Is the universe deterministic?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Citation, please? More reliable records indicate that Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

saturday evening post, 1929


Edited with more info incase you want to read it in its entirety

An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck," for the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post

I'll contrast this with my own citation:

?It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.?

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

But this is not the point of the thread, anyhow.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mundane
AFAIK, observing something changes its state, so while you're gleaning enough information to determine a future state you've already invalidated your projections.

what is this called?

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

Quantum Entanglement has to do with this as well.

 

[Chiropteran]

It's proven to not be.

Quantum effects are simply random, there is no way around them and they are completely unpredictable.

Well, the probabilities of a particular quantum effect is 100% predictable, but they are merely probabilities and there is never any guarantee that the most probable outcome will occur for any particular event.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Citation, please? More reliable records indicate that Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

saturday evening post, 1929


Edited with more info incase you want to read it in its entirety

An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck," for the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post

I'll contrast this with my own citation:

?It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.?

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

But this is not the point of the thread, anyhow.

If you are going to pick and choose your quotes, at least give the beginning of the quote

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

but I agree this is not the place.

 

[Chiropteran]

A more interesting question is: is human behavior deterministic?

If it is, there is no free will.

If it isn't, why not? Is it because our thoughts are controlled to a degree by quantum effects that can't be predetermined 100%?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
A more interesting question is: is human behavior deterministic?

If it is, there is no free will.

If it isn't, why not? Is it because our thoughts are controlled to a degree by quantum effects that can't be predetermined 100%?

I think it all boils down to the uncertainty principle. IF it were possible to know the exact state of every single particle in the Universe at a single point in time, then it might be possible to predict the future.

IF that were possible, then even free will would no longer be so, as it would be possible to calculate how the summation of your molecules would respond to given stimuli.

 

[Legendary]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says no.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I looked at the cat.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mundane
AFAIK, observing something changes its state, so while you're gleaning enough information to determine a future state you've already invalidated your projections.

what is this called?

haagen-dazs' postulate.
while trying to determine the melting-rate of ice cream, you affect the results by becoming impatient and eating it while trying to take your measurements.

 

[ICRS]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't a factual idea. While some interpretations of quantum mechanics holds that the universe is stochastic in nature and nondeterminstic.

Many if not most scientist conform to interpreations such as the "Many World" interpretation which hold the universe is determistic.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
A more interesting question is: is human behavior deterministic?

If it is, there is no free will.

If it isn't, why not? Is it because our thoughts are controlled to a degree by quantum effects that can't be predetermined 100%?

I think it all boils down to the uncertainty principle. IF it were possible to know the exact state of every single particle in the Universe at a single point in time, then it might be possible to predict the future.

IF that were possible, then even free will would no longer be so, as it would be possible to calculate how the summation of your molecules would respond to given stimuli.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that.

The thing is, reality gets a little fuzzy at small scales. The planck distance is more or less the "resolution" of reality. Anything smaller than the planck length is never exactly in one place at a time, because it's smaller than a single "pixel".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale

"The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
A more interesting question is: is human behavior deterministic?

If it is, there is no free will.

If it isn't, why not? Is it because our thoughts are controlled to a degree by quantum effects that can't be predetermined 100%?

I think it all boils down to the uncertainty principle. IF it were possible to know the exact state of every single particle in the Universe at a single point in time, then it might be possible to predict the future.

IF that were possible, then even free will would no longer be so, as it would be possible to calculate how the summation of your molecules would respond to given stimuli.

But, it could be argued, and quite successfully I think, that things aren't in an "exact state" until you try to know what state they're in. i.e. Shroedinger's Cat. (Although Shroedinger himself hated that analogy.)

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
But, it could be argued, and quite successfully I think, that things aren't in an "exact state" until you try to know what state they're in. i.e. Shroedinger's Cat. (Although Shroedinger himself hated that analogy.)

Fine, fine, we'll do what Star Trek did - get Heisenberg Compensaters.

So I guess it really would be impossible to make the Universe "deterministic," even doing away with all the problems of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or the issue of simply obtaining information about every particle in the Universe simultaneously, or the paradox of having the simulator computer itself within the Universe that it's simulating. Darn quantum indeterminacy.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: DrPizza
But, it could be argued, and quite successfully I think, that things aren't in an "exact state" until you try to know what state they're in. i.e. Shroedinger's Cat. (Although Shroedinger himself hated that analogy.)

Fine, fine, we'll do what Star Trek did - get Heisenberg Compensaters.

So I guess it really would be impossible to make the Universe "deterministic," even doing away with all the problems of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or the issue of simply obtaining information about every particle in the Universe simultaneously, or the paradox of having the simulator computer itself within the Universe that it's simulating. Darn quantum indeterminacy.

This goes against what is the most common accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a determistic universe. Determistic DOESN'T mean we can determine events, it only means events are not random.

