So I was thinking, is the future set in stone, or set on randomness?

[fuzzybabybunny]

A few assumptions to start out with:

1. The interactions of atomic and subatomic particles ultimately cause everything.

2. Chemical reactions resulting from these particle interactions control our behavior, like deciding to eat a burger instead of a salad. ie. "free will" is one of the results of these particle interactions.


As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

In essence, is there no randomness at all? We percieve things as random because we do not have the capability to follow these particle interactions to completion. But if we did, wouldn't we find that a seemingly random event actually had a 100% chance of happening?

Of course, the ultimate result of this would be that the past, present, and future were set in stone from the moment the universe was created.

 

[BrownTown]

you can certinally make a good argument for that being the case. However, there is no way to know for sure, so any argument made for or against this beleif will be entirely opinion. If you want my opinion, it would be to not even think about such things, they just make your head hurt and get you depressed.

 

[Gibsons]

As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

I don't think it's correct to assume that.

For instance, if you have two identical atoms of a radioactive isotope, there's no way to predict which one will emit first. If you get a very large pile of these atoms, you can calculate how many will emit over a given time period with some precision, but not which particular atoms.

 

[BrownTown]

There is no way that we can currently use to predict this, but the interaction which casue radioactive decay could likely be predicted with a complete knowledge of everything involved.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

I don't think it's correct to assume that.

For instance, if you have two identical atoms of a radioactive isotope, there's no way to predict which one will emit first. If you get a very large pile of these atoms, you can calculate how many will emit over a given time period with some precision, but not which particular atoms.

The reason you can't predict which will decay first is due to the fact you can't know the precise position and velocity of subatomic particles at any givin instant. The reason you can predict the average is a statistical calculation.

IF there is a currently unknown law of nature which governs the interaction of all types of particles and subatomic particles, the so-called theory of everything, then EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED. If this law exists and we eventually somehow obtained it and also know the instantaneous position and velocity of everything in the universe then yes, we could predict the future. But then we get ourselves into a difficult situation . . . we could use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation. Due to this situation, I think that it is a physical impossibility to ever discover the equation.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Gibsons

As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

I don't think it's correct to assume that.

For instance, if you have two identical atoms of a radioactive isotope, there's no way to predict which one will emit first. If you get a very large pile of these atoms, you can calculate how many will emit over a given time period with some precision, but not which particular atoms.

The reason you can't predict which will decay first is due to the fact you can't know the precise position and velocity of subatomic particles at any givin instant. The reason you can predict the average is a statistical calculation.

IF there is a currently unknown law of nature which governs the interaction of all types of particles and subatomic particles, the so-called theory of everything, then EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED. If this law exists and we eventually somehow obtained it and also know the instantaneous position and velocity of everything in the universe then yes, we could predict the future. But then we get ourselves into a difficult situation . . . we could use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation. Due to this situation, I think that it is a physical impossibility to ever discover the equation.

Aha, I don't see a difficult situation here. We could not use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation because the equation would have already predicted we would try to "change" the future. What we believe to be changing the future is just the natural result of these particle interactions.

For ex:

Big Bang, particle interactions lead us to the present day, the present day being the only possibility that could have arisen from the Big Bang.

Further particle interactions lead us to find this "equation" and particle interactions lead us to predict and "change the future"... exactly the outcome that would arise naturally.

 

[byosys]

I'm going to agree that yes, the future is set in stone. However, to try to look into that future requires understanding EVERYTHING about the universe. For example, if we assume String Theory is actually how our universe exists at it's most basic level, then we would have to know the exact position/state of every single string in the universe. If you miss a single one, any perdictions suddenly don't mean anything. Due to several reasons (mostly due to vast scale and amount of data), perdicting the future in any meaningful way becomes impossible.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
A few assumptions to start out with:

1. The interactions of atomic and subatomic particles ultimately cause everything.

2. Chemical reactions resulting from these particle interactions control our behavior, like deciding to eat a burger instead of a salad. ie. "free will" is one of the results of these particle interactions.


As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

In essence, is there no randomness at all? We percieve things as random because we do not have the capability to follow these particle interactions to completion. But if we did, wouldn't we find that a seemingly random event actually had a 100% chance of happening?

