Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
141 online now:
Astrophile, AZPaul3, DrJones* (3 members, 138 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 19 of 263 (318107)
06-05-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ramoss
06-05-2006 3:27 PM


From a phsyics point of view, the universe is governed by probalities.. and is not deterministic

I'd love to know who started this rumour as it is completely untrue...

Probabilities play a role in *observations* of the universe, but the universe itself is totally deterministic (as in our current understanding of the laws of phsyics show them to be completely deterministic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:27 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 8:07 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 31 by iano, posted 06-06-2006 9:13 AM cavediver has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 32 of 263 (318245)
06-06-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ramoss
06-06-2006 8:07 AM


Karl Popper for one

I can believe that some would think that Popper suggested that, but I wouldn't have thought Popper sufficiently ignorant of physics to actually think it. It's a typical layman science book misinterpretation, most usually of quantum mechanics.

As far as we are aware, the universe evolves deterministically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 8:07 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 10:20 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 40 of 263 (318270)
06-06-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by ramoss
06-06-2006 10:20 AM


Even Hawkings hedges his bet on that one

Well, Hawking (no s) used to adamantly insist that even weak determinism was untrue (in a reverse kind of way). He has since recanted, though not before making a lot of enemies :D (look up "black hole information problem" for more details)

any event can be rationally predicted

Here we run into difficulties with what we are calling an "event". An event is actually usually an observation. Where the distinction is blurred at classical levels, we have no problems anyway. But the prediction of a particular state of a wave-function is indeed stongly deterministic, with the following caveat:

Popper's definition is also problematic in the use of "desired" and "sufficient". Mathematically, there is no "sufficent" accuracy in a chaotic system that will necessarily reveal a non-chaotic sub-region. However, we do not usually consider chaos a barrier to determinism. It is a limitation of measurement and/or calculation. It does not constitute a property of the universe per se.

The universe being deterministic is not about what *we* can say/predict, but is concerned with future events being determined *solely* by past events - it is a point of causality. Which of course has major implications for choice and free-will...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 06-06-2006 10:20 AM ramoss has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 263 (318313)
06-06-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 11:55 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
Hi Mike,

The problem in hand is the universe, BECAUSE it hasn't always existed.

Something that has always existed (God), by definition, requires no explanatory causes.

Both of these statements are rather naive and redundant these days with a current understanding of space and time. Time is not the absolute yardstick that was imagined when such arguments were put forward.

An infinite universe requires as much or as little cause as a finite one. Similarly with God. God requires no explanatory cause as we define him as that entity which has no prior cause. It has nothing to do with him "always existing" which is a fairly meaningless statement with regard to our concept of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 11:55 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:47 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022