I'm and Atheist and Believe in Predeterminism: Prove Me Wrong

[Gugel]

I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.

[Gugel]

I guess the real question is whether you believe there is true randomness in the Universe or whether there are some fundamental laws that govern everything.

If you think there is real randomness, then you don't have to believe in predestination.

If you think there are laws that humans might never be able to fathom, but nevertheless exist, then you must accept predestination.

Clearly, I obviously prefer the latter. As Einstein put it, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

[m_the0ry]

"That which I cannot create, I do not understand"

Quantum indeterminancy revolves around the uncertainty principle and how probe particles cannot expose the underlying mechanisms if they exist. In other words, without a constituent probe particle that reveals more information than the photon does (highly unlikely), speculating about said mechanisms not only reveals no new information but is in fact completely meaningless. In other words, you're proposing a theory that cannot be disproven. Because of this there is no falsifiability and thus this is an invalid theory.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"That which I cannot create, I do not understand"

Quantum indeterminancy revolves around the uncertainty principle and how probe particles cannot expose the underlying mechanisms if they exist. In other words, without a constituent probe particle that reveals more information than the photon does (highly unlikely), speculating about said mechanisms not only reveals no new information but is in fact completely meaningless. In other words, you're proposing a theory that cannot be disproven. Because of this there is no falsifiability and thus this is an invalid theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this correct? I thought the uncertainty principle went deeper than this. Whereby it's not just the practical impossiblity of determining both location and velocity exactly with a probe, but an inherent uncertainty for the two taken together as a matter of the actual state.

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a ball, an electron, or a mechanistic mechanism. All you present is specious conjecture. It is evident that a falsehood cannot be disproved for there is no basis for disproval.

[crookedhat99]

I don't know much about the subject, but after thinking about it...How could anyone be anything but predeterministic? Am I right in saying to believe in free will (or whatever the term is for non-predeterminism) you must believe that some actions occur with no cause?

[Gugel]

Basically, you can't measure something with changing it. Fair enough, but we are imagining an omnipotent being that would be able to do this.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, you can't measure something with changing it. Fair enough, but we are imagining an omnipotent being that would be able to do this.



[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that because you have posited a an omnipotent,omniscent being the rest of your statement is either RIGHT or if WRONG denies the conventional idea of omnipotence, omniscient which of course in the blather of today would be critically wrong.

Your position says nothing of the realities of birth, death, life,etc. for which the search for "free will" should naturally be examined. The "reality" you present is that of an "electron, point, particle,etc.) all of which are abstractions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a ball, an electron, or a mechanistic mechanism. All you present is specious conjecture. It is evident that a falsehood cannot be disproved for there is no basis for disproval.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your last sentence makes no sense and is wrong.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is whether you believe there is true randomness in the Universe or whether there are some fundamental laws that govern everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question I have is, if you go back to "0" plank time, all information is lost, however, the fundamental forces or laws were present. So, there doesn't appear to be any room for what you referred to as "true randomness" to occur, unless randomness is some kind of force, law or byproduct of the known forces.

[speedfreek]

Ok, you say you are an atheist and believe in predeterminism, and then ask us to prove you wrong.

You then provide an example that uses an omnipotent being, capable of knowing the location and forces acting upon every particle in the universe. You then remove the omnipotent being and suggest that the predetermined path for each particle would still theoretically exist.

Well, it seems to me I can prove you wrong about either your being an atheist, or about the predetermined paths for the particles.

Your system initially requires the omnipotent being to determine the paths and forces of the particles. You use the omnipotent being to establish the basis of your example. Without the omnipotent being, we cannot know that the particles locations and forces have all been determined. So your system requires an omnipotent being and forces you to be a theist, and thus you are not an atheist.

Or you remove the omnipotent being completely from the example, in order to satisfy the conditions of being an atheist. But then we cannot assume the paths or forces of the particles are predetermined.

Which is it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question I have is, if you go back to "0" plank time, all information is lost, however, the fundamental forces or laws were present. So, there doesn't appear to be any room for what you referred to as "true randomness" to occur, unless randomness is some kind of force, law or byproduct of the known forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems no need to assume there are such things as forces or laws at work in the universe. We may understand the universe in those terms but they are likely best looked at as an analogy of what is really at work rather than than being the actual nature of spacetime.

