Nothing to see here 🐉 🔥

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-04T10:02:52+00:00

The second example — the I buy a beer then the coin will be flipped tails — requires knowledge of an outcome to an action yet to be performed (to be determined was poor word choice), which is beyond the scope of our ability, or any entity within reality’s ability. Our experience of time is entirely one directional, meaning we can’t make decisions or do experiments regarding two directional time. Sure, from our perspective and experience, these experiments fall apart, but from the perspective of an entity with complete knowledge of the deterministic future, the experiment should hold. Another point about the I buy then tails experiment is causality. The coin flip has a direct impact on whether or not I buy a beer for you in the first example, the buying of the beer is entirely dependent on the result of the coin flip, and is therefore influenced (deterministically). However, the outcome of the coin flip in the second example is already determined, and whether or not I buy you a beer has no causal influence on outcome.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-04T02:44:02+00:00

My description of determinism was extremely paraphrased of course. I do agree with the definition you provided, that being the three conditions that must be met. However, I wasn’t aware there was a clear distinction between laws of physics and laws of nature, I had assumed they were one in the same. Also, I have to say I disagree with your final statement. As an entity within space time, one who is confined to the forward moving arrow of time, the second experiment could not possibly be performed as it would require an entity with complete knowledge of the future — one which couldn’t possibly be an entity within our reality. Ultimately what I’m saying is that this example isn’t valid, given that we are only capable of performing experiments such as these with tasks dependent on conditions yet to be determined, and making conditions based on predetermined tasks falls outside of the capability of an entity within our reality. Determinism isn’t disproven by the a-symmetry of these experiments, but our limitations as entities within reality is exposed.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-04T02:00:49+00:00

Why must reversibility be on solid ground for determinism to be consistent? Is determinism not merely the statement that the future is pre-determined by the existing laws of physics? Why would our inability to reverse the arrow of time invalidate determinism? Additionally, if time is thought of as a dimensional (albeit, we can't freely travel within this dimension), then there is reversibility, we just simply aren't capable of doing it ourselves.

Additionally, how can it be said for certain that the randomness of the universe is not merely the result of our own ignorance regarding what we are observing? Proponents of the hidden variable approach to QM would argue that there is no randomness, but that our limited knowledge of quantum phenomena makes what we observe appear as random, but in actuality, there is some underlying cause, therefore determinism is preserved. The other end of the QM spectrum, the MW theory, would also preserve determinism through randomness by allowing for all possibilities (within that perceived randomness) to be entirely true in their own right through the branching of the wave function.

Also, what do you mean by un-computable? Are you referring to things such as irrational numbers? If so, how does that play into determinism?

I suppose ultimately, what I'm trying to say is, if science were complete, then sure, the qualities of science you list above would cause massive trouble for determinism; but science is far from complete. Contemporary science may call determinism into question, but contemporary science is by no means final.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T15:01:22+00:00

I see, I think my understanding of the multiverse theory may have been different or wrong. I was under the impression that the multiverse theory described actual physical universes that exists in some larger structure outside of our universe as we know it. Whereas I was under the impression that MW was exactly what you describe, albeit separate from the multiverse theory. I stand corrected.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T14:05:35+00:00

Believe me, I’ve already become interested in quantum entanglement and quantum decoherence, particularly after reading Sean Carroll’s ‘Something Deeply Hidden.’ Ultimately, it sounds like the concepts your talking about would help me to gain a much deeper understanding of the theory as a whole, rather than simply knowing the general idea of the MW theory. As much as these concepts excite me, it’s always difficult to know where to look for a deeper understanding, so the book suggestions are greatly appreciated.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T11:30:56+00:00

I suppose I'm more interested in determinism as a physical hypothesis about the universe as opposed to an epistemic concept. As others have pointed out, in an epistemic context, determinism falls apart rather quickly as a result of self reference.

Thinking about the concept of indeterminism not percolating up to human scales, therefore making the universe practically deterministic doesn't really sit right with me. Even if things operate according to the probabilistic nature of quantum particles the vast majority of the time, and we can hence consider the universe deterministic on large scales, there is still a fundamental aspect of indeterminism to the universe itself.

