Random universe: fallacy?

Originally Posted by 8bit

It doesn't make sense to me, logically, that there are unpredictabilities in the natural world. Rather, it seems far more pragmatic, and less self-serving, to assume that our current understanding of the natural world is flawed because it's formed by humans, which are by no means all knowing.

No problem; there are certainly some very excellent scientists who work under those impressions.
Personally I have no problem with fundamental randomness, and knowing that I'd have to give up relativity (and find an incredibly more complex theory to account for the all of relativity's experimental success given the speed of light in a vacuum is in fact not constant in every frame of reference) would make give me pause even if I did take issue with the idea. I try to preach the controversy, but I certainly have a bias.

And because of hypotheses such as the many worlds interpretation and others which attempt to make sense of what we perceive now as a Universe sized craps table it seems strange that one would claim that determinism is completely defeated by modern quantum theory.

The math makes sense already, its only the philosophers that have a problem.
And I can't stress enough that Many Worlds is not a hypothesis: it makes no experimental predictions. Philosophical interpretations over QM have more in common with the products of the Zelda Theory board than they do with units of the scientific method.

Philosophical interpretations over QM have more in common with the products of the Zelda Theory board than they do with units of the scientific method.

You mean stuff like the schoedinger's cat analogy?

Originally Posted by Devia

You mean stuff like the schoedinger's cat analogy?

Sort of. The hypothetical scenario in Schrödinger's Cat has a complete and consistent mathematical description; the question of interpretation in QM concerns how we should think about that description from an ontological POV. Its something of an existential endeavor; given what science tells us is true (and making no further assumptions) philosophy guesses at what it all "means".

There now exist a couple dozen unique semantic systems which bring meaning to the math, many with profound implications ... especially in the Many Worlds family which has been (poorly) popularized in science fiction and arguably has Occam's razor on its side.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Sort of. The hypothetical scenario in Schrödinger's Cat has a complete and consistent mathematical description; the question of interpretation in QM concerns how we should think about that description from an ontological POV. Its something of an existential endeavor; given what science tells us is true (and making no further assumptions) philosophy guesses at what it all "means".

There now exist a couple dozen unique semantic systems which bring meaning to the math, many with profound implications ... especially in the Many Worlds family which has been (poorly) popularized in science fiction and arguably has Occam's razor on its side.

really, how so?

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

No problem; there are certainly some very excellent scientists who work under those impressions.
Personally I have no problem with fundamental randomness, and knowing that I'd have to give up relativity (and find an incredibly more complex theory to account for the all of relativity's experimental success given the speed of light in a vacuum is in fact not constant in every frame of reference) would make give me pause even if I did take issue with the idea. I try to preach the controversy, but I certainly have a bias.

But we already admit that relativity and quantum theory are both flawed, no? If they weren't flawed then we would only require one unifying theory, say, a unified field theory, which explains how the natural world operates on both a quantum level and a non-quantum level.

The math makes sense already, its only the philosophers that have a problem.

How is it that the math makes sense if we haven't settled on a UFT?

And I can't stress enough that Many Worlds is not a hypothesis: it makes no experimental predictions. Philosophical interpretations over QM have more in common with the products of the Zelda Theory board than they do with units of the scientific method.

I'm not sure if I follow. If, say, the many worlds interpretation is shown to be true via some sort of repeated experimental trial, than is it not scientific law, as it can be observed in the natural world?

Originally Posted by Erasmus

really, how so?

Originally Posted by 8bit

I'm not sure if I follow. If, say, the many worlds interpretation is shown to be true via some sort of repeated experimental trial, than is it not scientific law, as it can be observed in the natural world?

well, I'm not MMMMM_PIE, but I'm pretty sure that the Many Worlds model is by it's own definition not observable or verifiable from our POV.
At least, most definitely not where we currently stand in science I would think.

*edit*

haha, never seen sliders. I was more curious about the occam's razor bit.

Originally Posted by 8bit

How is it that the math makes sense if we haven't settled on a UFT?

Kinematics, Dynamics, Reaction Kinetics, Electrodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Finance, Aeronautics, and hundreds of other models make perfect use of math without a UFT, why should QM be any different? A properly constructed UFT will tell us why the math works the way we know it does.

I'm not sure if I follow. If, say, the many worlds interpretation is shown to be true via some sort of repeated experimental trial, than is it not scientific law, as it can be observed in the natural world?

The Many Worlds Interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, etc. make non-equivalent statements about the nature of the universe, but they also limit epistemology in such a way as to arrive at equivalent statements about the total knowledge available in the universe, making them non-differentiable under experimentation.
Its a Descartes' Demon situation: a legitimate physical universe is certainly different from a demonic illusion, but its different in such a specific way that we'll never know if we're in one or the other.

Originally Posted by Devia

I was more curious about the occam's razor bit.

Many Worlds does not require the actual existence of a Wave Function, Pilot Wave, Hidden Variable set, or other such unobserved entity - it allows these to be abstract mathematical constructions. Minimizing the number of true entities involved in QM, it can be seen as Occam's choice.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Kinematics, Dynamics, Reaction Kinetics, Electrodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Finance, Aeronautics, and hundreds of other models make perfect use of math without a UFT, why should QM be any different? A properly constructed UFT will tell us why the math works the way we know it does.

Because quantum mechanics conflicts with relativity, no?

I was under the impression that the goal of a UFT was to merge the two theories into one.

The Many Worlds Interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, etc. make non-equivalent statements about the nature of the universe, but they also limit epistemology in such a way as to arrive at equivalent statements about the total knowledge available in the universe, making them non-differentiable under experimentation.
Its a Descartes' Demon situation: a legitimate physical universe is certainly different from a demonic illusion, but its different in such a specific way that we'll never know if we're in one or the other.

