Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid.
You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation?
SophistiCatDecember 25, 2017 at 09:24#1370240 likes
Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid.
Only outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics are permissible. Also, if an outcome is the result of rational deliberation, it is not clear that more than one outcome occurs..
You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation?
The old argument from personal incredulity. Or perhaps more accurately, the argument from ignorance?
Anyway, the earth is not flat and it's not turtles all the way down.
Reply to tom No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to?
No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to?
E pur si muove
If you could construct a coherent criticism, rather than a visceral reaction to the scale of reality revealed to us by our best theories, then that would be interesting. Why bother being so scathing about something you don't understand?
Have you heard of the Many Worlds Interpretations? If so, then my question is geared towards it in asking if it makes sense to call something deterministic if every possible outcome is realized in such a universe. I hope that makes sense.
SophistiCatDecember 25, 2017 at 20:55#1371380 likes
I don't understand what's the issue either. Maybe let me restate the question. Does determinism apply to a situation where all outcomes can and are realized?
Reply to Posty McPostface MWI would be a trade-off. You get to save wavefunction determinism at the expense of causal localism. So every possibility gets actualised. But in a way that then makes no difference as there is no interaction between these outcomes. They all happen. And none of them make a difference to each other.
The phrase, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, comes to mind.
On the whole, the principle of locality seems more important to metaphysics than the preservation of determinism. The reality of chance - as in wavefunction collapse - is after all the world as we experience it. And it would be nice to keep all the causes of the world within the one world, not just abandon causality because we haven't yet got a final theory of the quantum.
SophistiCatDecember 25, 2017 at 21:13#1371460 likes
I don't understand what's the issue either. Maybe let me restate the question. Does determinism apply to a situation where all outcomes can and are realized?
In a deterministic universe every possible outcome can and is realized (in its time), since every event realizes the only outcome that is possible at the moment when it happens.
Does this answer your question?
Do you even have any clear idea about what you are asking? I get a strong impression that you don't.
Forgive my incoherent question if that is what it seems like. I'm just an amateur interested in some physics and quantum mechanics.
Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow. And it's deterministic, being operated by a centralized computer run by a city's traffic engineers. Is that what you mean?
Part of my issue is that I don't understand the conception of time in the MWI. If someone could clarify that I might to be able to clarify the confusion.
Reply to Posty McPostface Hah! Quantum mechanics still presumes Newtonian backdrop time. That's the problem. The apparent reversibility of the wavefunction physics is the reason why the irreversibility of an event, a collapse of the wavefunction, doesn't compute.
So QM imports the determinism of mechanics because it imports time as a global backdrop dimension with a basic symmetry of direction. If things look the same going forwards or backwards, then the theory can't say anything else than the future was always completely determined.
MWI tries to fix this by grafting on statistical mechanics to the QM formalism. But this only buries the issue even deeper under the reversible mechanics of thermodynamics. You still need an "observer" to break the symmetry of the maths being used.
MWI is a modern mysticism. It avoids the fundamental issue that a mechanical notion of time creates. When QM gets replaced by a fuller theory of quantum gravity, time is going to have to be a properly emergent feature like space. Instead of time and energy being connected by the uncertainty principle in the current kluge fashion, it will have to be cashed out properly like location and momentum uncertainty.
Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow.
These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes.
Reply to tom I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God?
These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes.
Can you explain what I'm missing about the basic operation of a traffic light?
Unless you want to claim nature is literally a finite state machine, then what you’re missing is that is what you appear to be claiming.
It's impossible for me to respond to a comment that's so far from anything I said that it appears to be directed at someone or something else. I have no idea what you're talking about.
OP was puzzled as to why people are unclear about his question. I suggested that he supply a specific example. I gave the simplistic example of a traffic light that has three possible output states and achieves them all.
@Rich suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful.
Reply to Posty McPostface It becomes a local observer illusion. Although you could salvage a global story in that the branching at least always increases in the future direction. But even that ain’t much given that unlimited branches can be conjured up at zero entropic cost ... apparently ... if you drink the MWI Kool-Aid.