Of course, the ultimate result of this would be that the past, present, and future were set in stone from the moment the universe was created.

You invoke a lot of terms and are very confused.
You have to know what you mean by the terms and the proper place of these terms.
1. Causation
2. Particles, interactions and other components of physical theories
3. randomness
You have to know what you mean by the terms before you start asking questions.

Now you are trying to do something very improper or else very trivial. You are taking an element of a theory (a value associated with a particle for instance) and assuming it has an objective existence outside the theory. But the value is only defined as part of the theory and so can only be understood in terms of the theory.

So forget about objective causes and think about theories.

You might ask, is there a theory which describes the universe correctly. Maybe there is, or maybe (as I think) the universe (i.e. experience) is too complex. (Can one idea contain all ideas and everything else?) At any rate this would be a proper question.

As for randomness you can describe probability as a measure of ignorance under the assumptions or rationality. If you want an objective definition - well why don't you come up with one?

Now as for determinism "being set in stone" that is again something that needs to be explained before the question can be answered. Does the statement "what will be will be" imply your notion even without all this discussion about natural science?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: CSMR
So forget about objective causes and think about theories.

You might ask, is there a theory which describes the universe correctly. Maybe there is, or maybe (as I think) the universe (i.e. experience) is too complex. (Can one idea contain all ideas and everything else?) At any rate this would be a proper question.

I don't think you are properly understanding the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is whether or not everything in determined, not necessarily whether humans have the capacity to understand the dynamics why it is that way. Regardless of whether or not humans can understand how it works, if in fact there there is a set of laws which govern everything down to the smallest particles, everything will be determined by the laws.

For example, the laws of gravity still governed the macroscopic before humans completely understood the force.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: CSMR
So forget about objective causes and think about theories.

You might ask, is there a theory which describes the universe correctly. Maybe there is, or maybe (as I think) the universe (i.e. experience) is too complex. (Can one idea contain all ideas and everything else?) At any rate this would be a proper question.

I don't think you are properly understanding the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is whether or not everything in determined, not necessarily whether humans have the capacity to understand the dynamics why it is that way. Regardless of whether or not humans can understand how it works, if in fact there there is a set of laws which govern everything down to the smallest particles, everything will be determined by the laws.

For example, the laws of gravity still governed the macroscopic before humans completely understood the force.

:thumbsup:

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: CSMR
So forget about objective causes and think about theories.

You might ask, is there a theory which describes the universe correctly. Maybe there is, or maybe (as I think) the universe (i.e. experience) is too complex. (Can one idea contain all ideas and everything else?) At any rate this would be a proper question.

I don't think you are properly understanding the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is whether or not everything in determined, not necessarily whether humans have the capacity to understand the dynamics why it is that way. Regardless of whether or not humans can understand how it works, if in fact there there is a set of laws which govern everything down to the smallest particles, everything will be determined by the laws.

For example, the laws of gravity still governed the macroscopic before humans completely understood the force.

No. Gravity is an element of a theory - for instance Newton's theory or Einstein's theory.
Do we understand Gravity?
- Do you mean do we understand Newton's theory or Einstein's theory?
Does Gravity objectively exist?
- Do you mean that Newton's, or Einstein's, theory is empirically good?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: CSMR
No. Gravity is an element of a theory - for instance Newton's theory or Einstein's theory.
Do we understand Gravity?
- Do you mean do we understand Newton's theory or Einstein's theory?
Does Gravity objectively exist?
- Do you mean that Newton's, or Einstein's, theory is empirically good?

Gravity, aka the attractive force between two objects is not a 'theory.' Gravity does exist. Newton and Einstein attempted to describe and predict the force mathematically. Their attempt to describe the force is a theory, I guess.

We, as in the human race, do understand both Einstein and Newton's theories. We can even test these theories with experimental data to verify the validity of the theory.

The reason it is currently fashionable to argue that there is 'randomness' in the universe is due to the fact that Einstein and Newton's theories both fail to make accurate predictions about the subatomic world. We can make predictions about the subatomic world only based on experimental data gathered in laboratories. For instance, one would think an electron with X potential energy would not be able to break through a barrier of X + 1 energy level, but in fact, there is a finite chance it will be able to. Scientists have observed about how many times this will happen in a sample set throught repetitive experimentation. The next step for scientists is to be able to predict how a single electron will act during a single experiment.

