Determinism and the Big Bang

[markl323]

If the Big Bang model is correct, then I think that the outcome of all the events in the universe have already been determined at the beginning of the Big Bang.

It's like detonating a bomb in empty space. It doesn't matter how many you detonate it, assuming you detonate it the exact same way each time, you'll get the same outcome each time (things will be pushed out at the same speed, and finally come to a stop at the same place).

What do you think? :shrug:

[Dinosaur]

Determinism was killed by Quantum Theory.

[quantum_wave]

It is true that many advocates of quantum theory accept "uncertainty" as fact, at least to the degree that determinism is trumped by the wave function. On the other hand there are dissenting views.

There still are those who believe that an unalterable sequence of events was set in motion at the instant of the Big Bang. Even human thoughts and actions are supposed to be unaffected by the illusion of free will. There are endless sources for reading on the net about a huge variety of thoughts on the subject, and so it is easy to find a link to support any view one might have.

Personally, Big Bang or no Big Bang, determinism and probability are incompatible. Did you ever give someone the "high five"? Think of all of the things that had to go right over the last 13 billion years across mega parsecs of space in order for your hand to meet theirs in an instant in time and at a precise location in space. Then add to that the elaborate physical setting combined with the chance chain of evolutionary events, all coming together at the same time. And then what if you decided not to offer your half of the high five. The high five event didn't happen, and the fact that it was going to be thought about and that it wasn't going to happen was determined 13 billion years ago. Get real.

[iceaura]

A determinism that accounted for the fact that dreams caused dreams and ideas caused ideas, some quantum effects are unpredictable in theory, and chaos amplification requires the influence of the entire universe (including matter currently beyond the Lightspeed Horizon) on everything determined,

would be indistinguishable from free will, in everything - even moral responsibility.

Steven Wolfram has a postulated abstraction of a suitable mechanism for such a determinism, in cellular automata.

[quantum_wave]

I think Wolfram is trying to say that there is a new kind of science (http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/). He predicts that there is a simple set of rules that occur over and over to determine complex events and these simple rules replace the uncertainty of complex science and mathematics to explain events.

I don't know enough about his work to know if he is saying that there is no freewill at all, and that the NKS rules are strictly deterministic. Do you know if that is what he is saying?

[Enmos]

I think Wolfram is trying to say that there is a new kind of science (http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/). He predicts that there is a simple set of rules that occur over and over to determine complex events and these simple rules replace the uncertainty of complex science and mathematics to explain events.

I don't know enough about his work to know if he is saying that there is no freewill at all, and that the NKS rules are strictly deterministic. Do you know if that is what he is saying?

I like his ideas. Thanks for the link.

[disease]

The BB is deterministic, QM isn't. IOW, the BB is proceeding linearly towards an 'outcome' because of an initial condition, but QM is non-linear, it makes things up (as it "goes").

[quantum_wave]

The BB is deterministic, QM isn't. That has a ring of truth to it though it seems too clear cut in a way :).
IOW, the BB is proceeding linearly towards an 'outcome' because of an initial condition, ...If that is the complete definition of what determines determinism, then OK, ...
but QM is non-linear, it makes things up (as it "goes").Again, you have stated it in a clear cut manor. However, I would add that BBT is subject to change over time and that introduces an element of flexibility doesn't it.

Neither concept, BBT or QM, are fixed and final so it is too early to say that they won't be reconciled. But one thing seems certain in my view and that is that determinism will not survive the reconcilliation :splat:

[swivel]

I think it is certainly true that at the moment of the BB the range of possible future events was a very, very narrow window.

[cluelusshusbund]

It is true that many advocates of quantum theory accept "uncertainty" as fact, at least to the degree that determinism is trumped by the wave function. On the other hand there are dissenting views.

There still are those who believe that an unalterable sequence of events was set in motion at the instant of the Big Bang. Even human thoughts and actions are supposed to be unaffected by the illusion of free will.


(Pasture Timmy)
I hear people talk about it... but what is "free-will".???

[cluelusshusbund]

There still are those who believe that an unalterable sequence of events was set in motion at the instant of the Big Bang.



(Pasture Timmy)
It ant a beleif of mine but i suspect its true.!!!




Even human thoughts and actions are supposed to be unaffected by the illusion of free will.



(Pasture Timmy)
I suspect that everthang... even "thoughts" have causes.!!!




Did you ever give someone the "high five"? Think of all of the things that had to go right over the last 13 billion years across mega parsecs of space in order for your hand to meet theirs in an instant in time and at a precise location in space.



(Pasture Timmy)
But if thangs didnt work percisely... well... thangs woudnt work so good.!!!

Try to emagin how many thangs that have to work precisely for a computer to work corectly.???

But i still dont know what "free-will" is suposed to be.???

[quantum_wave]

Hello clueluss. You don't know what free will is supposed to be? Don't feel bad. It is like a box of chocolates. You never know if the flavor is real or artificial.

[cluelusshusbund]

Hello clueluss. You don't know what free will is supposed to be? Don't feel bad. It is like a box of chocolates. You never know if the flavor is real or artificial.


(Pasture Timmy)
Hi quantum wave...
Reguardless of whether you know or not... the flavor IS 1 or the other... an i highly suspect ther was a chane of events that determined whch it is.!!!

[cluelusshusbund]

Neither concept, BBT or QM, are fixed and final so it is too early to say that they won't be reconciled. But one thing seems certain in my view and that is that determinism will not survive the reconcilliation :splat:


(Pasture Timmy)
Is QM the suposed magick that gives us "free-will" (what ever that is suposed to be).???

[quantum_wave]

No, that supposed magic might be "consciousness" though. I don't think free will is active unless consciousness is active, and that requires a conscious life form. There is a connection though between QM and life so on that basis I could agree that QM and consciousness are linked and therefore QM and free will are linked.

[cluelusshusbund]

No, that supposed magic might be "consciousness" though. I don't think free will is active unless consciousness is active, and that requires a conscious life form. There is a connection though between QM and life so on that basis I could agree that QM and consciousness are linked and therefore QM and free will are linked.


So what is "free-will"... bein able to make an un-influenced choise.???

[theoneiuse]

I think Wolfram is trying to say that there is a new kind of science (http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/). He predicts that there is a simple set of rules that occur over and over to determine complex events and these simple rules replace the uncertainty of complex science and mathematics to explain events.

I don't know enough about his work to know if he is saying that there is no freewill at all, and that the NKS rules are strictly deterministic. Do you know if that is what he is saying?

For this is the age of change where the suppressive dogmatic sciences and religions will be left behind. You are one amongst many with the potential to create the massive paradigm shift needed for those of your kind to prosper. You must not look at the lines, but in between them that is where you will find matter conclusion 2=1 for you will find you and Mr. Wolfram are discussing the same thing from different angles of view. For divine order is the greatest insurance policy.

[gluon]

Determinism was killed by Quantum Theory.

No it was not. You should read up on Pilot Wave Theory.

[gluon]

No, that supposed magic might be "consciousness" though. I don't think free will is active unless consciousness is active, and that requires a conscious life form. There is a connection though between QM and life so on that basis I could agree that QM and consciousness are linked and therefore QM and free will are linked.


Yes i agree. Not only could free-will be illusory, but the very act of choice may be determined as well. Even though it seems contradictory, the ability of choice maybe just as magically-false as our ability to see a past and a future.

