Is Everything Determined?

[MAW1082]

Hawking's general ideas:

There is a set of equations that if found can predict the outcome of any system . . . unification

What if we find the set of equations:

a. We'll be able to predict to the future

b. But by being able to predict the future, we could change it

Thus, he concludes that we could never find the exact set of equations to predict the outcome of 'our' system

So, Hawking thinks that 'everything is determined, but it might as well not be because we could never know what is determined!'

What do you think?

 

[MAW1082]

I think it is ridiculous to think that, even given the implications of quantum theory and uncertainty, this could be true.

Is Hawking a Fatalist? What about free will?

I love the logical argument he makes. Is the human race, and any other race, doomed to extinction before learning the true (entire) nature of the universe?

 

[BrownTown]

yes, everything is determined, but we'll never have the computing power to predict anything more then a little ways in advance, and only for relatively simple systems. Basically its jsut one of those things that is true, but you just try to forget because it will just make you depressed to think that you don't really have any free will

 

[smack Down]

I think it is paussable for the equations to be know. The impaussable part is knowing the inital conditions. IE just using differintial equations in theory you could predict the path of every atom in the air if you knew it current velocity and postion..

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Hawking's general ideas:

There is a set of equations that if found can predict the outcome of any system . . . unification

What if we find the set of equations:

a. We'll be able to predict to the future

b. But by being able to predict the future, we could change it

Thus, he concludes that we could never find the exact set of equations to predict the outcome of 'our' system

So, Hawking thinks that 'everything is determined, but it might as well not be because we could never know what is determined!'

What do you think?

Kind of a simplistic view of Hawkings writings.

I like Douglass Adams take on this same concept: If someone figures out how the universe works it will immediately vanish and reappear as something more silly. This has happened several times already.

 

[Looney]

Hawkings isn't the only one that thinks that. It's called the Theory of Everything. But just because we have the equation, doesn't mean we'll be able to predict everything. There are just too many variables in the universe to consider, but in theory, it can. We can predict many things in life already. How path of a comet; how a dog who's been conditioned to hearing a loud bang, would react when hearing the loud bang, etc. Something is simply unpredictable because we don't fully understand all the variables involved. If we toss a ball into a crowd of people, is it random where it falls? If you don't know the strength of the pitch, the angle of it, the wind velocity, etc, then yes, it's random... but if you uinderstand all the variables, then you could pinpoint exactly who it hits.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I think it is paussable for the equations to be know. The impaussable part is knowing the inital conditions. IE just using differintial equations in theory you could predict the path of every atom in the air if you knew it current velocity and postion..

Do you mean possible/impossible or plausible/implausible?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Hawking's general ideas:

There is a set of equations that if found can predict the outcome of any system . . . unification

What if we find the set of equations:

a. We'll be able to predict to the future

b. But by being able to predict the future, we could change it

Thus, he concludes that we could never find the exact set of equations to predict the outcome of 'our' system

So, Hawking thinks that 'everything is determined, but it might as well not be because we could never know what is determined!'

What do you think?

Kind of a simplistic view of Hawkings writings.

I like Douglass Adams take on this same concept: If someone figures out how the universe works it will immediately vanish and reappear as something more silly. This has happened several times already.

I think this is a great point of discussion.

My firends and I coined something called "Black Hole Terrorism." We hypothesized that the ultimate demise of the universe and it's rebirth would be due to intelligent life discovering the 'Theory of Everything' and attempting to travel faster than the speed of light, possibly through a worm hole.

This worm hole would instantly create a black hole and destroy everything . . .

Maybe intelligent life is the only force that could reverse the expansion of the universe . . .

Food for thought?

 

[HVAC]

The argument as presented in the original post presupposes that if one could predict the future then one has the resources to change enough variables to affect the outcome of a particular event.

I would theorize that knowledge of an event at a particular time may not prevent the same event or a sufficiently similar event at a future or earlier time than the originally predicted event. In other words, you may know it is coming and take steps to avoid it, but that doesn't stop the system from routing around your attempted avoidance.

So, if you were able to predict a co-worker was going to shoot you at ten, you call in sick. Problem solved? Maybe not when they knock on your door at nine with the butt of their Glock....

The problem is....free will.....

That darned human didn't fit the model that was accurate to 2984 decimal places!

The prediction problem is probably similar to Schrodinger's (sp?) cat analogy. You could theoretically predict either this facet or that facet of an event, but not both.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yes, everything is determined, but we'll never have the computing power to predict anything more then a little ways in advance, and only for relatively simple systems. Basically its jsut one of those things that is true, but you just try to forget because it will just make you depressed to think that you don't really have any free will

And Heisenberg might have some problem with the a determinist stance.
But IF it was possible to know everything about all the quantum particles in a system at one point in time, and IF there was a computer with enough power to calculate the behavior of all those particles faster than realtime, then we could make good predictions. I don't think that either of those conditions can be met until we make a.....I don't know, quantum resolution temporal camera, which I just made up.

 

[CycloWizard]

I haven't read any of Hawking's works, but as presented by the OP, he's simply begging the question. By assuming free will doesn't exist, all behaviors are governed by deterministic equations. However, we already know that even non-sentient things behave stochastically a good deal of the time, so I would tend to think that no deterministic equation could ever predict the outcome of all human behaviors added together.

