Is our world totalistic?

[marv]

For instance, let's take the simplest example:
we hit the white ball with a force on a billiard table so then it hits the rest lf the balls. After a brief period of time all balls will have a certain position.

So the question is, if we (could) repeat the action in the same way as before, with the same starting state of the board, will we get the same results or will it be always sligthly different? Is this possible to answer with philosophy, with thermodynamics (entropy) or just with quantum mechanics?

 

[QuickTwist]

What subject are you talking about? The formation of the universe, a perceived emotion, the formation of a government or what we consider truth? There could be many other things to narrow down until we can get to the bottom of the proposition that you are talking about.

If you could narrow it down to one area that would help out a lot.

 

[Cognisant]

Uncertainty only really exists on the quantum level and even then we're not 100% sure of that.

Cause y'know, uncertainty

But on the macro level (subatomic particles -> atoms -> molecules -> things comprised of trillions of molecules) that uncertainty is effectively irrelevant, kind of like how playing a slot machine in the short term could be profitable but in the long term you're practically guaranteed to lose more than you win. The probability of the white ball being off by even a fraction of a degree is so astronomically low that (and this is a conservative estimate) you're more likely to win the lotto a thousand times in a row.

 

[marv]

But since we have the exact same starting states, the exact same physical laws, and a closed system with constant, homogen outer forces (gravity), the outcome should be the same, shouldn't it?

 

[Xopata]

Uncertainty only really exists on the quantum level and even then we're not 100% sure of that.

Cause y'know, uncertainty

But on the macro level (subatomic particles -> atoms -> molecules -> things comprised of trillions of molecules) that uncertainty is effectively irrelevant, kind of like how playing a slot machine in the short term could be profitable but in the long term you're practically guaranteed to lose more than you win. The probability of the white ball being off by even a fraction of a degree is so astronomically low that (and this is a conservative estimate) you're more likely to win the lotto a thousand times in a row.

I really wish I had the maths to get into complex physics, but it's going to be a while before I get to that stage. Anyways, in my inexperience I've always thought the uncertainty seemed dodgy. It may appear that something is due to chance, but there is almost always something behind it, a variable that was not accounted for. I still harbour the belief that something similar will happen with quantum physics, but as I said, I know not.

 

[matrices]

the outcome should be the same, shouldn't it?

No -- as Cognisant pointed out, our current understanding of quantum mechanics implies an inherently probabilistic universe.

Otherwise you'd be right, though.

It may appear that something is due to chance, but there is almost always something behind it, a variable that was not accounted for. I still harbour the belief that something similar will happen with quantum physics

A lot of physicists feel/felt this way -- Einstein for one. The problem, though, is that quantum uncertainty is based not on information that is unknown but knowable in principle, but information that we physically cannot access. It's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle -- since subatomic particles are so small, the only way we have of measuring them (photons) involves disturbing them and thus interfering with the measurement. So there may be a hidden variable, but there would be no way for us to know.

 

[Xopata]

Oh, that is interesting. To be honest, I think I've heard/read about the uncertainty principle, but that explanation you just gave was the best I've seen. Well done.

 

[marv]

But if our world (universe) is nested in another universes of a different kind, then, if we take that universe too which alters some of this world's particles and matter, could we talk about totalism then?
Anything that does something in the macro and micro world does it for a reason, as a form of response. Researching that response leads us to the quantum level, but shouldn't we be able to already conclude that even on that level everything's behavior is a function of something else's effects (doesn't matter if we know it or not), therefore uncertainty objectively doesn't exist?

 

[QuickTwist]

Based off your last statement, I can see your perspective now. I think it is a good question: "Is our universe totalistic/constant?" Besides pondering it, I doubt we'll ever know unless we are able to explore the entire universe.

 

[Auburn]

---- SKIT ---

Teacher: "This electron has a 70% chance of popping up to the left next, and only 30% change of popping up anywhere else."

Student: "Why?"

Teacher: "We don't know. There may not be a reason."

Student: "If there was no reason, then why the 70%? If it was random, then why is there a pattern or predictability? Something must be causing this to be a 'rule of thumb'. There's no reason why true randomness should constrict itself to probabilities. What creates probabilities are laws of nature clashing with each other to produce net results that cluster into chunks. They wouldn't cluster in chunks without a causality doing that. We cannot say that randomness is causing probabilistic results."

​

Philosophically, I always arrive at the same conclusion...
That uncertainty isn't a "thing" nor is "probability". Those are human terms convenient to our vocabulary. To say we live in a probabilistic universe is erroneous and paradoxical in itself. I find this statement says it well:

Probabilistic: Situation or model where there are multiple possible outcomes, each having varying degrees of certainty or uncertainty of its occurrence. Probabilistic is often taken to be synonymous with stochastic but, strictly speaking, stochastic conveys the idea of (actual or apparent) randomness whereas probabilistic is directly related to probabilities and therefore is only indirectly associated with randomness.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/probabilistic.html

In short, probability is different from randomness, as probability implies a causality leading things into a direction, statistically. Whether we say this thing called "probability" is causing these changes/movements, or we say laws of physics are causing the movements, either way they are systemic and causal. Thus a deterministic universe.

The only situation in which I can see a non-deterministic universe is one in which true randomness existed, which could never be understood because it had absolutely no cause. Because if we could discover the cause for this randomness, it wouldn't be random anymore.