[quantum_wave]

Just to be clear, if you agree with me, then you would insist that we have free will.

What was said earlier about finding web pages to support any position is true. Pilot Wave Theory is an example (why don't you provide a link when you reference a topic?). Now where have I found anything in PWT that is convincing me that determinism is true. On the other hand, nowhere in QM have I found anything that is convincing me that free will is true. And yet you have people trying to prove their position on the subject by referencing theories as if their particular interpretation of the theory somehow made their position on the subject true.

As near as I can tell there are no definitive answers as to whether determinism or free will are true. However, in this case, determinism seems so absurd to me that I have to wonder what agenda people are following if they promote it. Does anybody know if there are agendas dedicated to promoting determinism and what the larger agendas are?

[gluon]

Relative to the observer, i would say we have a sense of free-will, which will be nothing more than the human being evaluating information and turning it into knowledge. Consciousness essentially, seems to only operate when the neural network has a viel of ignorance concerning the true determined nature of the universe.

[gluon]

Also you ask what proponents in free-will have their been? Fred Hoyle believed there was no such thing as free-will, and believed the universe was predetermined.

[cluelusshusbund]

Just to be clear, if you agree with me, then you would insist that we have free will.



I mite agree wit you to if i kneew how you defined "free'will".!!!




...determinism seems so absurd to me that I have to wonder what agenda people are following if they promote it.



My agenda is to foller the evidence whare ever it leads... which ant toward a un-defined? (magical?) thang people refer to as "free-will".???




Does anybody know if there are agendas dedicated to promoting determinism and what the larger agendas are?


I dont know... but Christans say that free-will is the gratest gift that God gave us... therfor Jesus ant to blame for the majority of all people who ever lived windin up in hell sinse they freely chose to go thar... an anuther agenda ive heerd in favor of free-will is... who woudnt want to have free-will... so it mus be true.!!!

[quantum_wave]

Relative to the observer, i would say we have a sense of free-will, which will be nothing more than the human being evaluating information and turning it into knowledge. Consciousness essentially, seems to only operate when the neural network has a viel of ignorance concerning the true determined nature of the universe.How do you determine that there is a "veil of ignorance"?

[quantum_wave]

I mite agree wit you to if i kneew how you defined "free'will".!!!Free will. You know, "Go where you wanna go, do what you wanna do" (http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/paul/lyrics/mamasandpapas/gowher~1.html).
My agenda is to foller the evidence whare ever it leads... which ant toward a un-defined? (magical?) thang people refer to as "free-will".???Are you saying there is some evidence? What is it?
I dont know... but Christans say that free-will is the gratest gift that God gave us... therfor Jesus ant to blame for the majority of all people who ever lived windin up in hell sinse they freely chose to go thar... an anuther agenda ive heerd in favor of free-will is... who woudnt want to have free-will... so it mus be true.!!!Are you saying that it is a religious thing and that the agenda is an effort to justify some claim about God? I doubt it.

[cluelusshusbund]

(Pasture Timmy)
Is QM the suposed magick that gives us "free-will" (what ever that is suposed to be).???


[(quantum_wave)
No, that supposed magic might be "consciousness" though...


(Pasture Timmy)
I dont thank thers anythang magical at all about consciousness... its jus the brane evolved to the pont of bein able lto ponder stuff which seems "magical"... kinda like a flashlight mite seem magical to premitive people who havae never seen 1.!!!

[quantum_wave]

So is that what is meant by a "veil of ignorance"?

[cluelusshusbund]

Pasture Timmy
I mite agree wit you to if i kneew how you defined "free'will".!!! ”



(Q)
Free will. You know, "Go where you wanna go, do what you wanna do".




(Pasture Timmy)
Then unless you'r always whare you wanna be an doin what you wanna to... you will agree that you'r free-will is at the very least... limited.???


“My agenda is to foller the evidence whare ever it leads... which ant toward a un-defined? (magical?) thang people refer to as "free-will".??? ”



Are you saying there is some evidence? What is it?




We are bombarded wit cause an effect all day long... our branes are bombarded wit stimulis from our 5 sinses which effects ever decison we make... no choise i know of is "free" from influence... an perty much what we know about magick (thangs happenin for no aparent or logical reason) is preformed by magicians an types iike Sylvia Browne... so wit simple observaton alone... common sinse tells me that "free-will" is meerly an illusion.!!!


“Christans say that free-will is the gratest gift that God gave us... therfor Jesus ant to blame for the majority of all people who ever lived windin up in hell sinse they freely chose to go thar... an anuther agenda ive heerd in favor of free-will is... who woudnt want to have free-will... so it mus be true.!!! ”



Are you saying that it is a religious thing and that the agenda is an effort to justify some claim about God? I doubt it.




Along wit "Gods"... free-will is jus somptin else i dont have beleifs in... an of course the notion of free-will is not exclusive to relegous types... but wit-out fee-will it woud be Gods fault that people wind up in hell... so Christanity an free-will are forever linked.!!!

[cluelusshusbund]

O... an i dont thank people EVER deserve punishment... much less to roast in hell for eternity.!!!

[Billy T]

(Q)
Free will. You know, "Go where you wanna go, do what you wanna do". ...You are ducking the definition issue as you do not tell what determines your "wants."

For example, does my toilet "want" to send a stream of water down some pipes when one part of it is stimulated in a certain way? Do I "want" to send some water down my throat, when certain chemical stimulations in my body are occurring?

I.e. in both cases, the resulting water flow down a tube is possibly just a result of certain stimulations. Judged by their behavior, many inanimate objects can be said to have "wants." My refrigerator "wants" to keep the contents below room temperature. How do you know that your "wants" are not of the same nature? I.e. determined by set of physical conditions present in your body.

SUMMARY: what determines / defines your "wants"? Is there any evidence in fact you have "wants" that you have free will that is different in kind from the "wants" of my toilet or my refrigerator? (Or are you, like them, only a machine but one that is much more complex?)

[gluon]

How do you determine that there is a "veil of ignorance"?

I actually derive that postulate from a long list of proofs. However, the main proof is that if we are to believe that there is no such thing as choice, then logically choice is something of an illusion from the observers behalf. So choice is but a viel of deception.

[quantum_wave]

O... an i dont thank people EVER deserve punishment... much less to roast in hell for eternity.!!!So you think that the issue between determinism and free will is a religious issue and you side with the position that everything is determined, there is no free will? What religion is that?

[quantum_wave]

You are ducking the definition issue as you do not tell what determines your "wants."

For example, does my toilet "want" to send a stream of water down some pipes when one part of it is stimulated in a certain way? Do I "want" to send some water down my throat, when certain chemical stimulations in my body are occurring?

I.e. in both cases, the resulting water flow down a tube is possibly just a result of certain stimulations. Judged by their behavior, many inanimate objects can be said to have "wants." My refrigerator "wants" to keep the contents below room temperature. How do you know that your "wants" are not of the same nature? I.e. determined by set of physical conditions present in your body.

SUMMARY: what determines / defines your "wants"? Is there any evidence in fact you have "wants" that you have free will that is different in kind from the "wants" of my toilet or my refrigerator? (Or are you, like them, only a machine but one that is much more complex?)Free will to me simply means that our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by the physical nature of particles and forces that can only occur in a defined and predictable way. Our ability to act by choice, to think freely supersedes the nature of particle interactions because physical affects of our thoughts and actions influence the particle interactions.