So, there certainly is some kind of physical law which governs how small particles interact, the question is whether or not there is an element of randomness in the physical law.

Did that answer your questions?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Gravity, aka the attractive force between two objects is not a 'theory.' Gravity does exist. Newton and Einstein attempted to describe and predict the force mathematically. Their attempt to describe the force is a theory, I guess.

Your position is that gravity has a reality outside a particular theory. Does this mean that if no idea (theory) "describing" gravity is correct then there is still such a thing as gravity?
I.e. you assert there is gravity even if you can't say what it is?
This is just words without substance.

Now if you mean there is a common notion of gravity which Newton and Einstein adumbrated, well yes: there is a vague notion that one might expect things to fall down except in certain situations. And Newton and Einstein's theories could be seen as rather dramatic advances on this notion. So again we are dealing with a theory when we are talking about gravity in the common understanding, not an objective thing.

We, as in the human race, do understand both Einstein and Newton's theories. We can even test these theories with experimental data to verify the validity of the theory.

And so?

The reason it is currently fashionable to argue that there is 'randomness' in the universe is due to the fact that Einstein and Newton's theories both fail to make accurate predictions about the subatomic world. We can make predictions about the subatomic world only based on experimental data gathered in laboratories. For instance, one would think an electron with X potential energy would not be able to break through a barrier of X + 1 energy level, but in fact, there is a finite chance it will be able to. Scientists have observed about how many times this will happen in a sample set throught repetitive experimentation. The next step for scientists is to be able to predict how a single electron will act during a single experiment.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, first saying randomness is a real process and then saying that scientists may be able to predict. At any rate this is not relevant to the issue at hand.

So, there certainly is some kind of physical law which governs how small particles interact, the question is whether or not there is an element of randomness in the physical law.

You have not shown this at all. But please say first of all what it means and then we can see whether it can be shown to be correct or shown to be false or neither.

 

[BucsMAN3K]

In perspective of time in its entirity, everything that happens, happens. In respect to one time frame, you can't have a particle do two things simultaneously.

So, in terms of a single time frame there is only 1 sequence of events. Therefore, everything is set in stone.

But I tend to think of it as, you know the event had a 100% chance of happening, AFTER it happens. But before it happens its a random outcome. Doesn't make sense logically, but to me its the only way to work when you just think practically.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3KBut I tend to think of it as, you know the event had a 100% chance of happening, AFTER it happens. But before it happens its a random outcome. Doesn't make sense logically, but to me its the only way to work when you just think practically.

It does make sense logically that you know something happened afterwards but not before.

 

[DrPizza]

I don't know the answer. I'd prefer to think that it truly is random at the sub microscopic level; a world ruled by probabilities. In fact, I thought experiments tended to reinforce the idea that the quantum world is random, ruled by probabilities...

Regardless, I think it's nicer to believe that it's all random... Either answer is meaningless to humans; we'd never be able to predict the future as that would require knowledge of all the velocities/locations of particles/whatever. Storing all that information would require more atoms/photons/whatever than we could possibly lay our hands on during the next bazillion years.

It gives fewer headaches to just believe it's random.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I don't know the answer. I'd prefer to think that it truly is random at the sub microscopic level; a world ruled by probabilities. In fact, I thought experiments tended to reinforce the idea that the quantum world is random, ruled by probabilities...

Regardless, I think it's nicer to believe that it's all random... Either answer is meaningless to humans; we'd never be able to predict the future as that would require knowledge of all the velocities/locations of particles/whatever. Storing all that information would require more atoms/photons/whatever than we could possibly lay our hands on during the next bazillion years.

It gives fewer headaches to just believe it's random.

not really. you just need to know how the first part started and the equation. isn't there some algorithms that are incredibly simple that create super complex objects (like that triangle thing if anyone can remember)?

