How determined are you?

I think many physicists take that view. I guess I once thought that way.Currently, I don't think of GR as a description of the cosmos. Rather, I think of it as a framework we can use when describing parts of the cosmos and when theorizing about the cosmos.

In a similar vain, this chaotic nature is also why weather predictions break down a depressingly short distance in the future. Even if you could re-wind the whole thing to a ”last-known good’ then let the weather run forward again, there is no guarantee you will get the same result 100% exactly. It’s not impossible but it is highly improbable as to be virtually impossible. The weather alone is a good argument against the type of determinism described.

I'm sorry if this sounds confusing, but I'll try to explain my viewpoint as logically as I can.My friend and I had a conversation similar to this topic a while ago. Similar, in a roundabout way. I dont believe that every event is determined, because of another factor, or maybe multple ones, in the chaotic and/or determined schematics of the universe. I'm not sure what the factor is, but this is my example, for anyone who would like to read it:For every event, there is an action or actions that will happen to make it occur. Also, for every event, there is an event or events that will follow, but not in a determined pattern. For the sake of numbers, I will say that there is an infinite number of possible actions to trigger the present event, and an infinite number of possible events to follow. The numbers are (in any case I can think of) actually finite, but very very very large, and probably impossible to calculate.You are standing still in the living room of your house (this in itself is an event caused by an action). You decide you will raise your arm*. Now, the factor comes in. The obvious choices are that you can raise your left arm, or your right arm**. You decide to raise your right arm. Now, how do you raise it? Fast, slow, paced? Where do you raise it to? Your side, in front of you, behind you? At what angle do you raise it? 90 degrees, straight out, or so that it points at the ceiling fan? The list goes on, I just named some obvious choices, One of those choices will become the event, which will become the action for the next event. An infinite number of events and actions are always occuring at any given place and time, and sometimes they even coincide. For example, you raising your arm might become an action that causes your friend standing next to you to ask you why you raised your arm (the event).*In this situation, deciding to raise your arm is a conscious thought you make. This thought represents the action of the situation, but on the other hand, is itself an event. This event was caused by an action before it (Maybe you saw a sign that said "Raise Your Arm", and in that case, seeing the sign would be an event caused by an action, and so on. Actions and events, actions and events...**These are two possible events that could occur because of the action of deciding to raise your arm (meaning there are probably more). Take that one step further, and whatever choice you make will become the action that determines the following event(s).

Interestingly, weather appears not to be chaotic. Metastudies of weather prediction show that the pattern of accuracy change in weather reporting is inconsistent with the notion that weather is chaotic.

I actually don't think the universe is deterministic; I think it's probabilistic. But that's by-the-by, randomness is no more credible a source of freewill than determinism. So I'll discuss simply in terms of determinism.I have utterly no interest at all in Philosophical thought experiments involving knowledge of the future, perfect knowledge of the universe or any other such thing. Everything we know from modern physics leads us to believe that this isn't even theoretically possible so the "results" of such experiments have no bearing on the reality of the universe.I think we need to be clear about what free will actually is. As I see it free will can be succinctly defined as "the ability to choose your own actions". Again, I have no truck with any notions of replaying the universe and it coming out differently, we have no reason to believe that such a thing is possible, so discussing it's results is nothing more than mental masterbation.By this definition we have free will in a deterministic universe. We, undeniably, choose our own actions. We take the inputs from our external environment, mix them with our internal mental states and spit out some actions. The obvious objection here is that "our brains caused us to do it". A moments thought should lead you to realise that this is a totally nonsensical objection. We are our brains. Our brains cannot cause us to do anything because they are us.

My understanding was that chaos theory was actually applied to improve weather prediction.However chaos is deterministic - the relevance of chaos to this discussion is that it can magnify the effects of chance. Small variations can build up to large effects.

If the weather is chaotic then improvements in short term weather forecasting should not produce an improvement in long term weather forecasting; that is not the case thus, the paper concluded, weather systems are, in fact, not chaotic.

Not true, on many levels Most importantly, I simply point out that that is the nature of the universe according to GR, and is part and parcel of "Big Bang" theory (as BB is purely a prediction of GR and GR-type theories).Of course, GR is the most accurately tested theory we have (I'm fairly sure it pips QED but that may have changed), and its implications (along with SR) concerning the nature of space-time certainly suggest that simple time-evolution of a 3d space is not a viable concept. But who knows how QG/TOE is going to change this.And who said anything about 4 dimensions??? I only believe in two...

Systems do not have to be chaotic or non-chaotic. They can exhibit areas (spatially and temporally) of chaos and areas of relative stability, across all length-scales. Weather is almost certainly like this.What was the paper?

At what level? Asking questions about properties of a wave-function has a probablistic element, but evolution of any state is purely deterministic. That's not true. GR leads us to believe that it is perfectly theoretically possible. Practically possible is another matter, which certainly muddies the water. I'm not sure I understand. We have existing mental states, we have environmental states, and these are combined to produce an output. Where is the choice at this point of producing the output?This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-02-2005 06:49 AM

really?! wow, got any reading on that?

Not quite sure what you mean, please elaborate. What? GR proves it to be impossible. We can never know the state of matter removed from us at any distance at the same moment in time as we are in. But in any case, I was actually thinking of the Uncertainty Principle. The input doesn't define the output, the working of our brain does. Therefore our brains (along, to a lesser extent, with the rest of our bodies) choose our actions.

Fuck....Ever wish you'd kept your mouth shut? Guys and gals. I'm supposed to be doing my day job and have gotten into a bit of a tangle with Mr X elsewhere too.Can anyone do a brief explanation as to where, why or how, any arrangment of energy and/or matter is as it is at a moment in time - other than it being so as a result of conforming to the laws of nature that apply?Cos if there is no such thing then I might be on a runner hereAbE: will read through to see if there is something explained within that answers my question when i get a chanceThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Nov-2005 12:42 PM

You don't have to respond to every post. This is a philosophical question, for which we cannot expect a scientific answer.There is the old question - are scientific laws prescriptive or descriptive?My own view is that the laws are our inventions. The universe is not obliged to follow them. We come up with the best account we can, but it might not be exactly correct.One possibility is that the universe is made up of lots of tiny bundles of energy, that are all independent actors. In that case, the apparent regularity we see in the universe is a matter of statistical trends, and the laws need not be exact.

quote:

---

Indeed, I often wonder why religious folks from those sects that oppose evolutionary theory, don't go after modern physics with equal gusto, as its conclusions are at least as disquieting to their theological underpinnings.

---

Easy."I didn't come from no monkey, by gum!" is easier for uneducated people to understand than "I don't hold no truck with no Quantum Theory".This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-02-2005 09:00 AM