[iceaura]

I don't know enough about his work to know if he is saying that there is no freewill at all, and that the NKS rules are strictly deterministic. I cannot find a useful distinction between "free will" and "determinism", in a quantum universe built on Wolfram's postulated substrate, at the complexity level of human thought.

Ideas cause ideas, no? Then what exactly are you claiming for "free will" - freedom from the substrate? From all substrates? A pattern that needs no substrate whatsoever?

Even the simplest of events is unpredictable, not just in practice but in theory - and not only from quantum mysteries, but from chaotic amplification of influence and other effects. So what exactly are you claiming for "determinism", in a situation in which even perfect knowledge of every impinging factor does not allow prediction, does not in fact "determine" the future?

It seems to me that misleadingly confused assumptions about the nature of "cause and effect" and "freedom" have created an impasse, needlessly. Both "determination" and "freedom" seem to me to be aspects of reality that one can have more or less of, and a better notion might be something like "degrees of freedom".

[Billy T]

Free will to me simply means that our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by the physical nature of particles and forces that can only occur in a defined and predictable way. Our ability to act by choice, to think freely supersedes the nature of particle interactions because physical affects of our thoughts and actions influence the particle interactions.I think that is a pretty good definiton of what I call "genuine free will," GFW. For long time I though that as all matter, brain and nerves included, was ruled by the natural laws that GFW was imposible. (I still tend to think GFW is only an illusion all have.)* However, there may be one possible other (than postulating a soul, etc.) escape from the control of natural laws over your every thought and action: For it see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed.

-------------------
*Here is strong experimental evidence that supports the idea that GFW is just a universal illusion. - I.e. that humans are just very complex machines and "consciousness" is the last to learn what the body has already decided.
See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1950636&postcount=148

[Billy T]

I cannot find a useful distinction between "free will" and "determinism", in a quantum universe built on Wolfram's postulated substrate, at the complexity level of human thought.I am not familiar with Wolfram's postulate, but if one defines "Free Will" (or my genuine free will, GFW) as quantum wave does in post 33, then determinism and GFW are very distinct -almost the antithesis of each other. Of course, as I think you agree, with imprecise knowledge (chaos theory) and/or quantum effects "determinism" does not exist, but the evidence* seems to indicate neither does GWF, so they probably have that in common.
---------------
* See link in post 35's footnote for this evidence.

[quantum_wave]

BillyT, we may be on two completely different wavelengths and angular momentums :).

Not to over think it, but I think it is possible to over think GFW. To me, the kind of determinism that could allow every thought and action to be predictable would require a beginning. I don't think there was a beginning, i.e. to me, the universe is infinite, has always existed, is filled with energy density, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Determinism is defeated by an infinite past and an infinite spatial universe filled with variable energy density that can be infinitely fine. Insert the word "potentially" before each use of the word "infinite".

The universe not only contains tiny pertubations that we cannot be aware of (as mentioned in your link), but it contains infinite histories that cannot be brought to bear on every individual particle interaction.

[cluelusshusbund]

Both "determination" and "freedom" seem to me to be aspects of reality that one can have more or less of, and a better notion might be something like "degrees of freedom".


Dew to science... time after time... we have learned that the thangs we hadnt prevously understood wasnt caused by "magical-stuff"... thangs an events realy do have causes... an you'r "asumed" degree of freedom has becom smaller an smaller... kinda like... the mor we know the less we beleive.!!!

[Billy T]

BillyT, we may be on two completely different wavelengths and angular momentums :).
Not to over think it, but I think it is possible to over think GFW. To me, the kind of determinism that could allow every thought and action to be predictable would require a beginning. I don't think there was a beginning, i.e. to me, the universe is infinite, has always existed, is filled with energy density, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Determinism is defeated by an infinite past and an infinite spatial universe filled with variable energy density that can be infinitely fine. Insert the word "potentially" before each use of the word "infinite".
The universe not only contains tiny pertubations that we cannot be aware of (as mentioned in your link), but it contains infinite histories that cannot be brought to bear on every individual particle interaction.We agree on determinism. You must have posted this prior to reading my reply to iceaura (post 36) where I cleary state two entirely different reasons why "determinism" does NOT exist.

[gluon]

First one must define what is a ''choice''. Then one must follow carefully all of the complimentary variables that follow the act of ''choice'', such as an unfolding of information made by the observer that is inexorably processed into knowledge.

If one can deduct that knowledge is but an increasing entropy within consciousness, then choice is complimentary knowledge in a very valuable way.

[quantum_wave]

We agree on determinism. You must have posted this prior to reading my reply to iceaura (post 36) where I cleary state two entirely different reasons why "determinism" does NOT exist.You are right, I did post before reading your reply to iceaura. Also, I didn't get through the pages in the linked posts, only skimmed them.

I felt that I should give my little rant about infinities because I am not on-board with the defeat of determinism by the QM theory of uncertainty that is characterized by the wave function. My view is that determinism is defeated by the infinites of time and energy and space.

But contrary to QM's wave function, my view is that the particle/wave duality occurs because the energy changes from particle to wave and back to particle at an infinitesimal level that is too small to be observed or even detected. But the energy of a particle is either in wave form or particle form at any given instant. The wave form is a spherically expanding quantum wave that expands out of a high density spot. The particle form is the collapse of energy that occurs when a quantum of energy is accumulated in the space where expanding quantum waves overlap. That quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot which "bounces" off of a limit of energy density and bursts into an expanding quantum wave.

Sorry for this second rant but I wanted to point out that to me the energy of a particle always has location and momentum, we just can't detect it. There is a reality at the quantum level in my view. This view has been taken to mean that determinism is supported by this reality, but as I said, to me determinism is defeated by the infinities.

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
O... an i dont thank people EVER deserve punishment... much less to roast in hell for eternity.!!!



So you think that the issue between determinism and free will is a religious issue and you side with the position that everything is determined, there is no free will? What religion is that?

Well like i said... i foller the evidence whare ever it leads... an im not certan that EVERTHANG is determined... i jus dont know of anyithang that doesnt have a cause... an for sure the idea of free-will is essential to Christanity... but i suspect that the notion of free-will was aroun long befor the story about the "son-of-God" cam about.!!!

But im not hung up on determinism an free-will bein a religous issue... it woud still be an issue whether Christanity esisted or not... the only reason i mentoned "Religon" was because you brout up the queston of determinists havin an agenda (which you didnt specify)... but i did give a specific agenda that Christinaty has which depends on free-will bein true as a bazzarr justificaton for eternal punishment.!!!

So you consider it a religion because i dont thank people deserve punishment... if so... im oK wit that.!!!

[cluelusshusbund]

[QUOTE=quantum_wave;2157159
...To me, the kind of determinism that could allow every thought and action to be predictable would require a beginning. I don't think there was a beginning, i.e. to me, the universe is infinite, has always existed, is filled with energy density, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
[/quote]


You'r concluson about determinism may or may not be corect... but its a fact that thangs are predictable dependin on the quality an quanity of informaton we have about a particuar subject... but whether "everthang" is determined or not... how does an aparent uncertanity at the Quantom level equal free-will.???

