Everything after time T is determined

[DBT]

Where the initial conditions came from appears to be a different issue. Determinism, if true, begins with the initial conditions: time t.

 

[Speakpigeon]

wtf is "T"?

It's the moment in time when, suddenly, things get "determined".

Before T, no, things could do what they liked best.

After T, sorry love, you do according to whatever the other thing that came just before did.

So, the real Master of the Universe, is the thing that was lucky to be there at T.

Why this T and not another time? What determined this crucial moment in time?

It wasn't determined!

OK, so, at T, the universe was not determined. After T, everything is determined.

So, the universe at T was the last thing to have free will.

Whatever came after the universe at T just had to follow the-universe-at-T's directions.

Basically, he universe at T used its free will to deprive everything that came after of its own free will.

We just came too late!
EB

 

[Jokodo]

Feel free to get into the grit of this debate, or instead read the extensive number of threads we've already made by going into advanced search, and searching on free will by thread title.

Why I'm actually making this thread isn't to debate, it's to create a poll on this statement:

'Everything after time T is determined'

If you want to ask about, why not, well, ask about free will?

An undetermined universe in which there is no such thing as free will is a perfectly consistent option.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As to the idea of uncaused, that comes across as having a nonclementure defect. To me, cause and effect is like an unbreakable semantic union.

Cause and effect do go together. To say something is uncaused is to say it isn't an effect.

Personally, I don't see why that would be.

Maybe the universe is both uncaused and perfectly deterministic, with every state of the universe being caused by the previous state, except for the first, uncaused, state.

Why not?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I believe that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies that uncertainty is more than a problem of measurement, but is in fact a characteristic of the Universe. Thus, while statistically things might seem to be predictable at a certain scale, they are not at all scales. How and if uncertainty at a quantum scale effects things at a macro scale is as yet unknown.

The real question is whether there is a limited store of possible events. Things may be essentially undetermined but with a limited range of events to choose from, things we're already familiar with, something like the laws of nature.

Or, maybe anything is really possible and the apparent regularity of nature is just a matter of massive probability. In this case, maybe some really weird stuff could happen. It hasn't yet because too improbable but it could be just a matter of time for it to happen.

I don't see how there could be an effectively unlimited store of possibilities but much more likely is that the store is much more important than what we've seen so far. We've seen the stuff that's just more probable. The improbable hasn't shown up yet but the improbable would inevitably happen given enough time.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Even if there is baked-in, inherent uncertainty about events at certain scales, that doesn't close the door on absolute determinism within a multiverse. If the Everett interpretation is true, then each locally indeterminate event would branch into multiple parallel universes, and taking the whole picture from a hypothetical all-inclusive view you could still say that the multiverse is determined from start to finish, as all possible alternate scenarios are exhausted in some version of the future.

I don't think the Everett interpretation could be proved. We may have either every possibility happens and therefore deterministic, or only one branch actually happens, and therefore undeterministic.

Which leaves us in the same predicament. We can't distinguished, we can't measure, between the two conceivable situations. Which mirrors the problem of metaphysical free-will. How would you prove either way? How would you prove you could have done otherwise?

No answer. Only fools have answers.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Was there a time zero?

If we keep to causality then it seems like there can be no t(0).

 

[skepticalbip]

Even if there is baked-in, inherent uncertainty about events at certain scales, that doesn't close the door on absolute determinism within a multiverse. If the Everett interpretation is true, then each locally indeterminate event would branch into multiple parallel universes, and taking the whole picture from a hypothetical all-inclusive view you could still say that the multiverse is determined from start to finish, as all possible alternate scenarios are exhausted in some version of the future.

I have a real problem with the multiverse in a science discussion. It is philosophy not science. The idea of a multiverse is no more testable than the assertion of 'goddidit' is. If a multiverse is accepted as true then any model that yields solutions contrary to observation can no longer be assumed to be wrong and evidence of that model being invalid. The absurd solutions could always be claimed to be valid "in some universe".

