Originally posted by @deepthoughtI wouldn't say that quantum mechanics necessarily rules out a deterministic universe. In quantum mechanics, randomness comes from the measurement problem and things like (radioactive) decay. But all of these things involve interactions with some macroscopic thing that is too difficult to describe quantum mechanically in its entirety. This leaves open the possibility of deterministic theories that are consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation (or some subset thereof), i.e. deterministic theories that do not assign a definite momentum etc. to particles. I'm talking of course about the fourth, newest school within interpretations of quantum theory: decoherence.
So something like the Newtonian world view. I was wondering if some sort of philosophical position was meant. Quantum mechanics seems to rule out a fundamentally deterministic universe. Of the three major interpretations only deBroglie-Bohm attempts to retain a deterministic world. The many worlds approach is deterministic, but from the point of vie ...[text shortened]... ore room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoThere are classical and quantum versions of chaos theory, that's not what this is about.
Ok, a few questions I suppose.
Is Chaos Theory effectively the classical study of imperfect models of imperfect knowledge?
Is determinism an emergent phenomenon? That is, Quantum Mechanics is fundamental and the rest of physics studies the emergent characteristics of the fundamental system? Am I way out in left field?
Lets say you theoreticall ...[text shortened]... re saying it must, so when is the question.
In your opinion is life emergent, or fundamental?
Chaos theory just describes situations where, given some deterministic system, there is a strong dependence on an initial state. A commonly cited example is our weather system, which is why we can only make short-term weather predictions.
Most of these philosophical arguments over whether something is a 'cause' of something else are not as a result of a fundamental disagreement over what happens in reality but rather just merely a result of misunderstanding over what the other person means by the word 'cause' and the failure to realize that the other person means something different from the word.
Some people rigidly tie the meaning of 'cause and effect' with a temporal relation, specifically with the 'cause' being before the effect. But other people, such as myself, don't do this and thus say something 'causing' something doesn't imply that 'cause' necessarily must come before its 'effect' but rather that 'cause' could coming at the same time as its 'effect' (but still never after its effect).
So I may say something like "gravity causes things to fall" without implying first at some point in time there is gravity and only then, after some time delay, does its presence 'cause' something to start to fall. But someone listening to my assertion of "gravity causes things to fall" who rigidly rigidly ties the meaning of 'cause and effect' with a temporal relation of 'before and after' may (and typically does) drastically misunderstand what I mean by assuming I also rigidly ties the meaning of 'cause and effect' with 'before and after' and thus think I am saying there is a mysterious time delay between the occurrence of gravity and it resulting in something to start to fall. But that isn't what I (and other people) mean by that assertion at all! -and then the arguments over this misunderstanding begin...
So, basically, most of these arguments involving 'cause and effect' are only over misunderstanding of each others mere semantics rather than any meaningful disagreement over the nature of reality.
Originally posted by @apathistI think you didn't read my post well enough.
Milk doesn't jump off the floor into the spilled glass.
I said;
"...but rather that 'cause' could coming at the same time as its 'effect' (but still never after its effect). "
Note what I said in brackets.
Originally posted by @humyIt was kinda muddled. It stacked up a lot of assertions.
I think you didn't read my post well enough.
...
We know from experience of the relation between cause/effect, and in which direction it moves. The first precedes the second by definition. I guess you're saying there is a deeper understanding, and if so I'd say there must be a new language for it.
Originally posted by @apathistTime isn't something that flows, it is something that other things move through. What you seem to be referring to is time reversal invariance in fundamental physics. There are two points to be made, the first is that time reversal invariance is probably not a fundamental symmetry. The second is that even if it were a symmetry of nature the dynamics do not have to be time reversal invariant. So I don't think that this presents a problem for Standard Model physics.
Physics math implies that time can flow either way. So of course physics math is lacking.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI'm not attacking the standard model. If something works then it works. There is an overview though.
... So I don't think that this presents a problem for Standard Model physics.