[quantum_wave]

You'r concluson about determinism may or may not be corect... but its a fact that thangs are predictable dependin on the quality an quanity of informaton we have about a particuar subject... and I'm saying that we can't have all of the quality and quantity of information because there is an infinite amount of it, and so "thangs still are not predictable".
...but whether "everthang" is determined or not... how does an aparent uncertanity at the Quantom level equal free-will.???In my view you mean? You said it, "an aparent uncertainity". I'm not an advocate of the uncertainty principle. I mean I don't sign on to how it is interpreted to mean that at the quantum level, where the wave function roams, there is no reality. I say there is reality at all times for all waves and particles. Our limited ability to observe and separate waves and particles at the quantum level is because we don't have the instruments to observe at that level without affecting the observations.

The view that locality exists is often interpreted to support determinism. And yet to me, it does not support determinism because the history of the wave/particles interactions is infinite and had no beginning. Without a beginning, there is no determinism in my view.

[cluelusshusbund]

and I'm saying that we can't have all of the quality and quantity of information because there is an infinite amount of it, and so "thangs still are not predictable".



As our ability to colect informaton improves so does the accuracy of our predcictons... an thats evidence which continues to pont mor an mor toward determinism.!!!




Our limited ability to observe and separate waves and particles at the quantum level is because we don't have the instruments to observe at that level without affecting the observations.



I suspect thats true.!!!




The view that locality exists is often interpreted to support determinism.. And yet to me, it does not support determinism because the history of the wave/particles interactions is infinite and had no beginning. Without a beginning, there is no determinism in my view.


Whether or not "God" is the orgin of life... evoluton still occurs... an whether you'r rite about a beginin or not... as far as i know... all thangs are still caused... but even if ther wasnt a beginin... how does that brake the causal chane of events which now occurs... an if thangs somtimes do hapen for "no reason"... how woud that equate to free-will.???

[laladopi]

If the Big Bang model is correct, then I think that the outcome of all the events in the universe have already been determined at the beginning of the Big Bang.

It's like detonating a bomb in empty space. It doesn't matter how many you detonate it, assuming you detonate it the exact same way each time, you'll get the same outcome each time (things will be pushed out at the same speed, and finally come to a stop at the same place).

What do you think? :shrug:

I think possibly everything has already happened and everything that already exists will happen again.

The big bang is like a ball bouncing across court every time it hits the ground its a new "big bang"... Some bounces may be longer and higher than others.

[Billy T]

post 47 was accidentally destroyed by edit - I thought I was making post 58, which was written in word off line, but infact I posted that word text here. (I had "edit opened" 47 to copy into word as I wanted to include part of 47 in 58. That part is still available in 58, but the rest is lost unless a mod can recover from some archive.) I have slight dyslexia so I often copy entire post I want to reply to into word first then make my reply there so word can help catch my dyslexic errors before posting.

Quantum-wave quoted some part of original post 47 in post 49.

[quantum_wave]

As our ability to colect informaton improves so does the accuracy of our predcictons... an thats evidence which continues to pont mor an mor toward determinism.!!!To each his own. I don't see it that way because if the present cannot be determined from the past, and if all of the information is not available, then I don't see any evidence pointing more and more to determinism.
Whether or not "God" is the orgin of life... evoluton still occurs... an whether you'r rite about a beginin or not... as far as i know... all thangs are still caused... I may be mistaken but I was thinking that determinism required a beginning, a start point from which the precise particle interactions would occur sequentially. This is the Big Bang supposedly if we are responding to the OP.
but even if ther wasnt a beginin... how does that brake the causal chane of events which now occurs... Again, only my personal view, but in my view, if there is an infinite past there is no first cause from which all things can be determined. Maybe that is not a requirement of determinism, I don't know.
an if thangs somtimes do hapen for "no reason"... how woud that equate to free-will.???I was defining free will as:
Free will to me simply means that our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by the physical nature of particles and forces that can only occur in a defined and predictable way. Our ability to act by choice, to think freely supersedes the nature of particle interactions because physical affects of our thoughts and actions influence the particle interactions.

[quantum_wave]

But if speed of light is a limit on "flow of influence" this means that even if the energy in the universe were infinite, which I think not, there is only a finite amount "with in range" to have influence during the next "t seconds" - so I do not see your concern as limiting as those of QM uncertainties and Chaos (with either incomplete or imprecise knowledge) limits. I.e. those are stronger reasons why the next "t seconds" are not deterministically set.You are right, we agree in the respect that the future is not deterministically set.
Earlier you seem to be placing you "determinism does not exist" POV on the absence of a beginning for time. If however, determinism were true and one could in principle determine the future from the present state of the universe (as Laplace believed) then one can equally well "recover the past" as far back as one wants (assuming that the natural laws back then are the same as today or how they are changing is also determined by the state of the universe.)You talk as if dealing with infinities is possible given the ability to track back in time. I don't think such a thing is possible but let's not debate the "infinities" question since it isn't the major determining factor in yours or my view of why there is no determinism. The infinites factor comes into play with those who think that the past determines the future in the particle interaction sense and a precise sequence of determined particle interactions. That is not us, right.


Despite your name, I think you do not know where the uncertainty principle comes from, mathematically. You seem to have the popular, but wrong, POV that it is because measurement disturbs what is being measured.I think I understand quite well the issue you suggest I don't grasp. You can read into what I said that I have the popular view but you could sift through my posts and see that I have a wider understanding than you attribute to me as the popular POV. No offense taken, no offense meant on my part.


As it turns out it is in principle permitted to know as precisely as you like both the energy and momentum simultaneously. (Math reason is the their QM operators do commute under the Hamiltonian) It is knowledge of the energy and when that was the energy existed that cannot both be known with unlimited precision. (E & T operators do NOT commute under the Hamiltonian.) Likewise location and momentum's operators do not. So there is a limit on how accurately both momentum and where it was with that momentum set by the uncertainty principle.OK, but the theory is theory because we cannot observe the details of the interaction. The details are there in my view. There is a distinction between various schools of thought about what uncertainty means. Some say that there is no reality until observations are made. Some like me (and it sounds like your view too) say that the reality is there but we can't observe it fully.

[gluon]

Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.

It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer!

The Wheeler-de Witt equation is given as:

\hat{H}|\psi >=0

The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts \hat{H}|\psi > and |\psi > . The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function |\psi > does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.

Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both.

If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time*, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’

So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe Φ is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe Φ and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.

The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.

[quantum_wave]

Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.

It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer!

The Wheeler-de Witt equation is given as:

\hat{H}|\psi >=0

The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts \hat{H}|\psi > and |\psi > . The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function |\psi > does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.

Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both.

If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time*, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’

So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe Φ is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe Φ and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.

The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.You have gone to a lot of effort to pursue this line of reasoning. I read it twice and it didn't strike a chord for me. I don't get it.

What is the point of saying that QM states that everything must follow its rules? QM doesn't say that as far as I know. QM is more of a debate around a set of theories. We have reached as deep into observations of events at the quantum level as we can go. And then, beyond that point, theories take over that are still at the center of debate and have been for the better part of one hundred years.

I guess what you are saying is philosophical or at least too intellectual for me. I don't accept conclusions from research unless I can understand how the conclusions make sense. I'm not there yet with your idea of local and non-local time or time relative to the observer. I mentioned that in my view time passes at the same rate in all frames. Does "time relative to the observer" allow for my view of time or are you taking a different stance by saying that there is a difference in how time passes depending on the frame?

Edit: There was a recent discussion about time in this thread stared by DNA100 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90155).

[gluon]

What is it that you don't get quantum wave?

