1

"There is nowhere in the universe where the laws of physics are violated." Considering this general to be true,can i conclude that everything is pre-decided? I can explain this in the following manner: consider a photon or nerve impulse travelling in our brain at this exact moment,in accordance with the above theory, it will meet a definite fate determinable by sufficiently complex physical calculations, i.e strike a particular nerve ending and thus initiate a chain of thoughts which lead to a definite action on our part and thus determine future. Thus it can be essentially conclude that every particle or wave in the universe will necessarily follow the laws of Newtonian or quantum physics at every point of time and thus the future is definite and pre-decided. Please express your views.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
user21845
  • 11
  • 1
    Related: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe – Řídící Jun 11 '13 at 06:34
  • 1
    Related "loophole" (to strong claims of falsity rather than possibly weaker claims of unscientificness): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism. Perhaps fun to watch: Free Will Theorem (also see the Wikipedia entry). – Řídící Jun 11 '13 at 07:07
  • One way the universe could be pre-decided is the Everettian view by Hugh Everett, he proposed that every choice or probability do happen in some parallel reality. Then we can have a huge tree of branching timelines which is pre-decided, and you decide how to climb it, to get the fruits you prefer. – Enos Oye Jun 11 '13 at 12:22
  • @EnosOye Correct me if I'm wrong but: You (a version of you) is in every branch of the tree. The countless yous make every possible decision. From a bird's eye view of the tree, what you think is your free choice is qualitatively indifferent from any of the other "free choices" that the other yous make. (Assuming that the Everettian worldview is accurate.) – Eugene Seidel Jun 11 '13 at 13:00
  • @EugeneSeidel The birdybirdy see a lot of different you's, climbing all those different routes, becoming different persons, but all have a similar personality which makes some routes more popular. The route where I take a sex change and travel around to play the banjo, may for instance never be used, so I am not sure its even there. So each of the you's take a unique route in the three of personal opportunities, which are infiltrated with the branches of other trees in the forest of us. And the over-watching birdybirdy who can see all this must have a godlike nature. – Enos Oye Jun 12 '13 at 12:15
  • @EnosOye If I'm not mistaken then your explanation is at odds with the totalitarian principle: "In any of the Everett-based interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Bryce DeWitt's many-worlds or Gell-Mann's many-histories interpretations, the principle has a more literal meaning: that every possibility at every interaction which is not forbidden by such a conservation law will actually happen (in some branch of the wavefunction)." Hope you enjoy life as a woman... and the banjo :) – Eugene Seidel Jun 12 '13 at 20:10
  • @EugeneSeidel Its nothing wrong with being a woman or playing the banjo, but me as a woman playing the banjo that one I forbid! Now it will never happen on my life-route. Good thing I have a mind to protect me from choosing the wavefunctions which is not aligned to who I am. So its mind over matter, and mind wins, and most of the branches will not ever be used by me or any me's in any parallel reality. So I have to disappoint you I am not a woman playing the banjo in a pink tutu at the north pole, with a molested frog on my head named Sam, in any parallel reality. Sorry! – Enos Oye Jun 12 '13 at 23:22
  • The thing is that the possibilities for choosing are endless in every nanosecond, and each of these choices creates new endless choices. And each choice cascade and amplify and change the whole world(the butterfly effect) which only create more choices. And if I position my hand a Planck length further to the right its another parallel me in another parallel universe, if I do it a nanosecond lather its also another me in another universe. So the opportunities are infinite, but are restricted by the universal laws and me choosing only that which is aligned to my beliefs and personality. – Enos Oye Jun 13 '13 at 07:43

1 Answers1

0

This is false:

Thus it can be essentially conclude that every particle or wave in the universe will necessarily follow the laws of Newtonian or quantum physics at every point of time and thus the future is definite and pre-decided.

When quantum mechanics enters the brew, by the physical laws that follow it everything is probabilistic and thus not predetermined

The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function known as the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle

Adding that a mole of matter consists of about 10^23 atoms/molecules, even if only Newtonian physics existed the many body problem would be intractable anyway by any computational method; again one would rely on statistical distributions and probabilities. In any case, the underlying quantum mechanical level from which every measurable physical quantity emerges is probabilistic, not predetermined.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • 1
    "When quantum mechanics enters the brew, by the physical laws that follow it everything is probabilistic and thus not predetermined" Alas, this is commonly held but untrue. Determinism in the philosophical (if not practically useful) sense is perfectly compatible with QM. Bohm and all that. See the link Gugg posted on the question for more. Whether Bohmian mechanics is true or not, or its difficulties with QFT, is beside the point. I'm just using it to show that the fate of determinism has not yet been decided. It is not clear to me whether it ever could be to a philosopher's satisfaction. – Michael Jun 11 '13 at 07:07
  • Isn't the word 'probabilistic',a representation of our lack of knowledge? I believe that via sophisticated system of wormholes,mini warps etc. we can perfectly describe the motion of any particle/wave however small.Of course the Schrodinger wave equation has to has an expalnation or be discarded by a better theory with an explanation. – user21845 Jun 11 '13 at 07:19
  • 1
    No, probabilistic in classical theory, as I explain in my answer, in classical physics comes from the huge number of particles involved in nature, but in quantum mechanics it comes from the inherent uncertainty of the basic underlying layer of Nature. It is a postulate. There have been zillion experimental confirmations of this postulate . – anna v Jun 11 '13 at 14:30
  • @MichaelBrown I disagree on this view. Bohmian mechanics is a contorted reformulation of QM, adding nothing new and making no prediction while introducing complexity."The de Broglie–Bohm theory is explicitly non-local: The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the whole configuration of the universe. Because the known laws of physics are all local, and because non-local interactions combined with relativity lead to causal paradoxes, many physicists find this unacceptable." from wikipedia. – anna v Jun 11 '13 at 14:37
  • I am one of those physicists, at least until there is proof of nonlocality. – anna v Jun 11 '13 at 14:38
  • The thing is the predictions of (vanilla) Bohm are identical to those of standard QM. You simply can't distinguish them scientifically. You can prefer one over the other philosophically. That's perfectly fine by me. But saying that Bohm is non-local and acausal but QM is just fine is nonsense. They are the same. If you disagree show me an experiment which will demonstrate QM and disprove Bohm, and I'll show you a logical contradiction. The something new that Bohmian mechanics adds is a physical picture of what's going on in the quantum world. It maybe a wrong picture, but it is new. – Michael Jun 11 '13 at 14:47
  • @MichaelBrown It is not physical exactly because it is not distinguishable in predictions from standard QM. One could as well postulate little angels pushing the pilot wave, by which I mean excess mathematical complexity does not offer extra insight if it is not accompanied by new physics predictions. The epicycle model is going strong if you go to any computer planetarium and set it to the geocentric system. That does not mean that it is reasonable to use it. – anna v Jun 11 '13 at 15:06
  • I'd rather not let philosophical criteria of simplicity decide what's physical. Nature is what it is and we are limited. Maybe an ancient Greek would find epicycles simpler than differential equations. Newtonian gravity is more complicated than GR when written in geometrical language, but GR is more complicated when written in PDEs. When you modify vanilla Bohm to have different predictions than QM then we can have a productive scientific discussion. But as for vanilla Bohmian mechanics I'm completely agnostic. I'm not a partisan for it, but I really don't get the prejudice against it. – Michael Jun 11 '13 at 15:30