It seems to make sense if you extrapolate the fact that the past effects the future in many instances.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-14 9:16
>>1
Yes, you would, assuming the Universe is deterministic (and not that I believe in anything, but it looks to me like the simplest theory, so I take it as true and work with it unless it breaks or it's proven false).
However, calculating the future in either a computer or your brain is probably impossible, as you'd have to know all parameters (the "state"), some of which probably require infinite precision, for which your require infinite matter which you don't have.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-14 10:32
So...if the universe is a finite state machine, it is deteministic. If it is an infinite state machine, it is not?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-14 14:33
>>4
Erm, I think you are correct, but you probably know just as well as I do.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-14 16:35
Heisenburg uncertainty principle.
Name:
CCFreak2K2005-09-14 22:54
I don't believe it's possible to predict the future with 100% certainty.
Say an anvil is falling, and you see it's going to land on someone standing on the sidewalk. Of course, you could say that the anvil will hit him, but what if he moves?
I could go either way on this issue really, but that was the only way I could actually back up my claim.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-15 7:26
>>7
I think the theory here is that if all the conditions including your body and brain is known, then one could* predict what you would do. Yes, it implies that people are predictable beings; people have no free will, it is just an illusion etc.
*could doesn't mean it's possible with current technology
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-15 19:57
There was a thing I read saying that it would be impoosible to predict inside the universe, because you would have to create a complete model of the universe inside the universe, which is impossible.
I couldn't be arsed to read the uncertainty principle, but these uncertainties, as I have assumed them, don't constitute anything that could lead to freewill because it acts on a sub-atomic (?) level, not on a cellular level. I think that the uncertainty isn't actually uncertain, but simply not understood and therefore determinism stands up. Of course, that is a rather large assumption and I don't really know anything etc.
Interestingly, if I read you correctly, you're arguing against the basis of Schroedinger's cat. IE, that subatomic events can percolate up into (collapse into) macroscopic/observable states.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-21 0:04
>>9
Uncertainty priciple is pretty simple actually. It basicly is the fact that you change the result of a measurement by the act of measuring it. This was pointed out when we realized we couldn't know both the velocity AND the position of an electron at any point in time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-21 9:05
>>10
You've gone over my head; I need to learn some physics.
>>11
It seems the uncertainty principle wasn't what I thought. I was addressing the argument that the uncertainty in quantum mechanics, or whatever it is, can somehow allow for freewill.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-21 11:38
>>11,12
I don't think Uncertainty Principle counts here because if one knows all the details of a situation, one would not have to measure it. One could just calculate the next 'step'.
Therefore quantum changes are determinable and NO FREE WILL. OH NOES.
given: there is something under what we now understand. this is self evident as quantum physics and relativistic physics do not agree on different scales.
if the underlying reality is probability based, the the universe it not deterministic, and even if we knew the exact location, velocity, energy, etc. of all the particles in the universe we could still not determine the future. we could make very accurate predictions, but they would become less and less accurate as time goes on.
on the other hand, if probability does not factor into it, then theroretically we could design a system that could predict all of history at once based on a simple measurment. ( this acually happens in on of the hichhikers' guide books, but that's a bit of a tangent.)
so the answer right now is maybe.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-22 18:15
>>14
No, he was right. There's no free will (oh noes, my freedom, h4x!! will all hippies say).
Free will is an illusion of determinism. And in a non-deterministic Universe, there's no free will whatsoever, as your actions don't determine the future.
I mean his interpretation of the uncertainty principle.
Please consult your nearest undergraduate physics book.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-23 11:01
Anyone have an undergraduate physics book to recommend?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-23 13:25
asking me to recommend a text book is like asking me to recommend a way to get kicked in the nuts, still the UW is using
physics
for science and engeneers
with modern physics
a strategic approach
by randall D. Knight
and they were in like the top 20 science colleges in the US, so they're probibly ok.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-23 15:52
>>17
I was wrong in that there will not be a first state for the state machine to calculate because once I measured it, it will change and I can't measure that change. I think.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-23 15:54
>>17
explain how i was wrong, will you. i didn't write that much.
>>1
The question really doesn't make since, basically your asking if you knew everything would you know everything.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-23 19:57
I'm pretty sure that science currently believes that radioactive decay is a truly random process, thereby destroying determinism. I don't really buy it, though lol
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-27 16:28
>>24
I don't like the current non-deterministic trend. I'm more of an Einstein follower.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-27 17:54
Stop saying you don't "like" a trend or not. Makes science look too much like humanities.
>>25
There is no debate. It's not a "trend." It is accepted as fact. Classical determinism still holds in classical systems, and random quantum systems still have waveform determinism. But randomness does occur, according to all the evidence. You are in no position to refute anything. What means do you have to do so? Your words? They are only good for explaining evidence. You have none.
Science: What You Like Doesn't Matter.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-16 5:58
It is accepted as fact.
Theories aren't accepted as facts, not even by the scientific community.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-16 9:55
>>31
Do remember that the scientific community includes many types of people, some of them relatively stupid.
>>34
Because he stated his view? Does his view happen to coincide with your own. I BET 300402854028975986 DOLLARS THAT IT DOES.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-12 22:17
If you were to create am infinate state divice it whould have to find the state of itself witch is impossible at the level required. Also if probability doesnt exit than... um... O SHI I CANT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT COULDNT BE PREDICTED GIVEN INFINATE DATA O NOES
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-23 23:21
sorry, the universe is infinitely precise, meaning you would need to be omnipotent to predict everything
a) IF you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe there would be no way of storing this information.
b) Assuming a) is irrelevant, you would then need every particle in the universe to run even one iteration of the calculation required to predict the next sequence of events.
c) Assuming a) and b) are irrelevant, you would cause instant and catastrophic entropy in the universe by running such a machine.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 11:25
Why don't you morons get jobs and fuck off?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 12:50
>>39
run it outside the universe. i think we have to assume the universe is a finite state machine if this is to work.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 12:54
When you can predict quantum mechanics, go get your nobel physics award. If not STFU.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 16:13
To me, there is nothing as attractive as the ass of a healthy 10 year old white boy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 16:35
cute
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 13:44
i don't think determinism is compatable with the timeline splitting into infinite possibilities theory. OR IS IT?
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-19 8:10
Wouldn't you need another universe to simulate this universe precisely?