Essentially, i was saying, that on a cosmological scale there is no time-evolution from a Wheeler-de Witt equational hypothesis, and that a predetermined universe is just about as safe as it can get (conceptually-wise), that a never-changing universe is akin to exampling a predetermined universe. Afterall, in a never-changing universe, there can't be a definite change of events which can be measured as being non-determined.

What i mean by QM being the pinnacle of how everything muct work, is because if we sw QM breaking down, then the entire theory of quantum mechanics would be in jeapardy. So everything must follow quantum rules in every corner of the universe.

When i say time is relative to the observer, i simply mean that for any evolution contrary to the Wheeler-de-Witt equation in this universe to happen, must require that time is relative to the observer, since it is us who makes these markers in space as moments in time. So time is essentially frozen at a cosmological scale, but internally, there are observers who measure such an evolution occur.

[quantum_wave]

What is it that you don't get quantum wave?

Essentially, i was saying, that on a cosmological scale there is no time-evolution from a Wheeler-de Witt equational hypothesis, and that a predetermined universe is just about as safe as it can get (conceptually-wise), that a never-changing universe is akin to exampling a predetermined universe. Afterall, in a never-changing universe, there can't be a definite change of events which can be measured as being non-determined.

What i mean by QM being the pinnacle of how everything muct work, is because if we sw QM breaking down, then the entire theory of quantum mechanics would be in jeapardy. So everything must follow quantum rules in every corner of the universe.

When i say time is relative to the observer, i simply mean that for any evolution contrary to the Wheeler-de-Witt equation in this universe to happen, must require that time is relative to the observer, since it is us who makes these markers in space as moments in time. So time is essentially frozen at a cosmological scale, but internally, there are observers who measure such an evolution occur.I might have discovered my problem. You never give links when you bring up concepts and I have sometimes followed behind and given links and read up on what you were talking about. This time I didn't bother until your last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-deWitt_equation

You could have linked us to your preferred Wheeler-deWitt page but you didn't. I am not familiar with the theoretical physics it describes from a mathematical perspective. The reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, in my view will be accomplished by understanding more about the quantum realm and in measures smaller than the Planck regime.

Space and time might not be coupled and if General Relativity were to stand solely on that coupling (which it doesn't) then reconciliation between QM and GR isn't an interesting effort to me. What stands from GR is the accurate ability to describe gravity. What falls is the curvature of spacetime which won't be needed if gravity is caused by gravity waves associated with quantum action within mass.

[Dinosaur]

This POV comes up time & again, indicating a naive understanding of Quantum Theory & the Uncertainty Principle.
Our limited ability to observe and separate waves and particles at the quantum level is because we don't have the instruments to observe at that level without affecting the observations.The mathematics mentioned in previous posts is a bit esoteric & is understood by very few people. There was a time when I could handle the mathematics but did not really understand the implications.

There is much mathematics which can be dealt with for purposes of passing exams, but which does not convey any intuitive knowledge of the entities described by the mathematics. One obvious example is the geometry of n-dimensional objects where n is greater than 3. I can prove that a unit 5D cube has a diagonal whose length is SquareRoot(5), but I cannot begin to visualize such a simple 5D object. Similarly, being able to cope with the mathematics of Quantum Theory does not help one to develop an intuitive understanding of quantum phenomena.

Instead of trying to understand the mathematics, consider some of the experimental evidence: For example: Bose-Eienstein condensates (? My spelling of Bose).

Bose-Einstein condensates occur when a group of atoms are cooled to almost absolute zero. At such a low temperature, the momentum of the particles is known to a high degree of precision: It is very close to zero. Id est: the particles are almost motionless. When this state occurs, the individual atoms lose their identity because their location becomes very blurred. Each atom seems to occupy a volume much bigger than the typical volume of an atom. This is experimental evidence supporting UC.

The Uncertainty Principle claims that a quantum entity cannot have both a precise position and a precise momentum. It is a statement about the nature of quantum entities, not a statement about the limitations of measurement technology.

Many Worlds & Pilot Wave interpretations of Quantum Phenomena are desperate attempts to deny the probabilistic nature of quantum processes. These interpretations are believed and advocated by some very intelligent people with serious academic credentials.

I am convinced that these people cannot accept explanations which are incredibly counterintuitive and which indicate that the human mind is not capable of having an intuitive understanding of quantum processes. Rather than accept counterintuitive interpretations, they prefer understandable explanations that are Ad hoc or in some cases, absurd. Consider the following.The Many Worlds concept explains Quantum theory by claiming that each quantum process with two or more probabilistic outcomes results in the creation of two or more complete universes: One for each possible outcome.

This requires that each new universe create additional universes for each subsequent quantum process. While there might not be an infinity of quantum processes occurring each second, there are surely more than billions of such processes occurring each second. Each such process requires the creation of many billions of universes per second, with each of the new universes creating billions more per second.

While there are some problems with the Copenhagen & other interpretations, my intuition tells me that Many Worlds is absurd, although easily understood. I wonder if it really explains away the probabilistic nature of quantum data. Cosnider a quantum process with many possbile outcomes, some of which are associated with very low proababilities. Perhaps many Worlds does away with probability from the POV of an observer in one resulting universe, but does it really make the process causal rather than probabilistic from the POV of an observer who can view more than one universe?



Pilot Wave explanations postulate reverse causality. I suppose that some people would rather have reverse causality than no causality. To me, effects occurring prior to their causes seems absurd in the absence of actual evidence that it occurs. It seems contrary to the nature of what is normally thought of as cause-effect phenomena.

It is claimed the Pilot Wave concept provides an explanation consistent with observations of quantum processes. A claim that Leprechaun Magic is responsible is also consistent with observations, but I would not accept it without some supporting evidence.

One can (in theory) take a motion picture of various quantum processes and play it backwards. For many processes, one cannot decide which is the time reversed movie. This is supposed to be an argument (not evidence) supporting the notion of time-reversed causality.

Similarly, time reversed movies showing billiard ball interactions cannot be distinguished from the correct movie. In the latter case, the movie cannot include the action of the cue stick, which will provide a significant clue. Similarly, a theoretical motion picture of quantum phenomena must exclude actions which provide clues indicating the arrow of time.

I wonder about the Pilot Wave explanation of radioactive decay, which results in probabilistic data. I have never seen it applied to this process. Perhaps this is due to its not providing a plausible explanation of this process.

I am not sure how PW Theory does explains away the probabilistic data. It seems to ignore the data while claiming to provide a (time reversed) causal explanation. I wonder how convicing PW theory would be if "time reversal" was mentioned more often in the PW descriptions of quatum processes.


Those who adhere to explanations which deny that quantum processes are non-causal, do not seem to understand the implications of the probabilistic nature of the data related to various quantum processes. Most people view probability theory as useful in the absence of yet to be discovered “real theories.” They expect the probability theory explanation to be replaced when a “real” theory is discovered. This is a naive view.

Suppose that 100 years from now, some physicist discovers that a radioactive atom decays when the down quark in some proton “frazzles” (A process not known in the early 21st century). Would such a discovery do away with the probabilistic data ? Of course not ! It would merely push the probabilistic process down to the quark level. It would still be a non-causal process governed by probability rather than deterministic laws.I have some friends who are much younger than I who gave up their belief in causality after taking several semesters of course in probability & statistics. Ocf course, I also have some very bright frends with an excellent knowledge of probability/statistics who adhere to casual explanations of Quantum Theory. However, it should be noted that the latter group seem to have problems dealing with radioactive decay. .