 

[BudAshes]

I dont think anything is random, it has all played out exactly as "planned" after the big bang. But to pre-determine anything it would require calculations that took into account every particle and every force that particle felt in the universe.

 

[thomsbrain]

I assume "determined" means "static," as opposed to "intelligently designed."

If you look at time as a constant dimension (Kurt Vonnegut-style), then everything is predetermined, because the future's relationship to the past is as left is to right. After all, what will happen, WILL HAPPEN. We just have limited abilities to perceive or move within time, so we don't know what "it" is that will be happening. But just because we can't predict what will happen doesn't mean that it isn't destiny for it to happen.

Wouldn't you say this moment right now has been destiny? Everything that ever happened before now led up to this moment. With what led up to "now," "now" could be no different than exactly how "now" is. And since this "now" is part of what leads up to future "nows," they are destined to take place just as this "now" was also destined to take place.

"Randomness" or "chaos" do not affect this viewpoint, because randomness and chaos are just types of things happening, leading to other things happening. The things that happen can follow rules or not follow rules. That's not particularly important. There's doesn't need to be a reason for things happening, and the things that happen don't have to directly affect other things that happen later. The point is that they HAPPENED, and we assume things will continue to happen, whatever those things are. If we're moving "forward" in time, then we have to be moving from one place in time to another. And that means the place to which we're moving has to exist. The future exists, therefore it is determined just as the present exists and is determined and the past once exists and is determined.

What I think is interesting is the discussion of fate versus free will. If the future is static, fate and free will are the same thing. You make decisions. You have made decisions. You will continue to make them. All of them are determined.

But since our ability to know or experience the future or past is limited, the point is moot. We just have to wait and see how things turn out and remember them as best we can when they do take place.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ICRS
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't a factual idea. While some interpretations of quantum mechanics holds that the universe is stochastic in nature and nondeterminstic.

Many if not most scientist conform to interpreations such as the "Many World" interpretation which hold the universe is determistic.

Slow down there, turbo. As I explained above, Multiverse theory isn't quite the same thing as determinism, so you're equivocating. Until someone can reliably predict the objective reduction of quantum states, objective reality appears indeterminate.

To put it another way, we can reliably predict how our chances will change given changing criteria, but ultimately we're still taking our chances at every turn.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ICRS

This goes against what is the most common accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a determistic universe. Determistic DOESN'T mean we can determine events, it only means events are not random.

That's news to me. Most definitions of determinism I can find online don't seem to agree with you, either.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I dont think anything is random, it has all played out exactly as "planned" after the big bang. But to pre-determine anything it would require calculations that took into account every particle and every force that particle felt in the universe.

However, I think that "life" strays away from precalculation. Even though I'm not exactly a believer of free will, in that everything is just a cost-benefit analysis in our brains, there are some things that inherently cannot be predicted.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I dont think anything is random, it has all played out exactly as "planned" after the big bang. But to pre-determine anything it would require calculations that took into account every particle and every force that particle felt in the universe.

The reason that this is incongruent with reality is that it seems you cannot even take a single particle into account to predict a necessary outcome, let alone every particle in the universe.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ICRS

This goes against what is the most common accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a determistic universe. Determistic DOESN'T mean we can determine events, it only means events are not random.

That's news to me. Most definitions of determinism I can find online don't seem to agree with you, either.

All of the ones I find do agree with me. Deterministic only means it isn't random or stochastic.

Here is wiki link showing varous interpreations of quantum mechaics and how many hold the universe to be deterministic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...s_of_quantum_mechanics

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ICRS

This goes against what is the most common accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a determistic universe. Determistic DOESN'T mean we can determine events, it only means events are not random.

That's news to me. Most definitions of determinism I can find online don't seem to agree with you, either.

All of the ones I find do agree with me. Deterministic only means it isn't random or stochastic.

Here is wiki link showing varous interpreations of quantum mechaics and how many hold the universe to be deterministic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...s_of_quantum_mechanics

Please do not presume that you need to educate me on the interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am quite familiar.

I would be interested in your definition citation(s) coupled with an explanation of how, for example, the many worlds interpretation qualifies that definition. I suspect you do not understand determinism, the many worlds interpretation, or both.

 

[grrl]

I was determined not to reply to this thread, but couldn't NOT reply, so yes.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: BudAshes
I dont think anything is random, it has all played out exactly as "planned" after the big bang. But to pre-determine anything it would require calculations that took into account every particle and every force that particle felt in the universe.

The reason that this is incongruent with reality is that it seems you cannot even take a single particle into account to predict a necessary outcome, let alone every particle in the universe.

Well obviously we will never be able to do it, but the universe seems to take all these things into account just fine.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Well obviously we will never be able to do it, but the universe seems to take all these things into account just fine.

It doesn't "account" for anything. It just does it. Nor does it attempt to predict anything.