 

[magomago]

Yeah, that is why I think any economic model to predict patterns of buyers and sellers in a market only applies for a very short term, until something quirky kicks in and people randomly change their habits.

btw, kinda reminds me of that whole "you can't pinpoint the position of an electron" theory...and if we could it would move because to detect it would be to take in or add energy~ Heisenburg Uncertainity Principle perhaps

Either way its an interesting idea...but I think its way too complex to figure out.

I think it also connects slightly to the question: "Is there such thing as a purely random event, or is there a pattern or logic to everything"?

Philosophy rules

 

[MAW1082]

Why I think this is so interesting is because Hawking obviously knows and understands Schroedinger's equations, Heisengerg's Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics.

I think it's incredible that Hawking can think this 'equation' of unification exists, but he also thinks that it would be impossible for us to use it because it would introduce a paradox (similar to the grandfather paradox of time travel).

By using the perfect equation we would be invalidating it. It's a paradox I had never heard before. I love it.

 

[phisrow]

Remember that stochastic behavior isn't anything like freedom. It isn't determinism in the classical "This and only this must necessarily happen" sense; but random behavior isn't freedom. Consider the case of the d100, d20, d10, fair coin, and trick coin(both sides heads). None of these are free, in the slightest. The trick coin must come up heads. The fair coin must come up heads half the time, tails the other half. The d10, 20, 100 have correspondingly more possible outcomes; but each one is quite determined. It would be entirely possible for the universe to be both practically and theoretically innaccessable to a nonstochastic model while still being entirely determined, i.e. it might only be possible, at best, to construct a model of the probability of all possible outcomes, rather than a model of a single set of necessary outcomes. This doesn't save free will.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: magomago
I think it also connects slightly to the question: "Is there such thing as a purely random event, or is there a pattern or logic to everything"?

Experience with women tells us that it's definitely not logic, though there may be some other governing principle.

 

[suszterpatt]

Two words: butterfly effect.



Any restricted prediction we make will be thrown off by the things we chose to ignore in the calculations. And since the universe is infinite, I don't think there can be an equation that takes absolutely everything into consideration.

 

[networkman]

I was also just thinking about "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" and that it might well apply in a slightly different way.. that way being that we could probably design equations to increasingly more accurately predict future events, but never be all-encompassing enough to exactly predict every event.

 

[Smilin]

seems like we are confusing the grand unification theory (theory of everything) with determinism.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I don't believe everything is determined. To me, it doesn't even make sense to argue that point. I think Hawkings is going beyond the scope of a reliable arguement.

 

[DrPizza]

Just a thought -
If Hawking is correct, doesn't that mean that there actually isn't free-will?
And, doesn't that undermine some of the religions?
And, isn't Hawking bent on proving the non-existence of God?

/end just a thought.

 

[MrDudeMan]

He and others like him have become too obsessed with trying to prove their crazy theories. Look around you and try to make sense of predicting the future based on equations. It doesn't make sense. No formula can dictate how a human will respond or how a certain person will react to a stimulus. He has done some brilliant things but this is just too much. I realize the implications of such a formula or equation aren't that simple, but being able to predict the future accurately is just looney. I'll believe it when I see some evidence of it being true, but I am certainly not holding my breathe.

Edit: I should add this...When we start debating things like this, it should be obvious to everyone that it is purely a matter of opinion at this point. I think it is stupid, yes I said stupid, to live your life thinking all of your decisions are already determined ahead of time. There would be no point in living if you thought nothing was in your control. Yes, I am religious, but not a fanatic or fundamentalist and religion has nothing at all to do with why I think like this. No offense meant to anyone.

 

[smoaky]

I do believe everything is determined. I think that everything, including me writing this is predetermined by a gigantic equation with an infinite number of variables. The little molecules in our brain interact in such a manner (a manner which abides by that giant equation) that makes "you" (they also create the feeling of "you", but then again who are "you", its all in the eye of the beholder... ah this is so confusing) think you are making a real decision and have free will. Of course, as other posters have said, thinking like that would get out down and should be avoided. In the end, we really have no choice, so read these words or don't read these words and do what you want. But if you have free will (which you don't) then go ahead and don't think like this.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: smoaky
I do believe everything is determined. I think that everything, including me writing this is predetermined by a gigantic equation with an infinite number of variables. The little molecules in our brain interact in such a manner (a manner which abides by that giant equation) that makes "you" (they also create the feeling of "you", but then again who are "you", its all in the eye of the beholder... ah this is so confusing) think you are making a real decision and have free will. Of course, as other posters have said, thinking like that would get out down and should be avoided. In the end, we really have no choice, so read these words or don't read these words and do what you want. But if you have free will (which you don't) then go ahead and don't think like this.

Saying something like that is ignorant and close minded. Being like that doesn't make sense since you don't grow or learn to respect the opinions of others. Pathetic.

 

[smoaky]

whoa, I think you misread me, I meant that as a lighthearted comment. I mean I do essentially believe it, but I'm not "close minded". The thread starter asked for our opinions... My post may be a bit of a downer, but if you let it get to you that much, thats not my problem.


Edit - But obviously, my beliefs don't get in the way of performing my everyday tasks, otherwise I'd go crazy.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: networkman
I was also just thinking about "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" and that it might well apply in a slightly different way.. that way being that we could probably design equations to increasingly more accurately predict future events, but never be all-encompassing enough to exactly predict every event.

The uncertainty principle states that you can't know both the current position and velocity of an electron because any measurement of it will change one or both it doesn't put any limits on having a forumal that can predict the future position of the electrion if you know its current position and velocity.