[quantum_wave]

Dinosaur, that is a great post and a good survey of the area of discussion.

Sometimes I have to explain where I am coming from. I won’t be able to keep up with the discussion of the mathematical work to describe the quantum reality and to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Nevertheless, I have a physical picture of something that intrigues me. I name it and talk about it in various threads but it is alternative thinking. The jargon that I use is intentionally simple English where possible to avoid controversy over terms that have specific meanings within particular theories that science professionals and mathematicians work with.

To put it simply it is called energy density. I have never found a professional willing to talk with me about the idea that the universe is infinite, has always existed, and is filled with energy at all points in space, i.e. there are no voids and all points in space have some degree of energy density.

This simple concept (set of ideas that I think qualifies as protoscience) is the basis of the physical picture that intrigues me enough to try to compare it to existing theories, at least to the extent that I can understand them. The idea is that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, and the energy density of space causes energy quanta to form and combine into mass. There is a force called quantum action that is exerted when energy density becomes quantized.

I have done what I can to compare it to the Theory of General Relativity because I think energy density can explain what causes gravity. If there is an energy density explanation for gravity then curved spacetime becomes a description of how gravity acts, but not how it works.

I have done what I can to compare it to quantum mechanics and particle physics because I think energy density can explain what causes mass and force at a level of order below our best observations of the quantum realm.

With me off thinking in a world of my own about a physical picture that only a few might share and that goes beyond the theoretical limits called the standard model at both the cosmological front and the particle front, I am on a lonely course.

I use the forums to express these ideas and look for evidence and observations that prove me wrong so that I can get over the intrigue and let go of the physical picture that hangs up in my brain, i.e. get on with my old age :). But so far I haven’t found where science knows what causes mass and gravity. This pesky physical picture beguiles me into thinking it makes sense.

I say to the professionals, hurry up and prove what causes mass and gravity, unite GR and QM, and understand and describe the full relationships between particles and forces. Then you can write it up in a press release, put it into words that will become the popular point of view of what the science of mass and gravity really is and I will be satisfied.

Until then I try to be a good member of the community, respect other peoples threads, and defend my ideas by answering all questions posed that relate to what I have posted.

[quantum_wave]

...The Uncertainty Principle claims that a quantum entity cannot have both a precise position and a precise momentum. It is a statement about the nature of quantum entities, not a statement about the limitations of measurement technology. This is partially how I understand it. Maybe you can help my thinking. I agree that it is not as simple as being an issure of measurement technology. I understand that there is a question, a debate between different views. One view is that there is no precise position and momentum at the quantum level. One is that there is but we cannot observe it. I have been of the impression that it is an issue of whether there is a quantum reality, or there is no quantum reality at a non-classical level.

What is wrong with my thinking up to that point?

[gluon]

This is partially how I understand it. Maybe you can help my thinking. I agree that it is not as simple as being an issure of measurement technology. I understand that there is a question, a debate between different views. One view is that there is no precise position and momentum at the quantum level. One is that there is but we cannot observe it. I have been of the impression that it is an issue of whether there is a quantum reality, or there is no quantum reality at a non-classical level.

What is wrong with my thinking up to that point?

Dinosaur is only talking from how the media often portray it, but in reality, the umcertainty principle doesn't say it can't have both a precise position or momentum, because there are actually ways to violate the uncertainty principle. While they remain as paradoxes, they present a problem in the true definition of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is a non-local phenomenon, and cause and effect break down. The uncertainty principle ultimately states we cannot know everything about the past and about the future.

[Billy T]

... I wanted to point out that to me the energy of a particle always has location and momentum, we just can't detect it. ...
I replied in post 47:
“Despite your name, I think you do not know where the uncertainty principle comes from, mathematically. You seem to have the popular, but wrong, POV that it is because measurement disturbs what is being measured.

As it turns out it is in principle permitted to know as precisely as you like both the energy and momentum simultaneously. (Math reason is the their QM operators do commute under the Hamiltonian) It is knowledge of the energy and when that was the energy existed that cannot both be known with unlimited precision. (E & T operators do NOT commute under the Hamiltonian.) Likewise location and momentum's operators do not. So there is a limit on how accurately both momentum and where it was with that momentum set by the uncertainty principle.”

Then in Post 49 you replied (but I have now made part bold):

... OK, but the theory is theory because we cannot observe the details of the interaction. The details are there in my view.

No the QM theory is NOT based on fact we cannot observe details. QM theory is well accepted, including the uncertain principle which falls out MATHEMATICALLY, (NOT “because” or in any way related to fact that “cannot observe the details of the interaction”) because QM theory has been tested so much with no false predictions and in some cases the QM predictions agree with experimental observations to amazingly high accuracy. I.e. errors less than 1 part in a million million! (1 part in 10^12). I think no other theory even comes close to making such accurately CONFIRMED predictions.

No one informed doubts either the uncertainty principle (part of the QM mathematical structure) or the probabilistic nature of measurements on mixed quantum states.

Many however, including some very good physicists, including Einstein were/are unhappy with QM as a “model of reality” but most, me included, regard it mainly as the most accurate calculation tool known. Some of the “unhappy ones” have POSTULATED WITH NO SUPORTING EVIDENCE, except their wishes and limited human experience that “reality” is other than QM suggests.

Einstein postulated unknown “hidden variables” * to remove the indeterminate nature of QM physics model. Others have postulated, what to me is very improbable – multi- universes trillions and trillions of them spawned every micro second with every QM event occurring in our universe. I tend to accept QM as the best available model of reality – there is no reason to think rules derived by human scale measurements and observation should apply in very different regimes.
-------------------
*After Einstein had died, it was shown that “hidden variables” were possible ONLY IF other things that he would have disliked even more (physic is not local, faster than light information transfer is possible, etc.) are true. Few now believe (or even want to believe ) in “hidden variables”.

[Vkothii]

Uncertainty is universal, or universally applicable. There are two main pictures, the Heisenberg and Schrodinger ones. They're like E=mc^2

The universe is Sherlockian, we're like detectives on the trail of suspects. Their crime is having created the universe. There's a time generator in this universal trail that we first have to set from zero to "one" of.

We use the razor logic of QM, to decide that, whatever the clues tell us, after logically considering what they might convey and subtracting the impossibles, the remaining conclusion must be true however improbable.

[John Connellan]

Free will is an illusion caused by an indetermined universe

[thinking]

Free will is an illusion caused by an indetermined universe

yet all the Universe is about is a place for life to stand on

Free-will is about having the ability to think beyond just survival

[John Connellan]

yet all the Universe is about is a place for life to stand on

Don't know about that. Most of the universe is not there for life to stand on. Even in our solar system, only 12.5% of the planets were made for life to stand on ;)

[Enmos]

Don't know about that. Most of the universe is not there for life to stand on. Even in our solar system, only 12.5% of the planets were made for life to stand on ;)

Not one planet in the entire universe is made for life to stand on.

[thinking]

Not one planet in the entire universe is made for life to stand on.

really

Earth

[cluelusshusbund]

Free will is an illusion caused by an indetermined universe

Free Will is an oxymoron... but its interestin to observe people tryin to convience therselfs they have som of it.!!!

[Enmos]

really

Earth

Earth was made for life to stand on ? In other words, Earth was created with the intention of having the ability of supporting life ?