 

[BrownTown]

All the rules that govern the basic newtonian mechanics are very straightforward, and yet its still impossible to predict them with accuracy if there are a large amount of pieces involved. Each little inacuracy build up and destroys the model. So, you might be able to predict how one ping pong ball would react falling down a hill, but add 500 balls and it gets exponentially more difficult. A slight misprediction might mean you thing 2 balls will barely avoid each other but really they hit, then the 2 balls courses are altered and they hit other balls, and the chain reacton rapidly destroys your model. Obviously it is easy to see that with the unimaginably large number of particles involved in the universe predicting something very far in the future is d@mn near impossible. The best you can come up with is some pretty accurate guesses based on probablility. But the actions themsleves do nto work on probability, they are deterministic, it is just our inability to account for all variables that requires us to use probability to try and make a best guess at the result.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Gibsons

As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

I don't think it's correct to assume that.

For instance, if you have two identical atoms of a radioactive isotope, there's no way to predict which one will emit first. If you get a very large pile of these atoms, you can calculate how many will emit over a given time period with some precision, but not which particular atoms.

The reason you can't predict which will decay first is due to the fact you can't know the precise position and velocity of subatomic particles at any givin instant. The reason you can predict the average is a statistical calculation.

IF there is a currently unknown law of nature which governs the interaction of all types of particles and subatomic particles, the so-called theory of everything, then EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED. If this law exists and we eventually somehow obtained it and also know the instantaneous position and velocity of everything in the universe then yes, we could predict the future. But then we get ourselves into a difficult situation . . . we could use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation. Due to this situation, I think that it is a physical impossibility to ever discover the equation.

Aha, I don't see a difficult situation here. We could not use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation because the equation would have already predicted we would try to "change" the future. What we believe to be changing the future is just the natural result of these particle interactions.

For ex:

Big Bang, particle interactions lead us to the present day, the present day being the only possibility that could have arisen from the Big Bang.

Further particle interactions lead us to find this "equation" and particle interactions lead us to predict and "change the future"... exactly the outcome that would arise naturally.

You are speaking from one 3 dimensional perspective based upon infinitite choice points having been focalized into fix point (particle) manifestations. We cannot know yet if there are infinite universes all superimposed (ghost particles for us become actual particles for another universe ad nauseum) all occurring simultaneously. Time as a linear process begins to break down at the subatomic level. I believe it has been theorized (especially through Heisenberg uncertainty principle etc. that from a seeminginly infinite possibility (wave) choice observations (particles) are made creating fixed points. In essence our observation of the universe forms the universe. If this is so, what manifested the universe before sentient life could observe it. MMM philosphical discourse. I am in no way a math major (College Calc) is my highest level :laugh: so I could simply be talking out my behind.

Warning: Philosphical rambling. In essence I would say that the future has been determined because every possible future (inifinite) is happening simultaneously with the present (and the past) but our observations of this infinite wave form focalizes the waves into particles of focalized observable phenomena on the physical level. Why we share a common observable phenomena still fascinates me. Are we (life; sentience) in fact corllorary or identical ghost particles from infinite universes focaled for an instant sharing an experience of focus? Do we change from instant to instant very subtly so that we are in fact all never precisely in the same universe for more than a single instance but rather like gravity (does it travel through the dimensions explaining its relative weakness compared to other universal forces) do we travel from universe to universe but these universes (remember there are infinite simultaneous) are so similar we cannot distinguish them? Interesting stuff. Thanks for the thread.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I don't know the answer. I'd prefer to think that it truly is random at the sub microscopic level; a world ruled by probabilities. In fact, I thought experiments tended to reinforce the idea that the quantum world is random, ruled by probabilities...

Regardless, I think it's nicer to believe that it's all random... Either answer is meaningless to humans; we'd never be able to predict the future as that would require knowledge of all the velocities/locations of particles/whatever. Storing all that information would require more atoms/photons/whatever than we could possibly lay our hands on during the next bazillion years.

It gives fewer headaches to just believe it's random.

You cannot believe something with no meaning. First decide what you mean by randomness and only then can you believe things about it and only then should you say things about it.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33Warning: Philosphical rambling. In essence I would say that the future has been determined because every possible future (inifinite) is happening simultaneously with the present (and the past) but our observations of this infinite wave form focalizes the waves into particles of focalized observable phenomena on the physical level. Why we share a common observable phenomena still fascinates me. Are we (life; sentience) in fact corllorary or identical ghost particles from infinite universes focaled for an instant sharing an experience of focus? Do we change from instant to instant very subtly so that we are in fact all never precisely in the same universe for more than a single instance but rather like gravity (does it travel through the dimensions explaining its relative weakness compared to other universal forces) do we travel from universe to universe but these universes (remember there are infinite simultaneous) are so similar we cannot distinguish them? Interesting stuff. Thanks for the thread.

