Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: What choice do we have?

  1. #1 What choice do we have? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2
    Lately I've been having a very strange and confusing thought. I've always been a thinker and a big believer in the logic behind everything. I believe everything happens for a reason and everything can be explained by science. I also believe that everything can be predicted using mathematical formulas. Now the thought: if everything can be explained, and predicted (in theory), then we should be able to predict every next move of everything (in theory). Therefor we should be able to know the "future". Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.

    The reason why I post this on here is because I'd like to know what others think of this crazy idea, is it in theory possible to predict the next move, knowing everything? Therefor eliminating all choice?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Lately I've been having a very strange and confusing thought. I've always been a thinker and a big believer in the logic behind everything. I believe everything happens for a reason and everything can be explained by science. I also believe that everything can be predicted using mathematical formulas. Now the thought: if everything can be explained, and predicted (in theory), then we should be able to predict every next move of everything (in theory). Therefor we should be able to know the "future". Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.

    The reason why I post this on here is because I'd like to know what others think of this crazy idea, is it in theory possible to predict the next move, knowing everything? Therefor eliminating all choice?
    Yes, this is what I think is known as the idea of causal determinism: Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    There are various opinions about it. Some however take the view that the indeterminism implicit in quantum theory undermines the idea.

    But a discussion about this really belongs in the Philosophy section rather than the one on Physics, I think.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    Not that simple, I suggest you look up the uncertainty principle and do some reading around an introduction to quantum mechanics, at the atomic level things are not deterministic, only average behaviour can be predicted... (ninja'd again...)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2
    Not that simple, I suggest you look up the uncertainty principle and do some reading around an introduction to quantum mechanics, at the atomic level things are not deterministic, only average behaviour can be predicted... (ninja'd again...)
    Yes, this is what I think is known as the idea of causal determinism: Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    There are various opinions about it. Some however take the view that the indeterminism implicit in quantum theory undermines the idea.

    But a discussion about this really belongs in the Philosophy section rather than the one on Physics, I think.
    Thanks for the suggestion, I'm definitely going to focus on quantum theory to understand this question, not the answer, just the question, thats hard enough i guess.

    I understand why you think this belongs in the philosophy section, but I think this is something we can understand (or at least try to) in the long run, based on experiment and observation, not something we can only imagine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Even in a deterministic universe, chaos theory implies that we still couldn't predict the future. In a chaotic system, even changes too small to be measured can change the long term outcome. (And, I mean too small to ever be measured.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Lately I've been having a very strange and confusing thought. I've always been a thinker and a big believer in the logic behind everything. I believe everything happens for a reason and everything can be explained by science. I also believe that everything can be predicted using mathematical formulas.
    What you mean by "logic" requires some expansion. For example, is it logical to believe that a single particle can be in two different places at the same time? It appears to be possible from a quantum mechanical point of view, but I doubt that many would regard such a possibility as logical. In quantum mechanics, logic could be a hindrance rather than a help. Second point - can everything be explained by science? Obviously, everything can't be explained by science NOW - the number of things that can't be explained now is almost limitless - do you like bananas more than apples? - can your answer be explained by science, and will it ever be explained? As for mathematical formulas, can you give an equation which allows one, by putting numbers into a formula, to calculate the relative positions of the earth, sun and moon? That looks like a pretty simple calculation - but can you do it? Mathematics is commonly seen as a clever subject but it tends to be applied to very, very simple problems. Can you calculate when I will die, or whether it will rain on Christmas day? Some scientists, such as biologists, don't use mathematics much because it is little use to them.
    Last edited by JonG; August 8th, 2014 at 05:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG
    Some scientists, such as biologists, don't use mathematics much because it is little use to them.


    That is incorrect. You may be thinking of math in the wrong sense, but biologists, psychologists and every other scientist uses math quite heavily. For biology, it takes a lot of specialized algorithms (a form of math) to sequence a genome. For psychology, and pretty much any non-theoretical science, inferential statistics is very important and requires a lot of very hairy math. The relative positions of the Sun/Earth/Moon system is very simple compared to trying to determine whether or not the outcome of a observational study of human behavior is just a random fluke or not. (That is, "are people really more likely to do this thing, or did I happen to just catch my participants on a good/bad day?")

    Otherwise, I agree that logic (meaning common sense and intuition) should be separated from logic (the branch of philosophy) from logic (the math computers use).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    What you mean by "logic" requires some expansion. For example, is it logical to believe that a single particle can be in two different places at the same time? It appears to be possible from a quantum mechanical point of view, but I doubt that many would regard such a possibility as logical. In quantum mechanics, logic could be a hindrance rather than a help.
    When dealing with the notions of particles we are using Boolean logic which assumes implicit truth values (eg. was the particle here or there). This form of logic is inherently tied to our 'classical notions' of the existence of 'things'. Quantum Mechanics on the other hand deal with notions of superpositions of states where objective properties classified by our common sense intuition arise only when we collapse this superposition of states into 'definite' classical outcomes.