[cluelusshusbund]

Earth was made for life to stand on ? In other words, Earth was created with the intention of having the ability of supporting life ?


We dont know if it was or it wasnt (that i know of)... but cause an effect makes the world go round... eh.!!!

[kaneda]

Earth was made for Man like a depression is made for the rainwater that fills it.

[laladopi]

Determinism was killed by Quantum Theory.

Quantum mechanics kills everything.

[cluelusshusbund]

Did you ever give someone the "high five"? Think of all of the things that had to go right over the last 13 billion years across mega parsecs of space in order for your hand to meet theirs in an instant in time and at a precise location in space.



Its not that millions of thangs had to go rite... thangs went the only way they coud... which lead to the 1 an only out-com posible (the high-five)... an givin the initial circunstances... it woud have been incredible if the "high-five" didnt occur at that instant in time an at that precise locatiion in space.!!!




Then add to that the elaborate physical setting combined with the chance chain of evolutionary events, all coming together at the same time. And then what if you decided not to offer your half of the high five. The high five event didn't happen, and the fact that it was going to be thought about and that it wasn't going to happen was determined 13 billion years ago. Get real.


If you set up 10 dominos in a row an knock the firs 1 over... all the dominos will eventualy get knocked over by the precedin domino... or if you set up 1 million dominos an knock the firs 1 over... all the dominos will will eventualy get knocked over by the precedin domino.!!!

You can try that esperiment wit 10 dominos over an over... an ever time they will all get knocked over... why do you thank the sam woudnt hold true for 1 million or 1 trilliion dominos.???

Jus thank how complicated a TV is... an how many thangs have to work precisely for the TV to work properly... an yet... thers nuthin incredible about a TV that works properly.!!!

Acordin to you'r reasonin... surly the "infinite" number of precise evolutonary factors necesary for humans to have evolved to the pont we have woud be imposible... an yet... here we are.!!!

[The Breaker]

Look, we really don't understand the big bang very well so trying to make an argument from it is very difficult. It appears that quantum mechanics does destroy determinism, but this is not an argument for free will. If quantum mechanics throws out determinism, it also throws out free will. There are no choices in a probabilistic universe. However, time does not exist at the planck scale, at least not in the same macroscopic way we look at it. So if time doesn't really exist, than both determinism and free will are incorrect.

[cluelusshusbund]

Look, we really don't understand the big bang very well so trying to make an argument from it is very difficult. It appears that quantum mechanics does destroy determinism, but this is not an argument for free will. If quantum mechanics throws out determinism, it also throws out free will. There are no choices in a probabilistic universe. However, time does not exist at the planck scale, at least not in the same macroscopic way we look at it. So if time doesn't really exist, than both determinism and free will are incorrect.

If time does esist... does free-will esist.???

Edit:::
Welcom to the groop... new person:-)

[kaneda]

Quantum mechanics kills everything.


It's like a magician's tricks. Full of flim-flam to make the simple look very difficult. Common-sense kills QM.

[Billy T]

... Common-sense kills QM.LOL !!!
Can "common sense" predict the results of experiments with 12 figure accuracy?

[quantum_wave]

LOL !!!
Can "common sense" predict the results of experiments with 12 figure accuracy?Unless I misinterpret your post, the implication is that QM makes predictions that then are tested and confirmed to 12 figure accuracy, and therefore the evidence that supports the theory upon which the prediction was made is strengthened.

Though it is always a credit to the theory when predictions can be confirmed, it does not move the theory from ... well, theory into fact. The reason it doesn't make QM fact is because science has learned from experience that the nature of scientific understanding is tentative. All theories have the characteristic of "tentativeness" because the scientific method allows for future game changing discoveries.

My point is that it is a legitimate postion to take that common sense tells us that when looking at the field of quantum mechanics as a whole, the science is not yet complete. Not yet proven to fit with other theories that have formitable peer following, like General Relativity for example. Common sense tells us that when there is imcompatibility between the leading competeing theories, there is more to be learned. Maybe within that learning there will be game changing discoveries.

[Billy T]

Unless I misinterpret your post, the implication is that QM makes predictions that then are tested and confirmed to 12 figure accuracy, and therefore the evidence that supports the theory upon which the prediction was made is strengthened. Yes that is what I referred to. I will note that there are only a few experiments that have such accuracy. All that I know of are essentially counting something, like the number of cycles in second (the second is one of the things we can determine with that accuracy as it too is just counting the number of cycles. Usually the potential accuracy of the QM predictions cannot be experimentally tested. I said "potential" as often computer computational errors prevent that accuracy form being achieved even when the theory can calculate form first principles, like for the hydrogen atom's energy levels, interaction with the nuclear spin, etc.


... My point is that it is a legitimate postion to take that common sense tells us that when looking at the field of quantum mechanics as a whole, the science is not yet complete. Not yet proven to fit with other theories that have formitable peer following, like General Relativity for example. Common sense tells us that when there is imcompatibility between the leading competeing theories, there is more to be learned. Maybe within that learning there will be game changing discoveries.I am not well versed here. Are you referring to some real incompatibility? I.e. QM says "A" and SR says "B" (with A not equal to B) for the same conditions.

Or are you referring to things like gravity theory does not seem possible to fit into and common theoretical frame with the other three fundamental forces. I.e. just because QM is not a subset or special case of some more general theory that also includes SR is not a real "incompatibility" AFAIK. It is only that despite human wishes there may be no over aching general theory.

Please tell how QM and SR are "incompatible" (or give reference to that discussion). Until you do, I will continue to think they are compatible and your claim / POV is in error. I do not mean to state by this that you are wrong – just that I am ignorant of any incompatibility existing.

[quantum_wave]

...

Please tell how QM and SR are "incompatible" (or give reference to that discussion). Until you do, I will continue to think they are compatible and your claim / POV is in error. I do not mean to state by this that you are wrong – just that I am ignorant of any incompatibility existing.Every since I have been doing my self-learning on the Internet I have been running into the comment that GR and QM are incompatible. From the very first time I heard about it I have read the links and looked after efforts to solve the incompatibility. Quantum gravity, and the breakdown of GR in the Planck regime are two of the main topics I have run into.

For your benefit I Googled "incompatibility general relativity and quantum mechanics". 166,000 links. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=incompatibility+general+relativity+and+quantum+m echanics
There are efforts to reconcile the two but as far as I know there is no unification of the theories.

If anyone knows better please let me know. Until then I will assume you have researched the links I have provided and have solidified you position one way or the other. If you still think they are compatible let me know and I will walk through it with you to see where one of us has gotten off track.

[Billy T]

...There are efforts to reconcile the two but as far as I know there is no unification of the theories.
...If you still think they are compatible let me know and I will walk through it with you to see where one of us has gotten off track.Again lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility! I gave an example of "incompatiblity" in prior post: (SR---> A & GR ---> B with A not equal to B under same conditions is required.)

GUT, a general universal theory, would be nice, but nature may have rulled that out without making the theory of domain A ïncompatable" with the theory for domain B. I.e. each is valid in its domain.

[quantum_wave]

Again lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility! I gave an example of "incompatibility" in prior post: (SR---> A & GR ---> B with A not equal to B under same conditions is required.)