The Law of Gravity may be just as convenient a viewpoint as Sklanky$.

luckyme

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]

Prove me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

prove yourself wrong... open a book

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems no need to assume there are such things as forces or laws at work in the universe. We may understand the universe in those terms but they are likely best looked at as an analogy of what is really at work rather than than being the actual nature of spacetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a powerful and deep concept. It's one that those with just a sophomoric perspective of science don't understand. It also applies to the language of religion and metaphysics and is equally missed by those on both ends of that spectrum whether they be fundmentalists or ones who dismiss the subject out of hand.

In using language it is the metaphoric link that gives us a sense of understanding. The metaphor links to other things we think we understand and thereby gives us a sense of understanding the thing being metaphorized. A modern man tried to explain an airplane to a cave man. He says it's like a man made bird. The caveman understands it a little. He's then told that it's also like a flying boat. The caveman understands it better. Scientific theories are like that. So are Religious dogmas.

PairTheBoard

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
A modern man tried to explain an airplane to a cave man. He says it's like a man made bird. The caveman understands it a little. He's then told that it's also like a flying boat. The caveman understands it better. Scientific theories are like that. So are Religious dogmas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, yeah. I don't think "angel of death coming to sate its bloodlust by bringing flesh-melting destruction down on you" is a useful description of an airplane.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this correct? I thought the uncertainty principle went deeper than this. Whereby it's not just the practical impossiblity of determining both location and velocity exactly with a probe, but an inherent uncertainty for the two taken together as a matter of the actual state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[ QUOTE ]
In classical physics, it was believed that if one knew the initial state of a system with infinite precision, one could predict the behavior of the system infinitely far into the future. According to quantum mechanics, however, there is a fundamental limit on the ability to make such predictions, because of the inability to collect the initial data with unlimited precision.... Until the discovery of quantum physics, it was thought that the only source of uncertainty in a measurement was the limited precision of the measuring tool. It is now understood that no treatment of any scientific subject, experiment, or measurement is accurate until the probability distribution for the measurement is specified.

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself may have initially offered explanations which suggested this view. That this disturbance does not describe the essence of the uncertainty principle in current theory has been demonstrated above. The fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the uncertainty measurements in quantum mechanics were clarified by the EPR paradox which arose from Einstein attempting to show flaws in quantum measurements that used the uncertainty principle. Instead of succeeding in showing that uncertainty was flawed, Einstein guided researchers to examine more closely what uncertainty measurements meant, which led to a more refined understanding of uncertainty. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper in 1935, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system, being sometimes illustrated as a thought experiment called Heisenberg's microscope. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A modern man tried to explain an airplane to a cave man. He says it's like a man made bird. The caveman understands it a little. He's then told that it's also like a flying boat. The caveman understands it better. Scientific theories are like that. So are Religious dogmas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, yeah. I don't think "angel of death coming to sate its bloodlust by bringing flesh-melting destruction down on you" is a useful description of an airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some metaphors are better than others.

PairTheBoard

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real question I have is, if you go back to "0" plank time, all information is lost, however, the fundamental forces or laws were present. So, there doesn't appear to be any room for what you referred to as "true randomness" to occur, unless randomness is some kind of force, law or byproduct of the known forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems no need to assume there are such things as forces or laws at work in the universe. We may understand the universe in those terms but they are likely best looked at as an analogy of what is really at work rather than than being the actual nature of spacetime.

The Law of Gravity may be just as convenient a viewpoint as Sklanky$.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point, and what pairtheboard said about metaphors, i.e. when the electron spins align we just call the force that results magnetism. And I can accept the idea that at one point symmetry broke and the difference from zero created the fields and the corresponding "forces," but what I fail to see is how we can call it randomness.

I guess we might say that infinitely balanced ball rolled down this particular side of the hill, and call that spontaneous action randomness, but the underlying symmetry would remain intact though probably imperceptible. Wouldn't it have to?

Then it seems there was a progression of symmetry breaks where subsequent balls spontaneously go in one direction or the other. But doesn't this indicate that whenever we have symmetry it will randomly break and that seems to constitute a law, would it not? Sure we're just describing what happened and calling it randomness, but I fail to see how that tendency wasn't present in the original symmetry.

To clarify, I'm not referring to which side of the hill the ball will roll and calling the result random, just that what we call randomness is the action of symmetry breaking. And as per my response to the OP, I can't really see how "true randomness" could really occur. Apparently, under those initial conditions, symmetry had to break, and if it had to - it's not random.

[AceFX]

I'll prove your predetermination correct from a scientific aspect, but from your own beliefs, I can safely say that the only reason you are Atheistic is because you are stubborn/scared of the implications... NO NEED TO BE!

