/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5559226]

Is the universe random or predetermined?

[Anonymous No.5559241]

There's only one true answer

[Anonymous No.5559250]

Maybe a bit of both.
Who knows?

[Anonymous No.5559270]

>>5559250
Clever.

[Anonymous No.5559278]

The universe is random, but it works according to the laws of physics.

Future doesn't exist, idiots.

[Anonymous No.5559285]

Random .. although it gives the appearance of determinism due to reversion to the mean on larger scales

[Anonymous No.5559289]

>>5559285
I like this

[full !metalHJfCs No.5559296]

>>5559285
Since you think like that would you say the future is convergent?

[Anonymous No.5559300]

Fuck off with that underaged edgy anti-intellectual pseudo-philosophy bullshittery. If you lack the mental capacities to start or to participate in a real science or math thread, then you fucking don't belong here, you infantile cretins.

[Anonymous No.5559302]

>2013
>dat fake dichotomy

[Anonymous No.5559312]

>>5559285

[Anonymous No.5559319]

your question is flawed but im going to narrow it down to just the size/growth w.e of the universe for the sake of my point.
if the universe is random it has an equal probability of collapsing in on itself or continuing as is. im no physicist but i imagine that the universe will continue expanding like all of these nice scientists say it does. which would mean that its not random.

[Anonymous No.5559327]

>>5559319
>if the universe is random it has an equal probability of collapsing in on itself or continuing as is.

it only has those odds from the very first instance of creation, since then it has fallen into a distinctive pathway.

[Anonymous No.5559342]

>>5559300

[Anonymous No.5559339]

If you ignore relativity and pair production, the universe is completely deterministic (under Bohmian mechanics) but we lack the ability to finitely determine the initial condition of the universe (the exact location of every particle) so the measure axioms and uncertainty/randomness of QM is derived.

[Anonymous No.5559345]

If we knew the exact positions of every single atom in a mol then we would be able to predict every object's behavior perfectly. We lack the tools to accurately gauge this so we approximate it and call it "random"

[Anonymous No.5559350]

>>5559226

pre-determinism is not determinism

causal/scientific determinism does not exist

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

And if you do more research, you find even more reasons. Metaphysical determinism is unfalsifiable. There is no discernible difference between a universe of free will and determinism in this regard. You can't tell the difference. That's why philisophy tards like talking about it.

[Anonymous No.5559358]

right so it isnt random y/n/m?

it would be interesting to speculate on random action in the time between universe formations. my understanding is that the laws of physics were not in existence before this universe blew open.

which sounds like bs because all the matter or w.e it was had to come together to form the singularity that supposedly seeded the universe. that would be some sort of gravitational attraction using our physics, but that suggests the existence of forces before the big bang. are they random forces or forces that follow "laws" like classical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.5559364]

>>5559327
in response to
>>5559358

[Anonymous No.5559367]

>>5559345
Not true. Even with prefect knowledge of the hidden variables that makes QM deterministic, there are some physical systems at fundamentally non deterministic.

Study some QFT before saying stupid things

[Anonymous No.5559374]

>>5559367

> fundamentally non deterministic

impossible, we just lack the tools to describe it

[Anonymous No.5559379]

>>5559358

Determinism relies on causality. Before the big bang, there was no causality. Time did not exist before the Planck Epoch. So there was no "beginning" no "before." That's why it's so difficult to speculate on what the universe was like in the beginning. Once the universe expanded and spacetime began to form, causality began.

Determinism requires that for every event or outcome there were a set of initial conditions from which no other outcome would be possible. This means an unbroken chain of causality. But the chain was broken.

A lot of the physical determinism that's in physics comes from the 17th and 18th century. Be weary of what you accept because it's most likely outdated philosophy based on old science.

When Quantum Mechanics took off, all of that went away. Einstein resisted but even he was proven wrong through the Bell experiments. Einstein said that even QM were deterministic, because there are hidden, non local, variables that we are unaware of. But the Bell experiments proved that there were no hidden variables.

[Anonymous No.5559423]

>>5559379
bell shot down einsteins hopes of unifying qm and cm but i t doesn't tell the whole story.
>>5559350
this did though. very interesting lecture

[noko No.5559457]

>>5559345
You're going to physics prison for this. This is so 19th century.

[Anonymous No.5559525]

Wrong question, OP.

The real question you should be asking is "Can we tell if the Universe is random or predetermined?"
And the answer is no.

We can make predictions within limitations (i.e., closed systems). But no closed system is free from entropy, and every system will succumb to outside forces.

The Universe is Everything, Everytime, Everywhere, and being able to predict a system like that requires nothing short of 100% accuracy.

Humans are imperfect. Can perfection ever arise from imperfection?

[Anonymous No.5560107]

lel

[Anonymous No.5560151]

>>5559278
>Future doesn't exist, idiots.
I never thought of it that way

[Anonymous No.5560204]

>>5559525
> Can perfection ever arise from imperfection?
If the perfection has free will, he will if he want, otherwise he's not perfect.

[Anonymous No.5560369]

lel

[Anonymous No.5560391]

If the universe is random then who or what is making the random decisions for it? When there is a 50% chance of an event happening, who or what chooses if or how that event will unfold?

If the universe is purely deterministic aka predetermined, then we exist in the same sense as "1+1 = 2" exists. 1+1 is always equal to 2 even if nothing is calculating or observing it. If the universe is defined by predetermined equations, they will inherently exist just because it is possibly for them to exist. We interact with each other, just like 1 interacts with the second 1 in "1+1 = 2". In our case the only difference is complexity. We exist as math.

[Anonymous No.5560410]

If the universe is random then who or what is making the random decisions for it? When there is a 50% chance of an event happening, who or what chooses how or if that event will unfold?

If the universe is purely deterministic aka predetermined, then we exist in the same sense as "1+1 = 2" exists. 1+1 is always equal to 2 even if nothing is calculating or observing it. If the universe is defined by predetermined equations, they will inherently exist just because it is possible for them to exist. We interact with each other, just like 1 interacts with the second 1 in "1+1 = 2". In our case the only difference is complexity. We exist as math.

[Anonymous No.5560409]

I think the best way to think about it is that there is only one way it will happen. Whatever happens, will happen, and that's the only way it will happen.

[Anonymous No.5560515]

>>5559379
The class of theories ruled out by Bell includes nondeterministic local theories as well as deterministic ones. It's really about locality, not determinism. Einstein thought hidden variables were necessary to avoid action at a distance, and Bell showed that it wouldn't work.

[Anonymous No.5560579]

>>5560204
>want
Perfection doesn't "want" anything. There is no "wanting" from perfection. There is nothing beyond perfection to be desired.

[Anonymous No.5561369]

lel

[Anonymous No.5561370]

>>5559226
Neither. It is deterministic.

[Anonymous No.5561388]

>>5561370
Quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.5562052]

lel

[butthurtscavenger !!W3G3jdIwCDC No.5562059]

>2012 + 1
>using vague terminology like "pre-determined" and "random"
gawd

[Anonymous No.5563212]

lel

[Anonymous No.5563215]

>>5563212
I saw the thread you made on /q/. Is this /phi/ now?

[Anonymous No.5564240]

BASPINGO

[Anonymous No.5564301]

>>5562059
What terminology would you use then?

[Anonymous No.5564503]

bump