    A more appropriate form of logic to use for Quantum mechanics and indeed any physics that relies on a choice of reference frame to objectively determine empirical properties is 'Intuitionistic Logic'. This logic allows for a yes, no and unknown (maybe) and is not two-valued. This form of logic is useful when dealing with complex notions that demand constructive mathematical proofs as opposed to using empirical proofs as a basis for determining validity.

    Quantum mechanics still follows logical rules, it is just that these rules are not classical in nature.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.
    There is another way of looking at this. Apart from the multitude of interactions between particles which would, in a deterministic universe, allow prediction of the future in principle, there is also the notion of "world lines" in four dimensional space-time. In space-time there is no essential difference between events belonging to the year 2020 and those belonging to 2010. However, we see one set of events as being in the future and the other as in the past, but such a distinction is not contained in the space-time description. Does this mean that we have no choice - is what will happen in 2020 out there already waiting for us to arrive and experience it? This is a difficult question to express in a meaningful way. Events belonging to 2020 are not out there now, because now is 2014 not 2020. So if those events are not in existence now and if we do not know what they will be, it is hard to see how they could be described as predetermined - although it is tempting to see them as being predetermined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    In a deterministic world, time is a relativistic point, relative to space and time. This being so, sub quantum environments are naturally immersed in precognition. This being so, time is merely a void, filled with love.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Also look into Chaos theory. There's quite sound reasons why many complex phenomena are for all practical purposes unpredictable even if their underlying physics were completely deterministic (which they aren't).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    In a deterministic world, time is a relativistic point, relative to space and time. This being so, sub quantum environments are naturally immersed in precognition. This being so, time is merely a void, filled with love.
    Meaningless word salad coupled with ridiculous claims.
    Devoid of content, let alone scientific content.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    <delete, double post>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Lately I've been having a very strange and confusing thought. I've always been a thinker and a big believer in the logic behind everything. I believe everything happens for a reason and everything can be explained by science. I also believe that everything can be predicted using mathematical formulas. Now the thought: if everything can be explained, and predicted (in theory), then we should be able to predict every next move of everything (in theory). Therefor we should be able to know the "future". Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.

    The reason why I post this on here is because I'd like to know what others think of this crazy idea, is it in theory possible to predict the next move, knowing everything? Therefor eliminating all choice?
    I used to think the same way, as did most major philosophical and scientific mind throughout most of history. Then this troublesome little thing called the Uncertainty Principle came about and mucked up our ideas on causality and predictability. Even minds like Einstein were very skeptical when it was up and coming, but it has been more and more confirmed as time goes on. Ultimately, no, the universe isn't strictly casual the way we thought it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    In a deterministic world, time is a relativistic point, relative to space and time. This being so, sub quantum environments are naturally immersed in precognition. This being so, time is merely a void, filled with love.
    What do you mean by sub-quantum environments and where do human emotion come in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Thanks.

    Sub-quantum environments are simply that, a state of time where space and time are no longer separate by space. Human plausibility is a choice, and this is never in a negative state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    Thanks.

    Sub-quantum environments are simply that, a state of time where space and time are no longer separate by space. Human plausibility is a choice, and this is never in a negative state.
    Since when are space and time separated by space? What does human plausibility have to do with this, and what does a negative state of plausibility mean and why can't it exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    1) Space is within a microcosmic field, limited by a sub quantum space.

    2) Human's are plausibility, as time is separate by time.

    3) A negative state of what is plausible is love.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    More utter bullshit.
    This is a science site, go find a nutcase forum your posts are more suited to one of those.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    I got science.

    And I also have a reader in my brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    I got science.
    If that's true then you really should start using it.
    No science was evident in your post.

    And I also have a reader in my brain.
    Another meaningless sentence.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Let's just agree to disagree.

    The art of science is subtle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    Let's just agree to disagree.
    And here we go... the typical crank response which effectively means "I can't actually produce any support for my claims but I still want to be taken seriously".
    My response, therefore, is: no, I don't agree.
    You post bullshit, please stop.

    The art of science is subtle.
    Given what you've posted so far I have to ask "how do you know, since, on the available evidence, you don't any science?"
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    How old are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    1) Space is within a microcosmic field, limited by a sub quantum space.

    2) Human's are plausibility, as time is separate by time.

    3) A negative state of what is plausible is love.
    I'm pretty sure fields exist within space, not the other way around.

    Plausibility is is a word meaning how easy it is to accept something as true whereas humans are an animal. I fail to see how they are related.