Science describes things we tangibly observe, i.e. empirical things. One should not take it in any other sense; one should not mix it with "existential" thinking which will convert it all into mumbo-jumbo.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33Warning: Philosphical rambling. In essence I would say that the future has been determined because every possible future (inifinite) is happening simultaneously with the present (and the past) but our observations of this infinite wave form focalizes the waves into particles of focalized observable phenomena on the physical level. Why we share a common observable phenomena still fascinates me. Are we (life; sentience) in fact corllorary or identical ghost particles from infinite universes focaled for an instant sharing an experience of focus? Do we change from instant to instant very subtly so that we are in fact all never precisely in the same universe for more than a single instance but rather like gravity (does it travel through the dimensions explaining its relative weakness compared to other universal forces) do we travel from universe to universe but these universes (remember there are infinite simultaneous) are so similar we cannot distinguish them? Interesting stuff. Thanks for the thread.

Science describes things we tangibly observe, i.e. empirical things. One should not take it in any other sense; one should not mix it with "existential" thinking which will convert it all into mumbo-jumbo.

Unfortunately for you the false hypothesis test is running into problems at the quantum level. The "laws" of empirical "observation" begin to collapse as the "observer" changes the nature of the experiment by the very act of observation. The problem lies in the growing awareness that the experimenter cannot exist outside (or even stay truly objective) in any experiement because they are helping create the universe they are observing. To call my thoughts mumbo jumbo simply reflects your belief that science should be objectified in all fields of inquiry. The desire ot objectify science into the study of observable phenomena is wonderful for building bridges but completely limiting for many of the social sciences and indeed some the quantum fields of study. I have watched some quantum physics series with quantum physicists talking about the growing philosophical nature of some of quantum physics speculations (by them with math!) and thought it interesting. I would question whether true objectivity can exist at all.

Edit: I fully agree with you about having a universal set of standards to use as a benchmark for experimenation and replication. To intuit a bridge staying up somehow makes me nervous :laugh: . However, in other scientific endeavors we must be cautious in assuming objectivity (true objectivity) is possible.

 

[Pacemaker]

In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.

--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

*sigh*

Most of you guys are missing the point of the topic. I'm not asking IF we can predict the future via a set of equations, etc. I'm asking IF the future is set in stone. In essence, I'm asking if there is true randomness, or chance, in the universe. Forget observation. Forget symantics. Forget Heisenburg.

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.

--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927

There is no "we" or "calculate." The statement is simply "If the present is exact, then so is the future."

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
A few assumptions to start out with:

1. The interactions of atomic and subatomic particles ultimately cause everything.

2. Chemical reactions resulting from these particle interactions control our behavior, like deciding to eat a burger instead of a salad. ie. "free will" is one of the results of these particle interactions.


As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

In essence, is there no randomness at all? We percieve things as random because we do not have the capability to follow these particle interactions to completion. But if we did, wouldn't we find that a seemingly random event actually had a 100% chance of happening?

Of course, the ultimate result of this would be that the past, present, and future were set in stone from the moment the universe was created.

I'm responding to this off-the-cuff before I read the others because I'm simply impatient. This was a very prevalent line of thought (though not as developed) with the advent of Calculus - I believe it was called determinism. However, if you take into account the theories of relativity and what that means for space-time, these calculations get hairy.

To address the point, though, your proposition flies in the face of quantum theory. I can't explain much more than that, because I'm not a physicist. However, as a mathemtician, moreover a statistician, I can with certainty say that random distributions are not just traced over natural phenomena - rather, the underlying mathematics bring out the distribution.

Also consider one of the main concepts in statistics - sampling. It is highly unreasonable to think that we will ever be able to survey an entire population - certainly not in the context described here. Randomness is a result of sampling - in most situations.

Is the future set in stone? Part of me says no. To assume that time is a linear object bound by the traditional concept of real analysis is really just begging the question