A: the electron of a particle is not in a single place at any single time. The electrons encompassing a necleus are moving at such a high rate of speed that the matter/energy (see Out of Chaos-Quantum Physics) that the electrons literally smear into a film around the nucleus, hence the electron "shell".

This leads to the theory of "probable relativity" which basically sums up as- the matter/energy of an electron is at every concievable point at every concieveable time around the nucleus. It appears at the point we view it at basically because we are viewing that point at that time. It is more probable for the electron to be at that point in space/time due to the interaction of another material/energetic substance, i.e., a person...

So your question is contradictory seeing as you admit to natural laws governing, yet are clearly questioning the possibility of randomness.

The demonstration with the electron shows two valid points you should observe:

A- with probable relativity, randomness is completely thrown out the window. It is merely what is the most probable position/action of an object in a definative sitaution. This applies with EVERYTHING in existance as we know i.e.-reactions to gravity, electromagnetism, or even eating soup with a spoon or fork.

Now probability is not definate so don't anyone bring it up... There is room for change, it is only less likely.

B- You speak of an omnicient being, and question the possibility of such a powerful being as to know the position of the smallest know object at any given point. If it is easier to understand, think of God as a huge, concious electron. Encompassing everything and everywhere at everytime, spread throughout all of existance and enacting with everything regardless of space or time at every single moment. Of course He would know where that little electron is, He is right there with it wherever it goes.

And if anyone reading this also reads the Bible or a number of other spiritual "textbooks", then you know that he also set this little electron on it's path.

NOW, I hope that I have shed just a little light on the subject. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this correct? I thought the uncertainty principle went deeper than this. Whereby it's not just the practical impossiblity of determining both location and velocity exactly with a probe, but an inherent uncertainty for the two taken together as a matter of the actual state.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Planck's constant defines the resolution of quantum mechanics and it inherantly quantizes energy. Unless we can quantize energy with greater resolution than the photon there is no way to determine the mechanisms underlying quantum mechanics. Yes, EPR does disprove locality and allows for measurements without disturbing an entangled particle. But it has been shown that these measurements reveal no new information to the environmental system and are just a formalism for thinking as a particle as independent instead of as a quantum system - shown in how entangled particles cannot enable faster-than-light communication.

I guess my point is that while it is definitely possible that there are underlying mechanisms to quantum randomness, it's an all or nothing deal where we have to abandon all of the theory if we assume there are no purely random measurements.

[Phil153]

The disproof of determinism is reductio ad absurdum.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "we" exactly?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The disproof of determinism is reductio ad absurdum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain quickly? You don't need to go into great detail, just give me the highlights. Not being sarcastic.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The disproof of determinism is reductio ad absurdum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain quickly? You don't need to go into great detail, just give me the highlights. Not being sarcastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its sort of like the first cause argument. If everything has an explaination then explainations have explainations etc. etc. on to infinity and there is no final explaination because it has to have substituent explainations.

[Piers]

Why bring an omnipotent being into the equation. That’s like assuming that you can divide by zero so that you can prove that 2+2=4.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Now probability is not definate so don't anyone bring it up... There is room for change, it is only less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, I'm still in the Dark Ages. Can someone help me out here?

Has it been "proven" that the probability of having a precise symmetric initial condition is zero?

What am I missing here? To the best of my knowledge the laws of nature permit two probabilities that are exactly equal and from this we're saying that the state of the universe must be unsymmetric?

Even though all observable laws/forces don't display any lack of symmetry? Has the first cause of causes become unsymmetry?

I'm completely lost in this discussion, so any explanations or links would be appreciated.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

The so-called "elementary" thingies do not have proper trajectories in the defined sense of a macroscopic ball, for example. (Or they do in a way that is unobservable, if you buy that line of questionable science.) There simply isn't a trajectory that is "falsifiable" (if you don't mind) by means of observation, therefore there isn't one at all, really. The concept is just not applicable to the very small.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly, I obviously prefer the latter. As Einstein put it, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it is accepted that einstein was wrong here. hawking said something to the effect of "god does play dice and they are loaded".

also, this is not a new idea. google "local hidden variable theory". i think testable hypotheses came out of this idea, and it made predictions that didn't correspond to reality. read about experiments by john bell.

i guess this probably won't change your point of view, but on some level i guess you could argue that there isn't a difference between the two cases. seems like determinism probably doesn't exist on any meaningful level.