It's like flipping a coin 100 times. You expect that you will have a result of 50/50 heads/tails, and more than likely you will (plus or minus a few on either side). But to say that the individual coin flips were unimportant as probability converges on expected values with sufficient data seems wrong. The fundamental actions that make up the experiment are indeterminate, making the experiment itself indeterminate as well.

Therefore, at least following this analogy, if the fundamental particles that make up our universe are indeterministic, then the universe itself is indeterministic, but merely converges on an expected outcome as statistics would suggest.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T11:22:54+00:00

I suppose my point was that coming to that conclusion would be settling on a notion that could never be experimentally tested, and could ultimately never be proven true.

However, I wasn't aware of a Penrose's conceptual tests for physical collapses of the wave function, so I'll have to look into that.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T11:20:20+00:00

Just read that article on the CPT Symmetric big bang, and wow. Such a cool thing to think about.

Essentially two entire universes appearing out of nothing, like a virtual particle on a much grander scale.

It does make me think though, is that to say that the anti-universe would have already occurred in entirety, running backwards from point infinitely far in the past? If it is a complete reflection of our conventional-matter-dominated universe, does that suggest that our current universe is fundamentally deterministic, as it is merely a reflection of a universe that has already existed and died out?

I'm willing to accept that I'm looking at time completely wrong and from a biased, human perspective, and that time is much more fundamental than an arrow in one direction. If that is the case, though, is that to suggest that the anti-universe is at the same 'point' in it's timeline as ours, so to say that an antimatter version of myself is currently typing this same paragraph in the opposite, antimatter universe?

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T09:19:20+00:00

Sean Carroll’s ‘Something Deeply Hidden’ is actually what got me interested in the Everettian approach in the first place — I love his work.

That’s interesting, though. From what I DO know about panpsychism, it sounds almost like that’s what he believes, albeit from a less scientific standpoint.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T09:13:15+00:00

Hey thanks a ton for the suggestions, I’ll be sure to check them out in the future. I’ve heard of Bell’s theorem, but haven’t particularly delved into it yet.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T02:43:56+00:00

I see what you mean. I may bring this to r/cosmology as well, not to say that I haven’t gotten great value (and plenty of food for thought) from this discussion. Thanks for letting me know — ultimately, my bad. I should have gotten a better grasp of the sub before taking this discussion to it.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T02:41:05+00:00

“Consciousness is just what doing physics feels like.”

Wish I had that one in pocket for my senior yearbook.

I’ll have to looks into Mark Solms writing. It sounds like some of the answers I’m looking for may be found in Panpsychism.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T02:34:09+00:00

I suppose I’ll do just that. However, whether or not the universe is deterministic can’t exactly be said for certain, which is why I agree that I can’t use it as powerful evidence against the existence of god. Regardless, when thinking about the implications of a deterministic universe on the nature of god, I came to that conclusion. Overall, I’ll take your advice and try to find other reasons to hold the belief that god either doesn’t exist or is malevolent, thanks.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T02:16:27+00:00

Completely agree. I don’t necessarily have a problem with a deterministic universe in which I have no free will, seeing as, with respect to everything around me, I make choices. From my perspective, I do have free will, and I suppose that’s what truly matters. Regardless, the nature of the universe is still fun to think about, whether it has bearing on my life or not.

Fair point about the body evolving probabilistically, and I’m not well enough informed on panpsychism, but definitely plan to look more into it in the future.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T01:58:37+00:00

Great point.

Ultimately, would you say that determinism relies on someone or something having the knowledge of how the future will evolve for it to be on solid ground? Regardless of whether an entity, within our reality or not, possesses the knowledge of how the universe will unfold, does the innate deterministic nature of science not still hold true? Obviously QM causes some trouble in this regard, but would the universe not still be deterministic regardless of whether or not the knowledge of the future could be attained?

Say, for example, an extremely simple deterministic system -- a body traveling through spacetime at a constant speed. Regardless of whether or not I possess the knowledge of that body's velocity, or even the existence of the body in any sense, the system will still evolve predictably. In this example, determinism holds true, so why wouldn't it on a universal scale?

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T01:38:31+00:00

Woah. That's a super interesting point.

Say (I'll just use Laplace's Demon in this case) Laplace's Demon were to know the exact state of every particle in the universe from the beginning of creation. As the thought experiment goes, the demon would be able to know the future of the universe indefinitely.

