Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2012, 9:27 am

BreezeGod wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
Four years ago I did this little thought experiment. Let's suppose that, right now, a completely perfect copy of our universe, down to the last atom, was created in an alternate dimension or whatever. If we let 10 seconds pass, would the two universes be the same, or would there be differences between them?


Here is a thought experiment. Suppose your grandmother acquired a pair of testicles. Would she be your grandfather?

All kidding aside, the underlying laws of physics are probablistic. So a copy of our cosmos would most likely evolved in a different way.

ruveyn


...You should really go over your physics notes again.


No. You go over you notes on quantum physics. The outcomes of experiments such as the Stern-Gerlach clearly indicate indeterminism All hidden variable theories have lead to contradictions with fact. At the subatomic level the world is not deterministic.

ruveyn



BreezeGod
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 100

22 Jul 2012, 9:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
BreezeGod wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
Four years ago I did this little thought experiment. Let's suppose that, right now, a completely perfect copy of our universe, down to the last atom, was created in an alternate dimension or whatever. If we let 10 seconds pass, would the two universes be the same, or would there be differences between them?


Here is a thought experiment. Suppose your grandmother acquired a pair of testicles. Would she be your grandfather?

All kidding aside, the underlying laws of physics are probablistic. So a copy of our cosmos would most likely evolved in a different way.

ruveyn


...You should really go over your physics notes again.


No. You go over you notes on quantum physics. The outcomes of experiments such as the Stern-Gerlach clearly indicate indeterminism All hidden variable theories have lead to contradictions with fact. At the subatomic level the world is not deterministic.

ruveyn


There's what Thom_Fuleri said, and the quantum effects are really too small to cause noticeble changes within the two universes in 10 seconds.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 165
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

22 Jul 2012, 10:12 am

It's worth noting that there are plenty of physicists who think that "quantum randomness" is not actually random, we just don't have the scientific resolution to see through it yet.



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

22 Jul 2012, 11:57 am

It took me a few seconds to grasp ruveyn's joke. But :lol:

I've read all answers, and given the problem further thought.

First of all, yes, I was aiming for exact copies. From my little knowledge on quantum physics it wouldn't be possible to know everything about every sub-particle to make such a copy, but I'll call it magic and go ahead, because the main purpose of it was whether all the things we will do are completely determined by our environment, the whole universe, and whether there is any wiggle room.

10 seconds was arbitrary, if there is no change in 10 seconds there shouldn't be any after another 10 seconds, and another 10 seconds, and so on. And if it's small then hey, it's still change, and after a while it would add up and changes should start being noticeable at the macroscopic level, and at the behavioural level, the one I have the most questions about now. And also, isn't Plank's constant a hard limit on the resolution we can ever archieve?

The physical part of my problems seems to be debatable. I'm reading about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and later in university I'll take specialized lectures on quantum physics, plus science will march on. But now to get on the philosophical part that has been bugging me.

First, assume we live in a deterministic world. This still holds some validity if it was indeterministic, but that would make it more complex. Remember what I said about Steve? Replace Steve by someone who has won at life, your idol or whoever, and replace Steve by a violent criminal or whatever you deem repulsive. In a deterministic world, had we been born under the exact conditions that either of them, right now we'd be at the same place as them, having the same thoughts and doing the same actions. Then, does it have any merit to be successful, or can we really be judged for being unsuccessful? We're just doing what we're supposed to do under the physic laws and the way the universe has shaped us to be (genetics and life experiences). Our will is shaped and constrained and determined to be a certain way by the universe.

If indeterministic, as marshall pointed out, the fact that things could have turned out differently doesn't necessarily mean that it's our own force of will that makes it so, instead of something random, although at least that possibility keeps open.

Personally, for the time being I'd go with nominalist on that one. We can act as if we had free will, whether it's actually true or not, and take the reins of life, even if we were already determined to do just that. So... let's keep the discussion going.


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

22 Jul 2012, 5:31 pm

Shatbat wrote:
It took me a few seconds to grasp ruveyn's joke. But :lol:


There was a joke?

Quote:
So... let's keep the discussion going.


Because we have no choice but to continue the discussion. Bwah ha ha haaaa!