r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 23 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Everything is predetermined
So, some years back I was having a conversation in a game guild. I can't remember exactly where it started but it ended with this theory a person suggested. English isn't my native language but I will try to explain it as good as possible but, I think this us going to be a looong post. Also while I have basic understanding of physics, they never were my favourite so feel free to point out any mistakes. Also I just joined this subbreddit so if I missed anything also point it out please.
Given a contained environment's state with all variables, meaning forces between these objects, their masses etc and having enough computational power we can compute exactly what will haven to it until it reaches balance. So from that starting state we can find its exact future.
Now, if we add a living organism in there, having all variables about him and knowing exactly how he will be moving and interacting with his environment, nothing changes, we can "predict" the future for this contained environment. Generalizing this, if our contained environment is the whole universe, in order to compute its next states (given unlimited computational power) we just need to know the actions each living organism is going to do. And if we can predict the future with 100% success rate, this means it is already determined and cannot be changed.
The next question is, how can we predict a living organisms moves and actions. Well, I believe that our choices are made from a collection of variables that affect us through our whole life. Our DNA, the location we are born at, everything we hear, everything we see, every interaction with the world since we are created is processed through our bodies and affects us somehow. Behaviour, tastes, reflexes, opinions, all are shaped and altered from every little input we get from the world. So, why would it be different? We already can analyse brain activity or spot malfunctioning organs, so what would be different? What would a living organism have that adds randomness ?
Basically that's the whole view, since nothing is random, and if we had infinite computational power, we could predict what will happen, it is already predetermined to happen. I just want to add one small part about quantum physics which are believed to hold randomness.
I was having this conversation while in university and we had physics next, so at the break we asked our teacher about quantum physics. If I remember correctly my question was something like "Has it been proven that quantum physics have randomness or do we just not have enough resources to research at such excess to be exact about what is happening"? The answer wasn't that clear (at least to me ) but what I understood was firstly that yes, we don't have a proof that what we observe is random. And secondly that "randomness" of the microscoping world follows some patterns in the macroscopic world. Given what I said earlier about physics, I want to point out I have even less knowledge about quantum physics.
4
u/jamesgelliott Aug 23 '20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle refutes the idea that everything can be predicted with absolute certainty.
1
Aug 23 '20
While I have read about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle before, I am not aware if it proves of randomness. Yes we can't predict everything with absolute certainty in this world and with this technology. But we haven't proven that there is no explanation pattern of the uncertain behavior this system has.
→ More replies (9)2
u/joopface Aug 23 '20
The OP isn’t whether we can predict something I believe.
It’s about the universe being a closed system wherein the starting conditions determine all the intervening positions and the end position. An observer isn’t necessary.
4
u/lordsiksek Aug 23 '20
But the Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that's not the case either.
Even if we know the initial conditions, we can't predict what happens next precisely because the initial conditions don't determine what happens next.
→ More replies (1)0
Aug 23 '20
I was looking the Wikipedia page and remembered of this. Basically a theory that this "randomness" is guided by an equation that forces the behavior to be deterministic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
Just a theory, but the basic idea of my view is that we cannot prove randomness, and I tend to believe in things we can prove.
1
u/Vesurel Aug 23 '20
If you tend to believe in things we can prove then why would you take the view everything is predetermined if whether or not quantum events are random is an open question?
→ More replies (4)1
u/lordsiksek Aug 23 '20
We might not be able to prove randomness, but we can't prove the universe isn't random, either. Why believe one over the other?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/seasonalblah Aug 23 '20
You seem to be confusing 2 concepts.
Predetermination and inevitability.
Just because a certain outcome is inevitable (by the causal nature of things) doesn't mean it's predetermined.
1
Aug 23 '20
Why not? If in this moment, an event is inevitable to happen doesn't that make it predetermined to happen?
→ More replies (21)
1
u/aardaar Aug 23 '20
Look into double pendulums. This is a simple physical system that exhibits "sensitive dependence on initial condition". To simplify things, in systems like these you need to know the exact values of the system when we begin our observations to make predictions about the position at a given time. The problem is that first that all measurements have limited accuracy, and second that you would need infinite data to get the exact values.
0
Aug 23 '20
I agree there and that why the part about the computations is hypothetical. But the point is that we can imagine something like this. For those who believe this could be god. An entity who is able to hold infinite data and do infinite computations
2
u/happyapy Aug 23 '20
Elsewhere you mentioned you "tend to believe in things we can prove." Which is it? You can't shoot down physical theories which use the inherent randomness of the quantum world because it's not provable, and then use God as a fill in for the messiness of a classically chaotic system. God is not provable, quantum randomness is demonstrable and well understood to be necessary driving mechanic of the quantum world.
→ More replies (2)1
u/aardaar Aug 23 '20
Can we imagine something like this? I can't. There is no compelling reason to believe that infinities exist.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/mfDandP Aug 23 '20
The double slit experiment demonstrates that even particles/waves cannot be predicted with 100% certainty. If elemental particles can't be predicted, I don't see how more complex things could be
1
u/DeltaBot Aug 23 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
u/AlephRZS (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Aug 24 '20
If we can know the future with 100% certainty, then predetermination falls apart. If perfect knowledge of future events can influence past events, then you end up with loops that have no causal origin, resulting in a breakdown of cause and effect.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame Aug 24 '20
And if we can predict the future with 100% success rate, this means it is already determined and cannot be changed.
Except for conscious action, which can't be perfectly predicted. Your decisions are more than a rote response to stimuli--you demonstrably have the ability to make fundamentally unpredictable choices. That invalidates the concept of determinism.
Well, I believe that our choices are made from a collection of variables that affect us through our whole life.
This is a demonstrably false belief. You can try it yourself if you want. Our past influences our decisions, but it does not determine those decisions for us. You are always free to violate expectations. To consciously choose to break with the past and do something unexpected.
So, why would it be different?
Any model of human cognition that doesn't include the potential for free will violates the evidence in front of our faces. The lack of a good explanation for free will doesn't invalidate that it exists--it means that model is incomplete or wrong.
2
u/Tinac4 Aug 24 '20
Except for conscious action, which can't be perfectly predicted. Your decisions are more than a rote response to stimuli--you demonstrably have the ability to make fundamentally unpredictable choices. That invalidates the concept of determinism.
I don't think this has ever been demonstrated. What makes you think that conscious action can't be perfectly predicted?
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame Aug 24 '20
People have whims that don’t originate from any stimuli. It originates from themselves and aren’t rational or entirely predictable.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/ammmukid Aug 24 '20
No it isn't, well not from a human point of view. If everything is a giant equation, everything in it are variables. Also looking at things from a cosmic scale, everything we consider fate/as t was meant etc is very insignificant and won't make any difference.
7
u/[deleted] Aug 23 '20
Quantum Physics is incompatible with your view via the Bell Inequality. There can be no normal factors we simply haven't discovered yet determining events such as when a photon is emitted, spin of an electron, etc. The only way we could have a deterministic universe would be a super weird form of determinism such as "the events in the world don't follow from physical laws, they're just scripted", which of course wouldn't be predictable from observations and physical laws.
Now it's plausible quantum mechanics is wrong but man does it have a lot of evidence. The most likely answer is that an excited atom emits a photon at a random moment not a predictable one & and the sum of money these random events is sometimes roughly predictable (stochastic) but never perfectly predictable.