[kobe]

as we all know, ever possible reality has happened. Not in this universe though. This universe, we only get one reality. Theoretically though, our life could end at any moment. Meaning there are an infinite realities where my life has ended at every single keystroke in an infinite amount of ways. There are also realities where I write this to facebook instead. That I am writing in French, German, or (heaven forbid) Dutch. That I have a 30 inch or 1 inch penis. That I am actually a slave working for a black person as reparations. You get the point.

Therefore there is very likely a world where my soul purpose is to go around fucking with the fabric of space-time. The only thing is that I would never touch my own universe, unless in that universe I had indeed travelled back in time (because I would have always travelled back in time). However, even that doesn't make any sense. If there is a universe where that actually happened, where I always travelled back in time, that means that there is such a thing as predestination, which means the multiverse theory is wrong.

Now I'm confused.

[onemalehuman]

Do you want not to be confused?

or is it easier to deal with life thinking Eternity is beyond physical comprehension words are designed to ignore on purpose so everyone can believe real doesn't matter and metaphors count as all the knowledge humans need to follow according to the laws passed demanding social interpretation of the same event get standardized to a malcontent's needs to feel larger than their skin displacement exist never the same as before when existing now?

[quetzalcoatl]

Now I'm confused.

So am I. The advantage of multiverse theory is its preservation of classical causality at the quantum level (at least as I understand it). There is no particular reason to assume the physical reality of branching universes, and no way to verify them anyway.

[kobe]

ok, wait, you're going to have to explain that.

my point is that the multiverse theory is inconsistent if there is a reality where I can observe time travel taking place. If I could observe that, then that means that they are merely travelling interdimensionally. However practically there is no difference between that and time travel, provided that they could actually affect change and then travel forward in time to their time. So does that mean time travel is possible? Because I've always assumed it is not.

As far as OMH is going on about, Idk.

[mikema63]

There isn't predestination in some grand destiny or fate type thing, the universe is just a deterministic system, and you are deterministic. Even if you would prefer not to believe so.

[Potemkin]

There isn't predestination in some grand destiny or fate type thing, the universe is just a deterministic system, and you are deterministic. Even if you would prefer not to believe so.

Indeed. And most real physical systems are chaotic, in the precise scientific sense of that word - they are deterministic yet unpredictable systems. Our sense of 'free will' probably arises from that unpredictability. The fact that its future behaviour is unpredictable (due to extreme sensitivity to initial or boundary conditions) doesn't mean it's not a deterministic system though.

[noemon]

I reckon this goes here or in some other thread where time travel is being discussed.

I too believe that time transportation of a physical being is impossible.

But I believe that time travel has been made possible with modern photography and modern optics, not only in the obvious sense that we take a picture of ourselves and then we go jump in the past through the picture, but also in the not so obvious way that we take a picture of the stars and half the stars in the picture appear as they were thousands of years ago because depending on the lens & camera we can grab light that started travelling thousands of years ago before it reached our camera lens, now if we could apply this principle to the earth by for example setting up astronomical observatories that observe the earth from another planet or galaxy then we could theoretically photograph the earth as it was thousands of years ago, the issue then becomes how do we receive this information within a reasonable time-frame for the information to be relevant.

[Potemkin]

now if we could apply this principle to the earth by for example setting up astronomical observatories that observe the earth from another planet or galaxy then we could theoretically photograph the earth as it was thousands of years ago, the issue then becomes how do we receive this information within a reasonable time-frame for the information to be relevant.

Lolwut? To set up these observatories on other planets, you have to travel there, and then send the images back to Earth (at light-speed). I fail to see the advantage of this over just photographing the Earth right here as it is now and then just, you know, keeping the images.

[noemon]

Lolwut? To set up these observatories on other planets, you have to travel there, and then send the images back to Earth (at light-speed). I fail to see the advantage of this over just photographing the Earth right here as it is now and then just, you know, keeping the images.

From another perspective we can photograph the earth how it was thousands of years ago and yeah as I said...it is an issue to bring the data back.

[kobe]

Eh, personally I see faster than light travel as a much easier barrier to overcome than time travel? I don't know why. Worm holes, universe bending, dare I say warp speed?

There isn't predestination in some grand destiny or fate type thing, the universe is just a deterministic system, and you are deterministic. Even if you would prefer not to believe so.

I'm not convinced that's true. The problem with declaring the universe (and by extension us) to be deterministic is that if we can find one instance where that is not true, then the universe isn't truly deterministic. We are definitely mostly controlled by factors outside of our control, but even if it's a limited scope we still have choices. What to think comes to mind, even though you would be correct in pointing out that even that is mostly outside of your control because of how culture limits our options for though (especially structurally rigid cultures).