 

[Jokodo]

Even if there is baked-in, inherent uncertainty about events at certain scales, that doesn't close the door on absolute determinism within a multiverse. If the Everett interpretation is true, then each locally indeterminate event would branch into multiple parallel universes, and taking the whole picture from a hypothetical all-inclusive view you could still say that the multiverse is determined from start to finish, as all possible alternate scenarios are exhausted in some version of the future.

I have a real problem with the multiverse in a science discussion. It is philosophy not science. The idea of a multiverse is no more testable than the assertion of 'goddidit' is. If a multiverse is accepted as true then any model that yields solutions contrary to observation can no longer be assumed to be wrong and evidence of that model being invalid. The absurd solutions could always be claimed to be valid "in some universe".

What difference does it make? A model that falls flat on it's nose trying to explain or universe does so whether on not there is or might be another one where it's valid. For empirical Science, nothing changed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Even if there is baked-in, inherent uncertainty about events at certain scales, that doesn't close the door on absolute determinism within a multiverse. If the Everett interpretation is true, then each locally indeterminate event would branch into multiple parallel universes, and taking the whole picture from a hypothetical all-inclusive view you could still say that the multiverse is determined from start to finish, as all possible alternate scenarios are exhausted in some version of the future.

I have a real problem with the multiverse in a science discussion. It is philosophy not science. The idea of a multiverse is no more testable than the assertion of 'goddidit' is. If a multiverse is accepted as true then any model that yields solutions contrary to observation can no longer be assumed to be wrong and evidence of that model being invalid. The absurd solutions could always be claimed to be valid "in some universe".

What difference does it make? A model that falls flat on it's nose trying to explain or universe does so whether on not there is or might be another one where it's valid. For empirical Science, nothing changed.

In a science discussion? This is like asking what difference does someone quoting scripture to explain events - empirical science isn't changed.

A multiverse explanation belongs in the philosophy forum and a scriptural explanation belongs in the religion forum.

 

[Jokodo]

What difference does it make? A model that falls flat on it's nose trying to explain or universe does so whether on not there is or might be another one where it's valid. For empirical Science, nothing changed.

In a science discussion? This is like asking what difference does someone quoting scripture to explain events - empirical science isn't changed.

A multiverse explanation belongs in the philosophy forum and a scriptural explanation belongs in the religion forum.

Huh?

Positing a multiverse in no way denies the fact that an explanation of phenomena in this universe must be consistent with the body observations made in this universe. A multiverse does not "explain events", and it's not meant to.

 

[skepticalbip]

What difference does it make? A model that falls flat on it's nose trying to explain or universe does so whether on not there is or might be another one where it's valid. For empirical Science, nothing changed.

In a science discussion? This is like asking what difference does someone quoting scripture to explain events - empirical science isn't changed.

A multiverse explanation belongs in the philosophy forum and a scriptural explanation belongs in the religion forum.

Huh?

Positing a multiverse in no way denies the fact that an explanation of phenomena in this universe must be consistent with the body observations made in this universe. A multiverse does not "explain events", and it's not meant to.

Exactly... any use of the multiverse to explain anything is philosophy, not science. As such it does not belong in a science discussion. It belongs in philosophy. The same as positing a god does not belong in a science discussion.

 

[Kharakov]

Exactly... any use of the multiverse to explain anything is philosophy, not science. As such it does not belong in a science discussion. It belongs in philosophy. The same as positing a god does not belong in a science discussion.

How the do you not posit a god if you are going to test the hypothesis "if the universe we live in has an intelligent creator or creators, there will be indisputable mathematical evidence built into the physical constants that govern the universe that indicate it was created by a God or Gods".

 

[skepticalbip]

Exactly... any use of the multiverse to explain anything is philosophy, not science. As such it does not belong in a science discussion. It belongs in philosophy. The same as positing a god does not belong in a science discussion.

How the do you not posit a god if you are going to test the hypothesis "if the universe we live in has an intelligent creator or creators, there will be indisputable mathematical evidence built into the physical constants that govern the universe that indicate it was created by a God or Gods".

Yes, if someone is offering a hypothesis for either god or the multiverse their existence needs to be posited. However I have never seen a hypothesis offered for either, only baseless assertions. A hypothesis for either would give us specifics that can be tested and so a method to demonstrate the hypothesis is invalid or valid as far as it goes.