But then even mechanical determinism doesn’t make metaphysical sense if it doesn’t admit to some kind of chance or spontaneity. That view over-determines causality as much as allowing MWI to run rampant with causal histories under-determines it.
Reply to fishfry Again, what determines the sequence of a set of traffic lights. Is it a physical determinism or an informational one? Or do you think causally the two are the same?
suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful.
Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you.
I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God?
Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically, like scientific theories generally are, rather than epistemically like Copenhagen theory.
Some notable achievements of thinking of QM in this way are: the Schrödinger equation, discovery of superposition, discovery of entanglement, discovery of decoherence, and the discovery of the quantum computer. Let's not forget, the discovery of the multiverse.
MW is also the only theory that attempts to explain what is going on in reality.
If you think that Copenhagen allows you to escape from determinism, you are quite wrong. Copenhagen is fully compatible with Superdeterminism.
Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you.
You are trying too hard to make something out of a very loose point that I tossed out as an illustration of the kind of example the OP might consider.
Again, what determines the sequence of a set of traffic lights. Is it a physical determinism or an informational one? Or do you think causally the two are the same?
You too.
OP asked a vague question then several posts later expressed uncertainty as to why he was not being understood. I suggested that he give a specific example, and tossed one out. The efforts of @Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target.
The efforts of Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target.
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." :)
Reply to fishfry I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations
I made no observation. I tossed out a casual example of the kind of specific example OP might be thinking of.
Reply to fishfry Unfortunately your casual example was incomplete which led to a incomplete have. Had you noticed that a traffic light event had totally unpredictable number of events (though some more probable than others), then we have a better understanding of nature. None of these happening in some fantasy MW universe.
Reply to fishfryThat would be more convincing if the OP hadn't by then made it plain it was the MWI multiverse interpretation that motivated the thread.
Realistically, this is about as close to an argument as you will ever get. Realistically, I might recommend some textbooks, but realistically, you are out of your depth.
"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity’s excessive pride has
got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical
sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society
of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by
the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will”
and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his "enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is
basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify "cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks
naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts,
which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like
“causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law.”
We are the ones who invented causation, succession, for-each-other, relativity, compulsion, numbers, law, freedom, grounds, purpose; and if we project and inscribe this symbol world onto things as an “in-itself,” then this is the way we have always done things, namely mythologically. The “un-free will” is mythology. " (Beyond Good and Evil)
Reply to tom This is a cut-and-paste, but it's far from random. It states a radical view from the 1880's on the entanglement of empiricism and values which still hasn't been absorbed by most scientists.
This is a cut-and-paste, but it's far from random. It states a radical view from the 1880's on the entanglement of empiricism and values which still hasn't been absorbed by most scientists.
Comments (52)
Now, such a philosophy truly sits between the absurd and the worthless. Welcome to scientific determinism.
Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid.
You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation?
I don't understand the question.
Only outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics are permissible. Also, if an outcome is the result of rational deliberation, it is not clear that more than one outcome occurs..
The old argument from personal incredulity. Or perhaps more accurately, the argument from ignorance?
Anyway, the earth is not flat and it's not turtles all the way down.
E pur si muove
If you could construct a coherent criticism, rather than a visceral reaction to the scale of reality revealed to us by our best theories, then that would be interesting. Why bother being so scathing about something you don't understand?
What can I help elucidate about the question? Basically, does determinism make sense in infinitary systems?
Is the MWI, infinitary?
Have you heard of the Many Worlds Interpretations? If so, then my question is geared towards it in asking if it makes sense to call something deterministic if every possible outcome is realized in such a universe. I hope that makes sense.
"In such a universe" - what universe? You mentioned interpretations, plural. Are you thinking of some particular interpretation?
And why would determinism not makes sense?
Really, why do you start a thread if you can't even express your thought in a few coherent sentences?
I don't understand what's the issue either. Maybe let me restate the question. Does determinism apply to a situation where all outcomes can and are realized?
The phrase, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, comes to mind.
On the whole, the principle of locality seems more important to metaphysics than the preservation of determinism. The reality of chance - as in wavefunction collapse - is after all the world as we experience it. And it would be nice to keep all the causes of the world within the one world, not just abandon causality because we haven't yet got a final theory of the quantum.
