This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
What existed before the universe?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
I haven't made any creationist arguments in this thread. I'm simply trying to rebuff fenomas for being so dismissive. I proposed that, if the universe repeats, that we are doomed to repeat the same actions, so we should make them good actions. To this, fenomas told me that I was dealing with astrology. I told him not to be a stick in the mud. Then he tells me his degree in physics makes him right, and that I can't make conclusions based on theories. I told him I was talking about "if" and then he entertained some wonder, his own "if", which I pointed out. Then he asks "In what way", and you replied with a counter creationist argument. The whole thing is a tangled mess of something that should be very simple.
If we are in a repeating universe, lets try to make sure our actions are good.
That doesn't need a quantum physics argument dumped on it. So fenomas can go soak his head and stop arguing with everything I say.
Well, the universe is only 'repeating' in the way you're speaking of it as if the universe is completely deterministic and the starting conditions were the same each time, on the other hand just based on the fact that you believe in free-will or have an ability to make our actions good leads me to believe that you think the universe is not deterministic.
If the universe is not deterministic than anything that can happen will happen infinite times, then our actions in this universe have no bearing on our actions in any other universe. Then again, you're assuming a morality in the first place so it's entirely unnecessary to include the infinite universes at all, as the morality of our actions would not change only the number of them.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
But I would have also become a serial killer an infinite number of times. And in an infinite number of those universes, I would not even exist.
Not really - from a deterministic perspective, there is only one path, that is repeated an infinite number of times, because the causal chains wouldn't be any different. If you're not a serial killer now, why would you be when the universe repeats exactly as it did before?
Post by
Orranis
But I would have also become a serial killer an infinite number of times. And in an infinite number of those universes, I would not even exist.
Not really - from a deterministic perspective, there is only one path, that is repeated an infinite number of times, because the causal chains wouldn't be any different. If you're not a serial killer now, why would you be when the universe repeats exactly as it did before?
In the context of the quote it was clear the MyTie was implying humans had free will, which means that it is not a deterministic universe. Also: Even if the universe was deterministic, there's no guarantee the starting conditions are always the same. Or if all of the universes are either deterministic or not, that they're all similar.
Post by
Squishalot
If the starting conditions aren't the same, a) it's not repeating, and b) there's no guarantee that it will continue to repeat. After all, with an infinite amount of varying possibilities, there will be one universe eventually that stops the cycle.
As for free will, you can have free will and be bound by determinism, although said free will and MyTie's call to action about doing good is something that previous-universe-MyTie also would have said and acted upon.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Orranis
If the starting conditions aren't the same, a) it's not repeating, and b) there's no guarantee that it will continue to repeat. After all, with an infinite amount of varying possibilities, there will be one universe eventually that stops the cycle.
As for free will, you can have free will and be bound by determinism, although said free will and MyTie's call to action about doing good is something that previous-universe-MyTie also would have said and acted upon.
1) I'll give you that.
2) You can have the illusion of free will. Not free will. Either way, the way he phrased it "If your actions are going to be infinitely repeated make them good actions" implies you have choice in the actions, that you create them, and perhaps that you can change them. It's a bit self-defeating. Either way I'd say the existence of a deterministic infinitely repeating universe is going to have a bigger meaning than "Be a good person." (Which in itself implies being a good person is what we should do, so it's rather redundant).
Post by
Squishalot
(2) - hence why I caveated it. I disagree that it's an illusion though - I don't think 'free will' implicitly means that you can change fate - it just means that you are making the choice for yourself. Otherwise, we can be serial killers and sit back and say "oh it's not my fault, it's the deterministic universe we live in".
Post by
Orranis
(2) - hence why I caveated it. I disagree that it's an illusion though - I don't think 'free will' implicitly means that you can change fate - it just means that you are making the choice for yourself. Otherwise, we can be serial killers and sit back and say "oh it's not my fault, it's the deterministic universe we live in".