Your offer of, "if the universe we live in has an intelligent creator or creators, there will be indisputable mathematical evidence built into the physical constants that govern the universe that indicate it was created by a God or Gods" isn't a hypothesis but a rather odd claim. It could as reasonably be claimed that "The fact that there are universal physical constants that govern the workings of the universe indicates that gods are not required." However, neither is a hypothesis only assertions.

 

[steve_bank]

Scientific speculation based on existing accepted science is how scince grows in part.

Maybe a new term is needed, scientific philosophy.

 

[DBT]

As far as I know, the proposition or idea of a multiverse (quite a few models) is based on cosmology, the however remote possibility that our expanding 'universe' may be a bubble within a larger system, therefore it is not a matter of philosophy, just an idea, proposition or hypothesis.

 

[Kharakov]

Exactly... any use of the multiverse to explain anything is philosophy, not science. As such it does not belong in a science discussion. It belongs in philosophy. The same as positing a god does not belong in a science discussion.

How the do you not posit a god if you are going to test the hypothesis "if the universe we live in has an intelligent creator or creators, there will be indisputable mathematical evidence built into the physical constants that govern the universe that indicate it was created by a God or Gods".

Yes, if someone is offering a hypothesis for either god or the multiverse their existence needs to be posited. However I have never seen a hypothesis offered for either, only baseless assertions. A hypothesis for either would give us specifics that can be tested and so a method to demonstrate the hypothesis is invalid or valid as far as it goes.

Your offer of, "if the universe we live in has an intelligent creator or creators, there will be indisputable mathematical evidence built into the physical constants that govern the universe that indicate it was created by a God or Gods" isn't a hypothesis but a rather odd claim. It could as reasonably be claimed that "The fact that there are universal physical constants that govern the workings of the universe indicates that gods are not required." However, neither is a hypothesis only assertions.

I mentioned it elsewhere, but the thing is, say mathematicians know some pattern that cannot occur naturally (there is a proof). Then recording that pattern in some fundamental ratio of constants, that could be detected, would be a good way of revealing that constants were selected for the purpose of revealing that there is a creator selecting them.

Recording that pattern, and having some message in ASCII code after the pattern (such as "fuck you, I'm real, and totally 1337!!111!!11!"), would be slightly more impressive. It would indicate one shaped language and computation to find the message one hid.

Of course, if you find that this pattern is not easy to insert into the constants (life is very hard to nurture with the exact pattern recorded in constants), then you'd hide it in the trailing digits of some ratio.

There are lots of things you could do, but a lot of them would require beings significantly smarter than theists are stereotypically portrayed to be researching them diligently... or maybe waiting patiently for the answer to make sense.

Anyway. Time to hit the gym, because no God is going to make my body healthy if I don't.

 

[DBT]

Everything goes the way it goes, regardless.

 

[steve_bank]

Sign on a space buoy.

Warning to all spacecraft...do not accelerate past cosmic expansion rate. Collision with end of universe will occur.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I went with “other” because all matter exists in all states simultaneously in all universes. It is only human perception (i.e., pattern recognition, which is really pattern interpolation; our brains filling in the gaps in the missing information, because they don’t have the capacity to “record” an infinite amount of information every time our eyes sweep a room) that creates the illusion of continuity/cause/effect; of “measurement.”

Just consider a film. One second of projected “time” actually consists of 24 individual frames that if you looked at comparatively you would see similarities, of course, between all 24, but ultimately each and every frame is a unique, stand alone photograph. The “similarities” are merely what we project onto the frames.

Now just extrapolate one frame equaling one particle (or, rather, one particle’s given state) and you’ve got infinite stand alone “frames” of a film that only seem to be connected by the act of measuring “similarities” (which are actually, ironically, differences).

Iow, nothing is “determined” since everything simply exists in all possible states. We don’t notice it because our brains aren’t capable of processing that much information, so we instead see a blur of activity instead of the individual states of the hummingbird’ wings.

Shit, vape’s out.