In a deterministic universe every possible outcome can and is realized (in its time), since every event realizes the only outcome that is possible at the moment when it happens.
Does this answer your question?
Do you even have any clear idea about what you are asking? I get a strong impression that you don't.
Forgive my incoherent question if that is what it seems like. I'm just an amateur interested in some physics and quantum mechanics.
Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow. And it's deterministic, being operated by a centralized computer run by a city's traffic engineers. Is that what you mean?
Part of my issue is that I don't understand the conception of time in the MWI. If someone could clarify that I might to be able to clarify the confusion.
So QM imports the determinism of mechanics because it imports time as a global backdrop dimension with a basic symmetry of direction. If things look the same going forwards or backwards, then the theory can't say anything else than the future was always completely determined.
MWI tries to fix this by grafting on statistical mechanics to the QM formalism. But this only buries the issue even deeper under the reversible mechanics of thermodynamics. You still need an "observer" to break the symmetry of the maths being used.
MWI is a modern mysticism. It avoids the fundamental issue that a mechanical notion of time creates. When QM gets replaced by a fuller theory of quantum gravity, time is going to have to be a properly emergent feature like space. Instead of time and energy being connected by the uncertainty principle in the current kluge fashion, it will have to be cashed out properly like location and momentum uncertainty.
These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes.
Can you explain what I'm missing about the basic operation of a traffic light?
Does the fact we can make machines mean that nature is mechanical?
What?
Unless you want to claim nature is literally a finite state machine, then what you’re missing is that is what you appear to be claiming.
It's impossible for me to respond to a comment that's so far from anything I said that it appears to be directed at someone or something else. I have no idea what you're talking about.
OP was puzzled as to why people are unclear about his question. I suggested that he supply a specific example. I gave the simplistic example of a traffic light that has three possible output states and achieves them all.
@Rich suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful.
What happens to causality in that form of interpreting QM?
But then even mechanical determinism doesn’t make metaphysical sense if it doesn’t admit to some kind of chance or spontaneity. That view over-determines causality as much as allowing MWI to run rampant with causal histories under-determines it.
Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you.
No, it's Unitary - always.
Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically, like scientific theories generally are, rather than epistemically like Copenhagen theory.
Some notable achievements of thinking of QM in this way are: the Schrödinger equation, discovery of superposition, discovery of entanglement, discovery of decoherence, and the discovery of the quantum computer. Let's not forget, the discovery of the multiverse.
MW is also the only theory that attempts to explain what is going on in reality.
If you think that Copenhagen allows you to escape from determinism, you are quite wrong. Copenhagen is fully compatible with Superdeterminism.
Realistically?
You are trying too hard to make something out of a very loose point that I tossed out as an illustration of the kind of example the OP might consider.
Quoting apokrisis
You too.
OP asked a vague question then several posts later expressed uncertainty as to why he was not being understood. I suggested that he give a specific example, and tossed one out. The efforts of @Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target.
OP said nothing about that. You're tilting at a windmill where there's no windmill. You want to argue with me about a thesis I haven't put forth.
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." :)
Dude you're losing it. Again.
Quoting Rich
I made no observation. I tossed out a casual example of the kind of specific example OP might be thinking of.
So don't blame me for your poor reading skills.
Realistically, this is about as close to an argument as you will ever get. Realistically, I might recommend some textbooks, but realistically, you are out of your depth.
Here's Nietzsche on free will and determinism.
"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity’s excessive pride has
got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical
sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society
of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by
the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will”
and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his "enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is
basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify "cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks
naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts,
which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like
“causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law.”
We are the ones who invented causation, succession, for-each-other, relativity, compulsion, numbers, law, freedom, grounds, purpose; and if we project and inscribe this symbol world onto things as an “in-itself,” then this is the way we have always done things, namely mythologically. The “un-free will” is mythology. " (Beyond Good and Evil)
Do you have a point, or is this just a random cut-and-paste?
Please explain.
LOL! I think I'll join you.
Something which deterministic just has one outcome.