 

[marv]

If you had the exact...
...page here.

If the answer is yes, then here's an argument:
Imagine a world of any kind, record its state, wait 1 hour and record its state again. If this world was totalistic, then with the same starting states the same outcomes came. So if you turned back this world's time by one hour, back to the starting state, you could be sure that you knew the outcome, you'd know that things would flow in the same way, the particles would collide in he same order and fashion. Therefore, free will, as a composition of varieties of complex things, couldn't exist. You can't have this freedom if the outcome of the world state is singular.

 

[QuickTwist]

If the answer is yes, then here's an argument:
Imagine a world of any kind, record its state, wait 1 hour and record its state again. If this world was totalistic, then with the same starting states the same outcomes came. So if you turned back this world's time by one hour, back to the starting state, you could be sure that you knew the outcome, you'd know that things would flow in the same way, the particles would collide in he same order and fashion. Therefore, free will, as a composition of varieties of complex things, couldn't exist. You can't have this freedom if the outcome of the world state is singular.

Its funny that you mention this in this way because a lot of reasoning tests rely on prediction.

 

[Reluctantly]

Theoretically speaking, if the world is deterministic, we might not be able to find what it is absolutely because our ability to perceive and measure reality alters that reality.

On the other hand, there's the idea that if you could perceive reality without affecting it, you'd still give it a form by subjectively perceiving it in some way shape or form. So for reality to be deterministic, there would have to be some absolutely objective way of viewing or understanding it for that to be true.

So is it? I don't know, but some seem to think it is and that we can know it without affecting reality at the same time.

 

[scenefinale]

I believe random exists to current humans.

 

[StevenM]

For instance, let's take the simplest example:
we hit the white ball with a force on a billiard table so then it hits the rest lf the balls. After a brief period of time all balls will have a certain position.

So the question is, if we (could) repeat the action in the same way as before, with the same starting state of the board, will we get the same results or will it be always sligthly different?

But since we have the exact same starting states, the exact same physical laws, and a closed system with constant, homogen outer forces (gravity), the outcome should be the same, shouldn't it?

Since we are talking about a closed system, and were pretty much assuming a virtual environment governed by a mathematical principal, then it will most definitely yield the exact results, with each trial. A mathematical equation will always come up with the same answer.

Uncertainty only really exists on the quantum level and even then we're not 100% sure of that.

Cause y'know, uncertainty

But on the macro level (subatomic particles -> atoms -> molecules -> things comprised of trillions of molecules) that uncertainty is effectively irrelevant, kind of like how playing a slot machine in the short term could be profitable but in the long term you're practically guaranteed to lose more than you win. The probability of the white ball being off by even a fraction of a degree is so astronomically low that (and this is a conservative estimate) you're more likely to win the lotto a thousand times in a row.

I agree with cog. If we are to consider the implications at a quantum level, then an interesting question would be if the differences made at a quantum level really are truly random?

Assuming that they are, it could be like cog said, the mass quantity of states that pass by in a certain period of time could amount to almost absolutely no difference. If you were to flip a coin 10^99999 times, there would almost be an absolute 50% result for each side of the coin. Perhaps the particles in a quantum level do reach an absolute. Then the whole trial could be considered deterministic.
However, if it were even the slightest bit off, then we could say we have something truly random. (that is, if we assume the physics of quantum particles are random) It could be an indication of a multiverse with slightly different alternate realities! (sorry, had to throw that in).

Scenefinale brought up another interesting thought. Are the choices that humans enact (and possibly other forms of life) truly random? To me, it would be ultimately incredible if the exact way we move about and do things was all determined since the start of our existence. Too incredible to seem plausible. But perhaps, in the long-term, grand scheme of things, certain generic events (like the invention of vehicles) had a great likelihood to happen. And the specific detailed events of life were indeed very random.

So going back to the simple billiard ball example, you would have to determine air pressure, seismic activity, and the forces of astral bodies, etc, and how they effect the measurements. And also take account how the random acts of life influence those things as well.

Because of the random acts of living things (and maybe the random properties of quantum particles), if we could rewind time, and attempt to simulate the experiment exactly, there may be a certain degree of difference. Maybe. If the choices living things made were random, and/or particles act in random ways.

 

[scorpiomover]

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=20338

this is quintessential SJ-feign-N tripe

> do not comprehend abstract subject matter
> make some irrelevant distinctions involving many tidy words to appear knowledgable and investigative anyway
> betray deep desire for CONTROL and SECURE, DOGMATIC DEMARCATION and absolute need for convenient assumption as analytical starting point

what you did is basically like replying to "what is 1+1?" with "depends on what color objects we're talking about". maybe it was a joke.

Except that most people were saying "Everything I've heard about science was said as if the universe is completely determinist. I have to re-interpret scientific laws and actual facts as if the world is completely determinist."

Do you even understand Heisenberg's problem?

Do any of you actually know anything about real particle physics?

He was willing to be open to a different POV.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Except that most people were saying "Everything I've heard about science was said as if the universe is completely determinist. I have to re-interpret scientific laws and actual facts as if the world is completely determinist."

Do you even understand Heisenberg's problem?

Do any of you actually know anything about real particle physics?

He was willing to be open to a different POV.

what?

what?

what?

what?

 

[scorpiomover]

what?

what?

what?

what?

Wrong thread. Supposed to be here.