Indeed. And most real physical systems are chaotic, in the precise scientific sense of that word - they are deterministic yet unpredictable systems. Our sense of 'free will' probably arises from that unpredictability. The fact that its future behaviour is unpredictable (due to extreme sensitivity to initial or boundary conditions) doesn't mean it's not a deterministic system though.

What types of extreme sensitivity are we talking about? Can you give an example of a phenomenon that can't be predicted?

[Potemkin]

Eh, personally I see faster than light travel as a much easier barrier to overcome than time travel? I don't know why. Worm holes, universe bending, dare I say warp speed?

If you can travel faster than light then you can also travel back in time. In that sense, a warp drive is also a time machine.

What types of extreme sensitivity are we talking about? Can you give an example of a phenomenon that can't be predicted?

Chaos theory

[mikema63]

I'm not convinced that's true. The problem with declaring the universe (and by extension us) to be deterministic is that if we can find one instance where that is not true, then the universe isn't truly deterministic.

The thing with determinism in an unpredictable system is that we can't make any predictions to falsify determinism. So you couldn't prove or disprove it. All we can really say is that the universe looks exactly like we would expect it to if everything were deterministic, and there isn't really any evidence of a non deterministic force. So humans would be the only non deterministic thing that we would know of in the entire universe which undermines basic assumption made by science that we aren't special separate entities from the universe. It is highly unlikely that we are the only thing in the universe that isn't deterministic. If we aren't deterministic we should be able to find something else in the universe that isn't and we have found no such thing.

That we are deterministic is simply the simplest and most probably answer.

We are definitely mostly controlled by factors outside of our control, but even if it's a limited scope we still have choices.

It's generally accepted that if you went back in time and ran it forward again then every choice would be repeated exactly. One has to wonder how real a choice is if you ultimately would never make a different one in the same circumstances. We can't really know how meaningful or real our choices are. We simply experience them as meaningful and real.

What to think comes to mind, even though you would be correct in pointing out that even that is mostly outside of your control because of how culture limits our options for though (especially structurally rigid cultures).

How do you know that wasn't inevitably dictated by nature and circumstance? You can't. It's possible you can choose, it's possible you can't. and as I pointed out the idea that you can't is more likely from a scientific perspective.

[quetzalcoatl]

The thing with determinism in an unpredictable system is that we can't make any predictions to falsify determinism. So you couldn't prove or disprove it. All we can really say is that the universe looks exactly like we would expect it to if everything were deterministic, and there isn't really any evidence of a non deterministic force.

Determinism is kind of like watching a movie on a screen. All you can really say is what it "looks like" on a coarse level. Predictions and the measurements thereof are invariably probabilistic. And the closer in you focus on material phenomena, the more probabilistic it gets. Because of the sensitivity issue, two identical systems with identical starting conditions can have wildly different outcomes (which makes it different from the deterministic example of a projected movie). In what sense then is reality deterministic? Is it that we don't know enough to properly specify a determined outcome, or is it deeper than that?

Don't know, just asking.

[mikema63]

Because of the sensitivity issue, two identical systems with identical starting conditions can have wildly different outcomes

This isn't true, the problem is that we cannot accurately predict the boundary conditions of the system in question. In fact Heisenberg uncertainty tells us that it's impossible to know those conditions much less replicate them. There are two different outcomes because the initial conditions were different.

In what sense then is reality deterministic?

In the explicit sense that things are both inevitable and theoretically perfectly predictable (even though we can only predict outcomes with a certain amount of uncertainty).

Is it that we don't know enough to properly specify a determined outcome, or is it deeper than that?

It's deeper, we physically can not know, quantum laws prevent perfect knowledge.

[Brother of Karl]

The thing with determinism in an unpredictable system is that we can't make any predictions to falsify determinism. So you couldn't prove or disprove it. All we can really say is that the universe looks exactly like we would expect it to if everything were deterministic, and there isn't really any evidence of a non deterministic force.

Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove determinism, but it certainly raises the possibility of truly random and "non deterministic" events existing at the atomic scale, which would quickly magnify and become manifest at the macro level vis a vis some sort of "butterfly effect". As long as the uncertainty principle holds true, you can't claim a purely deterministic universe with any level of confidence.

[mikema63]

Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove determinism, but it certainly raises the possibility of truly random and "non deterministic" events existing at the atomic scale

Not really, we can't know the exact outcome but we can predict the probability distribution of outcomes with extremely high accuracy. Our predictions from quantum equations are the most accurate in all of science.

which would quickly magnify and become manifest at the macro level vis a vis some sort of "butterfly effect".