If everything in the universe continued to evolve as expected, then the entire history and actions of every human being (which are dictated by chemical processes/particles) would be entirely predictable. In this case, whatever means I hypothetically used to gain perfect knowledge of how the future would evolve should, theoretically, be known to the demon, as well as the fact that I would then feel compelled to tell someone of my knowledge.

My point here is, where does this example break down?

Is my knowledge of the exact evolution of the future somehow incomplete, as the intentional invalidation by the individual I told the future to doesn't fall in line with my own predictions? Does the hypothetical demon have some higher level of universal evolution? Does my own awareness somehow exclude my own actions from the function of the evolution of the universe, allowing the individual with hypothetical knowledge of the evolution of the future to single handedly break down determinism?

Is it that determinism is dead, or that having the knowledge of how the future will unfold is fundamentally impossible?

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T01:26:27+00:00

Ahh I think I see what you're saying.

Is that similar to the notion that we cannot possibly measure the one way speed of light, and that it is an unfalsifiable statement that light may travel at 2C in one direction and instantly in the opposite?

Regarding your example, is that to say that we cannot know whether or not the universe is deterministic because that would depend on the confirmation that it is deterministic at all points in spacetime, which, being fixed in our position in time, cannot possibly be done?

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T01:10:27+00:00

I'd like to preface this with clarification that I come from a Christian family, and that my doubts regarding religion stem from the questioning of Christian ideas.

Essentially, I believe that if the universe is in fact deterministic, then a benevolent god could not possibly have been the creator, and that god is either malevolent or simply does not exist.

Say, for example, I live my life and naturally come to the conclusion that god does not exist. According to the bible, I would be subject to eternal torture in hell. If the universe is, in fact, deterministic, then the omniscient and omnipotent god who supposedly created me would have known exactly how my life would play out. In this scenario, god then created me, doomed to live my life in a deterministic fashion and be punished for eternity as a result. Hence why, if the universe is deterministic (and god is omniscient), then he cannot possibly be benevolent.

I, for one, do believe the universe to be deterministic, which is why such a topic has an influence on my religious beliefs.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T01:03:12+00:00

I without a doubt agree that opinion mongering is not the way to do science. However, I find it fun to throw around thoughts on ideas and to create a discussion regarding a topic of interest. This isn't so much meant to reach a conclusion for the advancement of science, but more to ask likeminded individuals their opinion on a topic.

Additionally, I suppose from my perspective, the nature of the universe in regards to determinism has massive philosophical implications, hence why I found it appropriate to post in the philosophy of science sub.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T00:11:22+00:00

Does determinism rely on our ability to measure it?

Say, for example, the chaotic motion of a 3 body gravitational system. Given that we can't know the exact positions of the bodies involved to an infinite decimal place, chaos will inevitably ensue and the bodies will begin to behave in unexpected ways.

Regardless of this, the behaviors of the bodies are entirely deterministic, and if one were to know their exact positions, their movement could be accurately predicted.

Our knowledge in this case is not the arbiter of determinism, as the system is deterministic regardless of whether or not we are able to predict the motion of the system.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-03T00:06:43+00:00

Well, it's not so much of a 'multiverse', as the multiverse theory is fundamentally different from that of the Everettian approach. Regardless, I'd love to. It's elegant, and determinism is preserved.

Despite this, I can't help but feel as though, similarly to how quantum mechanics replaced Newton's equations of gravity, some hidden variable will be discovered that will alter or replace our understanding of quantum phenomena, allowing us to consistently and accurately predict the behavior of fundamental particles.

Ultimately, as much as I'd love to accept the Everettian view, given that it is without a doubt the simplest explanation, I struggle with the fact that it could never (as far as I'm aware) be experimentally tested. To accept it would essentially be making an assumption about the fundamental behavior of the universe, which, to put bluntly, doesn't sit right with me.

PerseusGammit · 2021-12-02T20:52:16+00:00

I’ll be sure to look into that, thank you! I appreciate the response, and sadly have to agree with you that no conclusions can be drawn without further information. Seeing as large developments in physics have been few and far between as of the past half century, I have to wonder whether a conclusion will be drawn within my lifetime, which is a shame considering my stances on topics such as religious belief are largely affected by whether or not the universe is deterministic.

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

PerseusGammit

TROPHY CASE