Well I think it's the same concept as we don't know what form in which we exist. We could just be a sole consciousness with a vivid imagination, but that wouldn't help us much. So we assume free will, even if we don't believe in it. Although I think determinism in human behavior can affect certain philosophies and concepts of justice or whatnot.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If we're speaking with any relevance to the physical world (as opposed to just spitballing about ideas in the mind of god), there's little reason to expect that two universes (or cycles) with the same starting conditions would develop the same way. It isn't a settled question but current QM makes it seem unlikely. (see "Bell's theorem" for details)
Are you referring to quantum 'randomness'? Randomness in inverted commas, because I don't buy the theorem, personally. I've followed the theorem as best as I can without the physics degree, and fail to see how it conclusively demonstrates that local variables cannot exist. To quote the wiki:
With the measurements oriented at intermediate angles between these basic cases, the existence of local hidden variables would imply a linear variation in the correlation.
As an example, I don't see why the existence of local hidden variables implies anything about the variation. If QM randomness predicts correlation varies as cosine of the angle changes, how does that preclude the possibility that local hidden variables could also predict the same result? The implication is lost on me. It seems to me that Bell's theorem has adequately demonstrated one particular concept of hidden variables is unlikely, but not the concept of hidden variables altogether.
Post by
MrSCH
From what I've read, our concept of time and spaced is flawed to the extent that this question is nonsensical.
I don't know exactly, so someone please elaborate/correct me! But essentially what I've read is that time and mass are linked in the sense that as mass increases, time slows down. Nothing we would ever notice, but if we were to trace the expansion of the universe backwards, to it's first original point when the mass of everything was a singularity, time wouldn't exist. Therefore there was nothing before!
Makes no sense, I know. But hey, neither does an old man farting and creating everything in seven days.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Daniel Dennett is really good on
free will
. He's like the modern monist to David Chalmer's modern dualist.
The existence of free will isn't predicated on the excuses used by serial killers (argumentum ad consequentiam).
Post by
Skreeran
(2) - hence why I caveated it. I disagree that it's an illusion though - I don't think 'free will' implicitly means that you can change fate - it just means that you are making the choice for yourself. Otherwise, we can be serial killers and sit back and say "oh it's not my fault, it's the deterministic universe we live in".Let me put it this way:
In a non-deterministic universe repeated an infinite number of times, every possible outcome will be expressed an infinite number of times, e.g., there are an equal number of universes in which I became a serial killer as there are universes in which I sat down and typed this post.
In a deterministic universe, the exact same history is repeated an infinite number of time, which would mean that there is no free will, as every action I take would have to be the same action I took in that situation when it came up an infinite number of times before.
Either way, the existence of the other universes has no bearing on how I choose to live my life in this one. In the former, the expression of all possibilities makes everything but the local universe meaningless, and in the latter, I don't actually have a choice anyway. No matter what I choose to do, I am forced to conform to the historical timeline.
Post by
Squishalot
So the elegance of Bell's theorem is that it makes no assumptions about what kinds of local variables might be present (except that they are local and realistic, as defined in the wiki). That is, it does not demonstrate that any particular kind of hidden variables are not present, it demonstrates that the entangled property does not have a state that can be described with well-defined variables of any (local realistic) kind.
It's a more elegant theory then, but what then makes the hidden variables 'unlikely', as you said in your earlier post?
and in the latter, I don't actually have a choice anyway
You do have a choice. The only thing is that said choice will also be replicated in all the other universes. But you're right, the existence of other universes is meaningless in that respect.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
the point is that Bell came up with an experiment where QM predicts one thing and
classical models (based on local hidden variables)
predict something else, and when you sit down and do the experiment QM wins.
This is my point - I don't see how that implies that hidden variables cannot exist - only that the classical model of hidden variables failed the experiment. How is it that the collapsing state cannot possibly be replicated by a hidden variable that acts in that manner?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
You do have a choice.
How so, if the outcome will always be the same?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.