Actually the probability distribution of outcomes is so perfect that all those quantum effects average out at the macro level.

As long as the uncertainty principle holds true, you can't claim a purely deterministic universe with any level of confidence.

The uncertainty principle lends no evidence for or against determinism. The rest of the universe being deterministic, including the laws that brought humans into existence, makes the idea the we aren't deterministic highly unlikely, so I can be quite certain.

[Brother of Karl]

Not really, we can't know the exact outcome but we can predict the probability distribution of outcomes with extremely high accuracy. Our predictions from quantum equations are the most accurate in all of science.

I still remain unconvinced. According to the uncertainty principle, we can only know a particle's position or velocity, but never both simultaneously. Yes, this follows a predictable probability distribution at a macro level, but instantaneous cases appear to be completely unpredictable and random. Therefore, one of two possibilities are possible. Either particle instances are deterministic and merely unmeasurable due to the observer effect, or they are truly unpredictable at a fundamental level which would negate determinism.

If there is a flaw in my logic, please point it out for me.

[Potemkin]

I still remain unconvinced. According to the uncertainty principle, we can only know a particle's position or velocity, but never both simultaneously. Yes, this follows a predictable probability distribution at a macro level, but instantaneous cases appear to be completely unpredictable and random. Therefore, one of two possibilities are possible. Either particle instances are deterministic and merely unmeasurable due to the observer effect, or they are truly unpredictable at a fundamental level which would negate determinism.

If there is a flaw in my logic, please point it out for me.

Mike is engaging in a certain amount of hand-waving to try to save his mechanistic determinism, by which I mean that he is ignoring the possibility of quantum coherence, by which the indeterminacy (ie, the irreducible randomness) of quantum events can be amplified to a macroscopic scale. The fact is that the world is not deterministic in a purely mechanical sense, but contains an irreducible randomness to its events, which is most obvious on small length scales but which can still be significant on larger length-scales. It's worth pointing out that this randomness still leaves no space for what we call 'free will', since our brains require an at least approximately classical degree of stability and predictability in order to function. What we call 'free will' - being able to make decisions and act on those decisions in a purposeful way - requires determinism; if our neurones were firing randomly all the time then we would be incapable of having any coherent thoughts at all.

There's also the point that simple-minded mechanistic determinism cannot be saved from the irreducible randomness of quantum phenomena, but a kind of meta-determinism (which is usually called superdeterminism) is theoretically possible. It's an idea which is of no scientific value, and is therefore purely philosophical. Few philosophers take superdeterminism at all seriously, however. Superdeterminism is sort of like solipsism - irrefutable, but uninteresting.

[onemalehuman]

Mike is engaging in a certain amount of hand-waving to try to save his mechanistic determinism, by which I mean that he is ignoring the possibility of quantum coherence, by which the indeterminacy (ie, the irreducible randomness) of quantum events can be amplified to a macroscopic scale. The fact is that the world is not deterministic in a purely mechanical sense, but contains an irreducible randomness to its events, which is most obvious on small length scales but which can still be significant on larger length-scales. It's worth pointing out that this randomness still leaves no space for what we call 'free will', since our brains require an at least approximately classical degree of stability and predictability in order to function. What we call 'free will' - being able to make decisions and act on those decisions in a purposeful way - requires determinism; if our neurones were firing randomly all the time then we would be incapable of having any coherent thoughts at all.

There's also the point that simple-minded mechanistic determinism cannot be saved from the irreducible randomness of quantum phenomena, but a kind of meta-determinism (which is usually called superdeterminism) is theoretically possible. It's an idea which is of no scientific value, and is therefore purely philosophical. Few philosophers take superdeterminism at all seriously, however. Superdeterminism is sort of like solipsism - irrefutable, but uninteresting.

Would you ever guess that the human ability to choose between understanding the self evident and creating a reality would be the random chaos within an Eternity of self contained perpetual balances adding together currently as specifically spaced apart universally displaced as what, where, when, and who details arguing over when it took place, happening, or arrives?

the vertical axis of how and why with a horizontal 4 corner triangulation generating 8 hemispheres of existence to everything individually existing in this atmosphere simultaneously from the molecular content to the contexts of anything is possible alphabetically categorized and numerical positions according to experts of deviating specific displacement with symbolic values. Mind over matter defined by symbolism over substance philosophies, what could go wrong intellectually?

[mikema63]

Mike is engaging in a certain amount of hand-waving to try to save his mechanistic determinism

That's a little bit unfair, we are arguing about human free will, and you go on to talk about the human brain being mechanistic, which is what I'm arguing.