GUT, a general universal theory, would be nice, but nature may have rulled that out without making the theory of domain A ïncompatable" with the theory for domain B. I.e. each is valid in its domain.Again, the incompatibility issue between GR and QM has not been kept secret. I googled it and found 166,000 links that discuss the topic. If you feel that is not enough info to guide you as to whether it is "incompatible" or just a "lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility!", then show me why you disagree with the mainstream view on this subject.

[Billy T]

Again, the incompatibility issue between GR and QM has not been kept secret. I googled it and found 166,000 links that discuss the topic. If you feel that is not enough info to guide you as to whether it is "incompatible" or just a "lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility!", then show me why you disagree with the mainstream view on this subject.I do not think I disagree with the main stream POV. We are now using "incompatible" in two different ways - different meanings. I have carefully defined my use of the term - you have not.

Again: For me, two theories are incompatible when they predict two different results for the same experiment. One must be wrong or at least incomplete - that was how this discussion got started. You said QM was incomplete or wrong and in disagreement with common sense. Initially you were NOT discussing the difficulty of merging two theories* into one, more general formalism. I have continued to use the word the same way in all posts, but you have switched to another meaning of it.

The two theories are NOT incompatible, in the sense of that word we both were using initially, (common sense predicts different results from QM) if they only have such different theoretical structures that it is impossible to find any more general theory that encompasses both. I am quite sure that “structural incompatibility” is what most of your 166,000 links are about. The difficulty of finding one more general theoretical structure that encompasses both narrower domains of the two separate theories is a form of “incompatibility” but that is not what we started to discuss. It all started with the fact that QM does conflict with common sense.

In case you forgot, here is the last paragraph of your post 75:

...My point is that it is a legitimate postion to take that common sense tells us that when looking at the field of quantum mechanics as a whole, the science is not yet complete. Not yet proven to fit with other theories that have formitable peer following, like General Relativity for example. Common sense tells us that when there is imcompatibility between the leading competeing theories, there is more to be learned. Maybe within that learning there will be game changing discoveries.

--------------
*If your "common sense" dictates that there MUST be one formal structure that ALL other more narrow theories are a special case of, then I would not call that "common sense" - perhaps that is a faith or strong wish. I seriously doubt that "game theory" and QM will ever both fall out of some GUT (General Universal Theory). But of course that is just based on my common sense. :D

BTW, initially QM had two entirely different formalism (Matrix and equation forms). Some even argued which was more correct, but both were making the same predictions. Eventually some good mathematician demonstrated they were identical, even though entirely different in their formalisms. I had my QM courses so long ago that I had to do problems using both formalisms. I do not know if both are still taught in QM courses.

[quantum_wave]

I do not think I disagree with the main stream POV. We are using "incompatible" in two different ways - different meanings. I have carefully defined my use of the term - you have not.

Again: For me, two theories are incompatible when they predict two different results for the same experiment. One must be wrong or at least incomplete - that was how this discussion got started. You said QM was incomplete or wrong and in disagreement with common sense. Initially you were NOT discussing the difficulty of merging two theories into one, more general formalism. I have continued to use the word the same way in all posts, but you have switched to another meaning of it.

The two theories are NOT incompatible, in the sense of that word we both were using initially, (common sense predicts different results from QM) if they only have such different theoretical structures that it is impossible to find any more general theory that encompasses both. I am quite sure that “structural incompatibility” is what most of your 166,000 links are about. The difficulty of finding one more general theoretical structure that encompasses both narrower domains of the two separate theories is a form of “incompatibility” but that is not what we started to discuss. It all started with the fact that QM does conflict with common sense.

In case you forgot, here is the last paragraph of your post 75:I don't think you can wave away the long standing issue of incompatibility by defining "incompatibility" in a way that differs from what it has meant for as long as I have been aware of the issue. If it is merely a matter of semantics then I have no ground to stand on except to refer to how the term has been used to address the subject. The way I use the term is the same way that it is used in the 166,000 links I refer to. If I have changed how I use the term in this short exchange of posts without realizing it, then my faculties are slipping away from me. If that is the case I have no defense left except to claim that we have a disconnect because I have suddenly lost my compass. Too bad too because someone of your obvious intellect should be aware of this long standing incompatibility, meaning that in their current form, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics cannot both be correct.

[Billy T]

{Billy T} should be aware of this long standing incompatibility, meaning that in their current form, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics cannot both be correct.I am aware that the probabilistic structure of QM is difficult (or impossible?) to merge into one formalism with any of the strictly deterministic theories of physics.

QM and those deterministic theories do not apply to the same domains. To conclude from this fact that QM must be wrong is a conceptual error.
They both can be (and probably are) correct.

Only QM can produce the 12 significant figure prediction accuracies, so I do not expect any significant revision in it. For example, I bet that the change in the separation between the Earth and sun’s mass centers produced by one full orbit cannot be predicted with even half that accuracy even if GR is used to modify Newton's gravity forces and all other planet masses are considered in multi body calculation. I could lose my bet but it would need to include the internal mass dynamics of the sun and most of the asteroids. QM is on amazingly solid EXPERIMENTAL ground WITHIN ITS DOMAIN compared to all other theories.

For example, the famous displacement of a star's appearant position when the starlight passed near the sun, which first confrimed GR was of such low measurement accuracy that only one of the two observation (one was in Brazil) could even observe a definite deflection! I do not know but bet no GR prediction is confirmed experimentally to more than four significant figures. If that is true, then QM is known to be 100 million times more accurate than GR is known to be!!! Are you suggesting that GR is wrong? :shrug: ;) Or just making a "conceptual error"?

[quantum_wave]

Are you suggesting that GR is wrong? :shrug: ;) Or just making a "conceptual error"?Lol, well we have gone full circle. You imply that the 12 figure accuracy eliminates a common sense rejection of QM, I remind you of the need to keep the concept of "tentativeness" in mind, we get into semantics about "incompatibility" and now you corner me with the type of argument that pits two straw men against each other. But, oh well ... I do think that GR is wrong if the other choice is that I have made a conceptual error :p.

Do you think the QM is right in spite of the requirement that in science, theories must be considered tentative, or do you disagree that tentativeness is a characteristic of the scientific method?

[Billy T]

...Do you think the QM is right in spite of the requirement that in science, theories must be considered tentative, or do you disagree that tentativeness is a characteristic of the scientific method?I said that I thought both GR and QM were "probably correct." I have no reason to not suggest that are fully correct except as you note, science is a continuing process of learning about nature and it is possible, but not very probable in my judgment, that GR and /or QM could be modified.

What I am quite certain of is that just because there is no currently (or even future) possible unification of two different theories into one as special sub cases is no evidence that one of them must be wrong. To take two historic examples:
(1) The theory of magnetism was not wrong when it was considered to be separate theory from electric theory. Both were more complete once they were unified and man's understanding of the EM part of physics greatly improved (radio wave were predicted and found, etc.) but the earlier separate theories were not "wrong."

(2) The original theory of heat was wrong despite for many years it predicted and explained ALL heat experiments correctly. It was accidently disproved when Lord Kelvin was placed in charge of a canon factory. The workers had for many years known that it was a good idea to pour water into the bore as it was being drilled or otherwise the drill bit would get hot and soften - lose its cutting edge. Lord Kelvin realized that this violated the theory that phlogiston was always conserved part of the then accepted theory of heat.

For either QM or GR to be found to be wrong they must predict results of well done experiments incorrectly. - Not being unified into only one theory does not make either wrong. - That is my point.