors find it the most useful interpretation either for the purpose of the article, or, in general for their work.

 

[Dale]

Ohhhhhhh so it's not a proven theory, just philosophical? So that means there's no real evidence pointing directly to it? Then why do so many articles I've read seem to assume it's true? Is it a misinterpretation?

It is consistent with all available data, just like any interpretation of a valid theory. So people who like it are free to assume it’s true. Apparently that includes many of the authors you like to read.

All other standard interpretations are also equally consistent with the same data. So people who don’t like it are free to assume it is not true.

Me personally, I am weird. I believe it is probably not true, but I use it whenever I feel it is useful or convenient.

 

[PeterDonis]

so it's not a proven theory, just philosophical?

Not at all. It's an interpretation of a theory of physics.

So that means there's no real evidence pointing directly to it?

Go back and read the last sentence of my post #6 again.

why do so many articles I've read seem to assume it's true?

Because, as you have already been told multiple times now, you keep on reading the wrong sources. If you want to actually learn physics, you need to learn it from textbooks and peer-reviewed papers, not pop science articles.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Thread level changed to "I".

 

[Sciencelad2798]

No, it is one valid interpretation, not a misinterpretation. The key point is that there area other valid interpretations as well. Many articles use it (they probably don't all mean to "assume it is true") because the authors find it the most useful interpretation either for the purpose of the article, or, in general for their work.

Oh ok, so it's just like the interpretations involved with double slit, there's no one "right" answer to it

 

[Sciencelad2798]

It is consistent with all available data, just like any interpretation of a valid theory. So people who like it are free to assume it’s true. Apparently that includes many of the authors you like to read.

All other standard interpretations are also equally consistent with the same data. So people who don’t like it are free to assume it is not true.

Me personally, I am weird. I believe it is probably not true, but I use it whenever I feel it is useful or convenient.

Ok, that does explain it a bit more. One thing I'm still curious about is just how it works. It seems to me like this theory, if true, implies we have no free will, we're just mindlessly following what's already happened. I know this is more philosophical, but it would help my knowledge of the interpretation

 

[Nugatory]

If you want to actually learn physics, you need to learn it from textbooks and peer-reviewed papers, not pop science articles.

@Sciencelad2798 this is really quite remarkably good advice.

The only thing that I would add to it is that this forum is a good place to find recommendations for worthwhile sources, and an even better place to find people who will help you over the hard spots when you get stuck working your way through them.

 

[PeterDonis]

It seems to me like this theory, if true, implies we have no free will

As I have already said, "free will" is a philosophical question, not a scientific question, and is off topic here. As far as the scientific content of the "block universe" interpretation is concerned, it is no more incompatible with "free will" than any physical theory.

 

[Dale]

It seems to me like this theory, if true, implies we have no free will, we're just mindlessly following what's already happened

First, it is an interpretation, not a theory. Second, if that bothers you then don’t use it. Like all interpretations it is optional.

 

[PAllen]

Me personally, I am weird. I believe it is probably not true, but I use it whenever I feel it is useful or convenient.

Not weird at all. I always use the block universe for analysis of a relativity problem, because I find it simplest. Then I can always translate to a specific different interpretation I find more likely “in reality”.

 

[Dale]

I can always translate to a specific different interpretation I find more likely “in reality”.

That is my weird part. I doubt all interpretations. I mean, it isn’t that I am keeping an open mind. I think they are probably all wrong as a general policy, even ones that I like and use.

 

[PAllen]

That is my weird part. I doubt all interpretations. I mean, it isn’t that I am keeping an open mind. I think they are probably all wrong as a general policy, even ones that I like.

Ok, I am different in that for thinking about “what really happens but can’t be verified”, I have been swayed by a series of papers by George F.R. Ellis, of Hawking and Ellis fame. This is one of many of his papers on his Evolving Block Universe interpretation:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7243

which is sufficient to show that Block Universe is just one of several viable interpretations

 

[PeroK]

Ok, that does explain it a bit more. One thing I'm still curious about is just how it works. It seems to me like this theory, if true, implies we have no free will, we're just mindlessly following what's already happened. I know this is more philosophical, but it would help my knowledge of the interpretation

What's clear is that human beings have to ability to analyse their circumstances and act accordingly. If you come to a busy road, you are not compelled to ignore the traffic and walk across it. You assess the traffic conditions and decide whether it's safe to cross the road or not. Likewise, if you are in a hurry, you may decide to run across when otherwise you would decide to wait.

From that perspective, each person is a complex dynamic system, capable of a range of actions that are to some extent predictable and to some extent unpredictable. And, critically, we are able to adjust our behaviour according to circumstances. In other words, we don't behave purely instinctively, although we are clearly driven in many ways by instincts. If a human being gets hungry enough, for example, they will eat anything to try to stay alive.

Personally, I can't see the point in trying to extract a concept called "free will" out of this. Indeed, one of the problems with postulating a metaphysical "free will", is that our behaviour is patently heavily dependent on our physical condition. Tiredness, illness and pain all affect the way we think and our ability to function.
Not to mention the severe changes to our abilities and personalities that in many cases come with old age.

Even if we simply consider ourselves as enormously complicated biological machines, we still have the potential as human beings to do whatever we decide to do! In other words, choice and decision making is (IMO) not dependent on some metaphysical capability. "Free will" as something beyond extraordinarily complex biological processes does not seem like a useful or necessary concept to me.

 

[Dale]

Block Universe is just one of several viable interpretations

Nice reference!