Oh, so the Matrix.

Many Worlds does not require the actual existence of a Wave Function, Pilot Wave, Hidden Variable set, or other such unobserved entity - it allows these to be abstract mathematical constructions. Minimizing the number of true entities involved in QM, it can be seen as Occam's choice.

Hmm. So it's equivalent to saying, 'we're not living in a computer simulation.' While it's not observable, it's the most logical answer, thus, we should assume it to be true, no?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Because quantum mechanics conflicts with relativity, no?
I was under the impression that the goal of a UFT was to merge the two theories into one.

Not exactly to the first, yes to the second. Quantum effects and gravitational relativistic effects haven't really been working on the same level since the Plank epoch, immediately after the Big Bang. At present gravity is too weak by far to play apart in singular quantum interactions and the uncountably huge number of quantum effects theoretically motivating any one macroscopic gravitational effect average out into classical mechanics. This is basically what makes a unification theory so difficult to test in the first place.
A UFT will help us build accurate models of the Big Bang and other uber-high-energy systems, it won't revolutionize down-to-earth physics... and afterwords we'll still likely need to bring Dark Matter and Dark Energy into a TOE before a clear picture forms.

Hmm. So it's equivalent to saying, 'we're not living in a computer simulation.' While it's not observable, it's the most logical answer, thus, we should assume it to be true, no?

Basically, although the status of Many Worlds as the "most reasonable explanation" is not nearly so certain. The Copenhagen interpretation is also very strong, very simple, and has 40 years more development behind it (but it embraces randomness like no other, so you might take issue).

Major edits made; some of that was tad backward sorry...

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Not exactly to the first, yes to the second. Quantum effects and gravitational relativistic effects haven't really been working on the same level since the Plank epoch, immediately after the Big Bang. At present gravity is too weak by far to play apart in singular quantum interactions and the uncountably huge number of quantum effects theoretically motivating any one macroscopic gravitational effect average out into classical mechanics. This is basically what makes a unification theory so difficult to test in the first place.
A UFT will help us build accurate models of the Big Bang and other uber-high-energy systems, it won't revolutionize down-to-earth physics... and afterwords we'll still likely need to bring Dark Matter and Dark Energy into a TOE before a clear picture forms.

Hmm. Ok.

Basically, although the status of Many Worlds as the "most reasonable explanation" is not nearly so certain. The Copenhagen interpretation is also very strong, very simple, and has 40 years more development behind it (but it embraces randomness like no other, so you might take issue).

Then why would Occam choose the Many Worlds over the Copenhagen?

Major edits made; some of that was tad backward sorry...

Its fine.

The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes that the wave function* (a completely mathematical entity that arises naturally when we combine Newtons Second Law with Wave Particle Duality) corresponds to some actually extant thing in nature which we're observing indirectly when me make measurements in QM. Many Worlds doesn't make a similar supposition.

*You might notice the Bohmian interpretation and Ensemble interpretation are also listed as excluding the Wave Function as ontological. The former makes other, rather larger suppositions. The latter is widely considered to be incomplete.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes that the wave function* (a completely mathematical entity that arises naturally when we combine Newtons Second Law with Wave Particle Duality) corresponds to some actually extant thing in nature which we're observing indirectly when me make measurements in QM. Many Worlds doesn't make a similar supposition.

So like, some sort of material, energy, or force?

So like, some sort of material, energy, or force?

Usually its treated more like a fundamental property of a system or particle than a separate entity: like a momentum, mass, or volume.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Usually its treated more like a fundamental property of a system or particle than a separate entity: like a momentum, mass, or volume.

Hmm. I don't like it. Many Worlds sounds way cooler, and it allows me to still be a Marxist.

I'm sad I missed the main discussion here. anyways, just to bring back up a point I noticed.

Originally Posted by 8bit

If, and only if, the Big Bang occurred, then the Universe is as it is today.

'If, and only if,' implies equivalence, and thus, is also transitive. Therefore this can be flipped to state that:


If, and only if, the Universe is as it is today, then the Big Bang occurred.

And this makes sense, no?

Actually, you'd be wrong from the first part.
If, by any other means, the universe happened to become what it is, then, us working in science like we do, wold assume a big bang.
You're statement declares the Big Bang is irrefutable, and this is most definitely not true.
Yes, all evidence points to it, and George Smoot made it almost impossible to deny. Yet, we could always be interpreting something wrong. As I can't say enough, if something can't be refuted, it isn't science.

Originally Posted by 3heartchallenge

I'm sad I missed the main discussion here. anyways, just to bring back up a point I noticed.


Actually, you'd be wrong from the first part.
If, by any other means, the universe happened to become what it is, then, us working in science like we do, wold assume a big bang.
You're statement declares the Big Bang is irrefutable, and this is most definitely not true.
Yes, all evidence points to it, and George Smoot made it almost impossible to deny. Yet, we could always be interpreting something wrong. As I can't say enough, if something can't be refuted, it isn't science.

I didn't intend to imply that. 'Big Bang' could have easily been substituted for 'beginning of chronology'.

My setup assumes the Big Bang is true, but my focus was on showing that the Big Bang can be caused deterministically, not in proving the Big Bang itself.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I didn't intend to imply that. 'Big Bang' could have easily been substituted for 'beginning of chronology'.

My setup assumes the Big Bang is true, but my focus was on showing that the Big Bang can be caused deterministically, not in proving the Big Bang itself.

My bad, that was a fail on reading comprehension.

Things can appear random at first, but in the end, they cannot be random.

and there is a giant black hole in the middle of the galaxy, and it is supposed that this may be the case with all galaxies.