    Wait, are you claiming that love is the definition of implausibility? That nothing is more implausible than love? Because love is pretty common whereas space gerbils are not. Space gerbils are more implausible than love, I'd argue.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    How old are you?

    I think he's middle-aged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    How old are you?
    Old enough (and sensible enough) not to post crap and not to post weasel phrases when caught out doing so.
    How is my age relevant?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Space gerbils are more implausible than love, I'd argue.
    How plausible is loving space gerbils?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Space gerbils are more implausible than love, I'd argue.
    How plausible is loving space gerbils?
    If space exists in a microcosmic field, presumably, so do space gerbils. Making loving them pretty difficult. It all comes full circle!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    Let's just agree to disagree.

    The art of science is subtle.
    No. You are talking objectively meaningless tripe.

    For example, "humans are plausibility." What the hell does that mean? You could equally well say "Gerbils are credulity".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Well, just love me then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    Well, just love me then.
    This is a science forum. If you talk rubbish here you will be loathed, not loved.

    Either talk sense or try another forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Just a simple idea.

    Means time and space exist within us - as nano.

    "It's probable, though, is it plausible?" - what we're met with when we think of anything quantum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    More crap.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    I must be Bugs Bunny to you.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by 4-D View Post
    Just a simple idea.

    Means time and space exist within us - as nano.

    "It's probable, though, is it plausible?" - what we're met with when we think of anything quantum.
    Nonsense. What we encounter (I assume that's what you mean) with quantum phenomena is apparent wave-particle duality, one result of which is that exact values of properties are replaced by the expectation values of a probability distribution. Plausibility does not come into it at all. It is not only plausible: experimental evidence shows that the world at the atomic level really does seem to function in this way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    If plausibility did enter into the particle-wave duality experiment, the observer would be able to enter themselves into Schrodinger's formula, enabling time travel.

    Plausibility breaks down into a non-sequitur, and smashes time into acausal and causal rem.

    Just sayin'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,766
    FFS stop posting crap.
    Go away.
    Get an education.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    4-D
    4-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Try Dwayuxe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    The non-quiescence of the lateral or bi-lateral phase shift alternates is completely dependent on quantum variances in the particle orbits. Any good scientist should know this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.
    There is another way of looking at this. Apart from the multitude of interactions between particles which would, in a deterministic universe, allow prediction of the future in principle, there is also the notion of "world lines" in four dimensional space-time. In space-time there is no essential difference between events belonging to the year 2020 and those belonging to 2010. However, we see one set of events as being in the future and the other as in the past, but such a distinction is not contained in the space-time description. Does this mean that we have no choice - is what will happen in 2020 out there already waiting for us to arrive and experience it? This is a difficult question to express in a meaningful way. Events belonging to 2020 are not out there now, because now is 2014 not 2020. So if those events are not in existence now and if we do not know what they will be, it is hard to see how they could be described as predetermined - although it is tempting to see them as being predetermined.
    A powerful argument for the block universe picture of spacetime is that if two events are seen to be simultaneous by two or more different observers, they are seen to be equally real. In other words if these events are given values of say A and B for observer 1 and B and C for observer 2, then events A and C are equally real. Special relativity then exploits the observer dependence of the 'present' by picking two events in the history of the universe, one of which is the 'cause' of the other. For any two causally related events A and B, there is always an event X such that there is an observer who sees X and A as simultaneous and an observer who sees X and B as simultaneous. If B is far in A's future, then X must be far enough away from both observers that no light signal could travel from A to X or from X to B. Now if A is as real as X and B is as real as X then A and B are equally real yet B is to occur in the future of A as a causally related event which therefore powerfully snuffs out the notion that the future is yet to be written.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by boukestam View Post
    Lately I've been having a very strange and confusing thought. I've always been a thinker and a big believer in the logic behind everything. I believe everything happens for a reason and everything can be explained by science. I also believe that everything can be predicted using mathematical formulas. Now the thought: if everything can be explained, and predicted (in theory), then we should be able to predict every next move of everything (in theory). Therefor we should be able to know the "future". Every human thought and emotion is controlled by particles that behave according to certain principles. If we know those principles, we can know what their next move is, therefor what our next behavior/reaction is. If everything always follows those simple rules, there should be no choices left for us to make, there is only one possible outcome.

    The reason why I post this on here is because I'd like to know what others think of this crazy idea, is it in theory possible to predict the next move, knowing everything? Therefor eliminating all choice?
    We can't even predict the weather in a reliable fashion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is belief a decision?/ Is believing a choice?/ Is decision a choice?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: June 28th, 2014, 04:23 PM
  2. Choice and Existence
    By JClark in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 19th, 2014, 06:30 PM
  3. Do we really have a choice or is that an illusion?
    By quantumintel in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 21st, 2009, 04:32 AM
  4. The Choice
    By wallaby in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 6th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •