Determinism

You have two options: Determinism or magic.

>unfalsifiable
babby's new werd

>both perspectives are unfalsifiable
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

It's pretty terrifying that at certain point this kind of schizophrenic mumbling was considered intellectual.

I have a friend that have the same opinions, but I hope that our universe is non deterministic.

If the universe turn out to be deterministic than this words I am writing are been determined for this moment since the big bang, and so this means that there is no free will

All my actions and your actions are predetermined since The beginning of times

This for me is scary, and it is more scary if the big crunch is a real thing, a universe that repeat it self over and over

I strongly hope that quantum phenomenon are random, because either way we are no more then a chain of action reaction

>If the universe turn out to be deterministic than this words I am writing are been determined for this moment since the big bang, and so this means that there is no free will
How?

Just because, from fictional omniscient perspective, your decision is inevitable, does not mean you don't need to make decisions. You're a creature of pattern analysis of limited perception making decisions based on limited information. Your inability to escape the chain of cause and effect has on more impact on your free will than your inability to breath water, that, incidentally, came about as a result of that same chain.

You still have free will bruv, it's just that there's an outcome in the future based on what's happening now. Whatever you were destined to do is still what you want to do based on current information.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1508452124521.webm

Nope, you have not free will, because all the information that you have and that you use to decide something are predetermined by the beginning, you have only the illusion of making decision

If for absurd the universe restart right now then this situation of you reading my words will appear again and there is nothing that you can do, you have not free will

but this only if the universe is deterministic obv

Well there is something I can do, it's not read your words. So why is it a bad thing that in a deterministic universe I'll read you words if I want to?

you can't change the future in a deterministic universe, the information is constant and there is a path that can't be changed

it is not bad that you can read my past words, it is bad that all the past events drag you here in the illusion of free will in this exact moment

The point is that if the universe is deterministic and it cicle big bang -> big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch
then this situation has appeared infinite times and so our life are just destined to repeat over and over

The funny thing about this sentence is that is says nothing and it's too late to stop reading it.

Well, in addition to the fact that we've more or less ruled out big crunch, it wouldn't matter either way. Your future maybe set, but it's set by a series of decisions you made, in addition to whatever came before.

Only the truly omniscient are free from the burden of free will, aware of every decision they will make and of all the things that arise from them and lead to them. You, on the other hand, aren't even fully cognisant of the mechanisms behind your own decisions, let alone of all the potential consequences that may arise from them nor of the whole chain of cause and effect that lead to them throughout all of time. Thus you are enslaved to free will, regardless of the predestination of the outcome of your decisions or the circumstances that lead to them. That holds true, whether the universe is predetermined or not.

This accusation levied against me is totally unfalsifiable.

It shows that there's no newtonian model hidden below Schrodinger equation, but Schrodinger equation is deterministic and extensively tested - that's pretty difficult to ignore.

>both perspectives are unfalsifiable
Determinism is pretty falsifiable: you only need to find randomness in nature. And free will (christfag definition of it) looks already falsified as it is supernatural.

"""""Magic""""" would have rules to how it works and would necessarily also be deterministic
this is what pure libertarians don't understand: just because your choices aren't being determined by the atoms in your brain doesn't mean they're not being determined by something else outside your control.

>The point is that if the universe is deterministic and it cicle big bang -> big crunch -> big bang -> big crunch
>then this situation has appeared infinite times and so our life are just destined to repeat over and over
There is no reason to assume it's the exact same universe being created each and every time under the bang-crunch model

Anyway, determinism being real doesn't mean that you don't make any decisions. Take the red&bluepill; embrace compatibilism.

So many brainlets ITT

a) we can prove that quantum processes objectively happen by chance with no deterministic model behind them. Yes, probabilities can be predicted but not the actual outcome

b) it makes no sense to talk about free will whilst thinking about what is going on at the level of atoms. Whether or not you can predict the outcome if you knew the speed and position of the atoms at one point of time (which you can’t) is completely inconsequential to the level at which free will as a concept exists

>is completely inconsequential to the level at which free will as a concept exists
finally someone understands it

can determinism work alongside the multiverse theory? like can there be some kind of determened mulitiverse
asking cause I legitimately have no idea

If a universe is deterministic, there won’t be any multiverses, so no. Multiverses aren’t really a valid theory anyways as they make no predictable outcome, it’s literally just speculation on what happens when we really have no idea.

Well, the idea that universes branch from every possibility within each universe, is kinda the misnomered sci-fi version of it.

Predetermined multiple universes is fine, but the idea is that the universes never interact, and do not necessarily bear any causal relation to one another, even if, under some such theories, they may sometimes spawn from one another. There are, for instance, theories that suggest that big bang events can, and perhaps do, happen in this universe from time to time - but it's a matter of quantum conditions, and should this universe be the spawner, the resulting universe is moving away from this universe at faster than the speed of light, so the two effectively do not exist to one another. The same theories suggest it may even be possible to artificially create the conditions to create such a universe, even if there wouldn't be much point - but they do not suggest that a new universe is created with every decision you make. Indeed, no multi-universe theory actually suggests that.

"At what level does ${TOPIC} occur?" is a good way to rephrase any inquiry that misunderstands quantum physics.

What a load of horseshit. Show me one serious, peer reviewed study that actually claims that, much less is validated by some actual experiments.

First you say the Universes are deterministic, then you talk about “quantum conditions”, which aren’t a thing in a deterministic universe. Then you say the universes don’t interact, at which point it isn’t just unknowable whether any universe besides your own exist, but it is also completely irrelevant and unprovable. And then that thing about big bangs happening and the moving away at more than the speed of light, is there any indication of that happening, because it would be idiotic to create a theory that violates the laws of physics without any good reason to.

Tl;dr: sounds like something someone who knows very little about physics made up because he thought it sounds good

>we can prove that quantum processes objectively happen by chance with no deterministic model behind them
That's only an interpretation based on contradictory reasoning.

>Yes, probabilities can be predicted but not the actual outcome
That's because all outcomes happen, you can't predict only one of them happens.

MWI is not the same as multiverse. In multiverse different universes are distinct pieces of matter and can in principle interact. In MWI worlds are different states of the same matter and can't interact because they are orthogonal.

>That's only an interpretation based on contradictory reasoning.

What are the contradictions? Are you referring to superdeterminism?

>That's because all outcomes happen, you can't predict only one of them happens.

That’s just an assumption that is made to avoid having anything indeterministic in there. It’s not really provable, and also doesn’t work all that well with superdeterminism

And yes, of course you can always say “we don’t really know”, but then you turn around and state as fact things which are neither proven nor even based on any strong indication from past experiments

Describing several different theories, none of which I advocate for. Just saying, while there's a lot of odd theories involving multiple universes of various natures, there's no serious theory that suggests you birth a new one with each personal decision, outside of science fiction.

In regards to the classic quantum woo, there really is a difference between indeterminate and indeterminable, regardless of what a few philosophy waxing scientists have claimed or been misinterpreted to say. All states are ultimately resolvable, just not always objectively so from a single frame on the inside.

>there really is a difference between indeterminate and indeterminable, regardless of what a few philosophy waxing scientists have claimed or been misinterpreted to say

Who is saying there isn’t? That’s why the question of hidden varibales is such a big deal in the first place.

>All states are ultimately resolvable, just not always objectively so from a single frame on the inside

How do you know that? And “from a a single frame on the inside”? As compared to what, a frame on the “outside”? The question is whether the information exists or not, changing frames won’t do anything about that. You can at most claim that there is a hidden variable which cannot be directly measured, but that would have to be proven which so far it hasn’t, quite the opposite

Probabilistic physics also makes logical sense, with the added bonus of agreeing with experiment, unlike determinism.
>Relativity is a thing, so the universe more or less has to be deterministic:
Quantum field theory is relativistic and probabilistic.
>but Schrodinger equation is deterministic and extensively tested
The Born rule is completely non-deterministic and is just as well-tested.

>Who is saying there isn’t? That’s why the question of hidden varibales is such a big deal in the first place.
As one reference frame's future can be another's past, the end result of every quantum state is determined, there's just no way to determine that result from within a single frame, or determine and communicate it between multiple frames, without violating the speed of light.

>quantum processes
That do not affect anything on a macroscale, especially not our behavior.

Sure, usually they don’t affect anything (with the exception of machines), but then again I didn’t claim that.

What’s your point, that on a macro scale things are still fairly deterministic?

You’re saying that if there is an outcome, it could be known, and therefore probability doesn’t exist. But that is based on the view that a frame has a time attached to it, and you can switch between times.

However that is not really how frames are used, remember that frames also do not have a position in space associated with them (other than for reference). Frames differ by their relative velocities only, which would not create the effect you are thinking of there.

No, the outcome can't be known. But, if an observer a half billion light years away is heading towards you, even at a brisk walking speed, their extended light cone is overlapping with your future of about 200 years. Now, from that distance, they obviously can't see that future, nor ever hope to interact with it, hence the 'extended' qualifier, but that isn't without consequences, and at smaller distances, and much higher speeds, this becomes a problem.

It's also possible to imagine spacetime geometries where it's an immediate problem and observations can be made. There probably isn't any combination of physical events that can cause such arrangements (certainly we've yet to observe any), but there's nothing otherwise preventing spacetime from taking such configurations. Just because all your tools are wood, and the wall is iron, does not mean there's nothing on the other side of the wall.

Similarly, one does not, for instance, assume all possibilities are taking place on the other side of an event horizon, only that you can't mathematically predict them or ever interact with them, but at the same time, naked singularities are theoretically possible, which would give you a view into a zone where space and time have swapped.

And of course, as a result of relativity and the fact that spacetime intervals can be negative, were FTL travel a thing, time travel in either direction would be a consequence. The causal violations this would cause is among the reasons we scoff when anyone suggests FTL is possible. In an undetermined universe, they would non-issue.

The future maybe undeterminable, but it is not undetermined.

If determinism exists no one can be guilty of anything.

They also can’t be innocent of it

Wow, such philosophy

>inb4 reddit meme

Not my fault, determinism made me do it

95% of the earth is still religious

>if an observer a half billion light years away is heading towards you, even at a brisk walking speed, their extended light cone is overlapping with your future of about 200 years.

No it doesn’t, what do you not understand about the phrase “light years” with “half billion” in front of it?

>from that distance, they obviously can't see that future, nor ever hope to interact with it, hence the 'extended' qualifier, but that isn't without consequences, and at smaller distances, and much higher speeds, this becomes a problem.

You can’t just make up an “extended” lightcone and then act like that’s a valid theory and base arguments on it. Also, what precisely would be the problem at lower distances and higher speeds?

>It's also possible to imagine spacetime geometries where it's an immediate problem and observations can be made.

Geometries like what? And what do you even mean by “it”? So far you haven’t shown any inconsistencies in the existing theories that you could refer back to here

>Just because all your tools are wood, and the wall is iron, does not mean there's nothing on the other side of the wall.

If the wall is the laws of physics, you do need some indication that you can just ignore them.

>Similarly, one does not, for instance, assume all possibilities are taking place on the other side of an event horizon

Wave functions are only used where a measurement can be made, so they are irrelevant in this situation

>a view into a zone where space and time have swapped

Space and time don’t swap, you can’t just claim that happens in a black hole

>And of course, as a result of relativity and the fact that spacetime intervals can be negative

That isn’t a fact, it is a mathematical implication of a formula we cannot even be sure applies in the situations where this would be the case

>The future maybe undeterminable, but it is not undetermined.

Now you’re just back to standard hidden variable theories

Also if determinism exists freewill is a lie.
We are just robots playing a recorded movie.

>Anything I can't see isn't happening, the post.
Not bothering to counter those one at a time, as no explanation would satisfy the above summation of your belief system anyways.

But, for a better understanding:
youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks
In reference to time and space swapping:
youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI

Read something about compatibilism, please, before saying any more stupid shit.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

A movie we made.

When you run a program to generate an image based on a series of inputs, that program is still making decisions to generate that output. However inevitable those decisions and that output is, it still makes those decisions, and is thus responsible for the result, which would have have happened without it. It's only you're a much more complex program, and experiencing that process as it happens.

>you are wrong, read X
No, thanks.

Whether the world is deterministic or not, “free will” as you think of it is still just the product of chemistry. Whether chance is involved or not would not only not make a difference in the outcome over the scale and timescale involved, but also not change the argument.

Fact is, “free will” is simply used as a concept for the ability of an organism to make a choice, which is a result of having some level of cognitive ability. It doesn’t actually mean anything when looking at an organism at the level of it’s atoms and molecules

>using fucking popsci videos as an example

Please actually bother to study relativity at least at the level of an undergrad course. Even that will show you how those descriptions are inaccurate. A description In words is not something you can base theories on, it is just a way to give some partial insights to people outside of the field

>Anything I can't see isn't happening, the post

It’s not what I personally can’t see, it is what cannot be measured in principle due to the information not existing in a certain point in space and time. That is something that is very relevant in physics, especially quantum physics

Well, there's links to all the maths available from there, but here, within the space provided, beyond a few formula that you'll say are irrelevant because they still can't predict the future from here, that's the best I can do for ya.

Things like wormholes and naked singularities may not exist, but if they don't, it's not due to restrictions on spacetime itself, it's only that the forces either are not or cannot be configured in such a way that they can happen - it's still geometrically possible if not physically. Simply because information cannot be transferred from one frame to another, does not mean that one frame or the other does not exist. We know, for instance, from the CMB, that mass exists beyond the observable universe, even though we also know that we can never interact with said nor visa versa. We similarly know, for instance, that an observer, in certain situations, will see distant events unfold at a more rapid pace - yet will only observe one series of events. One does not to even need to come near the speed of light before this is the case, even if in such cases the effect is barely measurable, and thus this observer may still communicate with external observers in apparently faster frames, and the two will have to compensate for the relative time differences between them, in the inverse of what our satellites do every day. Thus, all causal relations remain fixed. This doesn't suddenly cease to be the case, when one frame is isolated from another because space is expanding between them at faster than the speed of light, or any other condition that would prevent their unextended light cones from overlapping. Just because you can't see it, or can't measure it in principle, if you prefer, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I don’t disagree with that, but from that doesn’t follow what you said in

where you were misusing the concept of frames and lightcones in your arguments.

Also, just because you can model a systems behaviour whilst not observing it, or perhaps not even being able to observe it, does not mean every physical process necessarily can be modeled. It also simply doesn’t have any implication to whetherquantum processes are truly random or act based on a hidden variable

As far as naked black holes and especially wormholes go, they might not exist due to a lack of the right circumstances, or the theories that would implicate them being possible are wrong. Either way, we won’t know unless we observe them. They certainly aren’t good grounds to build a theory on, especially if that theory goes against what has actually been measured so far

>They certainly aren’t good grounds to build a theory on, especially if that theory goes against what has actually been measured so far
The thing is, the theories that allows them to be possibilities match up with all observations so far, whether or not they actually happen (sometimes to sixteen decimal places or more). It's those same theories that indicate a fixed future and past. You would need some new theory, that matches observations as well as those, to prove the existence of a non-deterministic universe, and, SFAIK, there is no such currently testable theory on the table.

>You would need some new theory, that matches observations as well as those, to prove the existence of a non-deterministic universe, and, SFAIK, there is no such currently testable theory on the table.

It still wouldn’t really be proof of a non-deterministic universe. I’m not claiming that we definitely know that the universe is non-deterministic, just that so far it seems likely from what we have seen in quantum physics, and with all arguments for determinism falling short so far.

As to the wormholes and nakes black holes: Assuming they exist and have the exact properties we assume they have, they still are not proof of a deterministic universe. The issues with time travel or space-time being deformed beyond the point where we can predict it certainly would be very interesting, but we just don’t know what the implications from that would be yet

In the last two posts you have kept the arguments to the actual science, but you still haven’t made the link to your posts before them and how this somehow shows that the universe is deterministic

Well, I'm arguing the current theories, that agree with current observations, require it be deterministic to work. Quantum non-determinism doesn't enter into it, anymore than it says even the current present isn't determinable, causality still must be maintained between all frames, whether they can physically interact or not.

There may be some better GUT and/or TOE in the future that says its nondeterministic that renders all our current theories the result of mere side effects of some greater whole, and there's a few untestable ones that suggest that, but everything we know and observe now, which we require to be true for various machines to operate, requires the universe in turn be deterministic.

If we were on /x/ I might take a different tone, but I kinda avoid that place... There's enough of that here already.

>Well, I'm arguing the current theories, that agree with current observations, require it be deterministic to work.

I guess you’re referring to this

>No, the outcome can't be known. But, if an observer a half billion light years away is heading towards you, even at a brisk walking speed, their extended light cone is overlapping with your future of about 200 years. Now, from that distance, they obviously can't see that future, nor ever hope to interact with it, hence the 'extended' qualifier, but that isn't without consequences, and at smaller distances, and much higher speeds, this becomes a problem.

>It's also possible to imagine spacetime geometries where it's an immediate problem and observations can be made. There probably isn't any combination of physical events that can cause such arrangements (certainly we've yet to observe any), but there's nothing otherwise preventing spacetime from taking such configurations.

That doesn’t really contain an argument though, it’s just a statement. You keep stating some parts which are actual science and then things which you say follow from that, but don’t actually connect them with any arguments

Dun think I could explain it much better than I have, or than the provided videos do, without considerable time investment, and it would ultimately simply be a recreation of the same. If it wasn't the case, the theories described wouldn't fit the observations and the resulting machines we use every day based on them wouldn't work - or there's something really weird going on that just provides a very convincing illusion that it is the case while also allowing them to function. I suppose there's that electric universe crap, but that falls apart with even cursory examination, all while still being ultimately deterministic.

>magic
Lrn2Clarke'sThirdLaw

...

Well given that your arguments so far have included blatent misuse of the science I’m not holding my breath. And if this really is so simple a popsci video can make the connection, how come this isn’t common knowledge amongst actual scientists?

Not him, but it is. It's a presumed consequence of SR. You’re right in that there’s no way to directly test it, beyond knowing that those theories that require it work in action. So unlike he's suggesting it isn’t exactly proven.

The idea that QM gives you free will due to the Heisenberg principle, or what not, is what’s pop-sci.

GR, not SR:
plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time
( or the kewt version as described by astrophysicist Adam Becker: bbc.com/earth/story/20170206-physics-suggests-that-the-future-is-already-set-in-stone )

Result of Relativity of Simultaneity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Which they teach in High School these days.

The block universe you describe, where the future is fixed, and both the past and future exist perpetually, is currently the most widely accepted model, and thus far, yes, the only way it could be otherwise is if Relativity is wrong, and Relativity is among the most thoroughly proven theories out there. You're also right in that QM doesn't counter it in anyway.

However, it's not as if there aren't viable alternatives being worked on:
youtube.com/watch?v=fM4XqElxT6k
youtube.com/watch?v=9L4I1ldPqbo

Granted, upon further research, Cortes/Smolin time asymmetry theory is far from complete, and violates Thermal Dynamics (it's an Information Paradox). Yes, the laws of Thermal Dynamics can be violated under certain extreme circumstances, but we flip out when Hawking Radiation suggests they are being violated, and that involves pretty much the most extreme circumstance around. Her theory involves them being violated, literally, all the time. Still, I feel that's probably the fundamental law of Thermal Dynamics with the least observably verifiable validity.

The block universe is more than a mathematical artifact, but like the lady kinda says, it seems to put too much emphasis on the psychological arrow of time. It does nothing to explain why we are experiencing now, and not some point in the past or future, and experience traveling from one to the other. It's also fraught with potential causal violations, but well, so is Relativity in general. So far, it seems none of those potential violations have been observed actualized, and that says something in and of itself.

There's an interesting documentary built out of a large conference on the subject with both pro and anti B-model speakers, mostly quantum physicists and astrophysicists:
youtube.com/watch?v=XjBW1uiWXig

That is literally just how you would interpret GR though, hardly a new concept. But that’s really all it is, an interpretation. It doesn’t seem to make any predictions which could be tested, it’s just an explanation. If that is a useful way for you to imagien it, great, but it doesn’t give us as observers any additional powers to predict the future, nor does it change what can in principle be known.

The Universe is deterministic if you can accurately predict the future having only the information existing at the current moment, simply changing the definition of the problem does not change that.

The role of science is to accurately model the universe, explanations beyond what can be tested are garbage and have always been

Determinism is the only philosophically infallible idea
The stoics were very strange

>That is literally just how you would interpret GR though
It's not really an interpretation, it's a consequence of the current observations, should they continue to scale, as the theory predicts they must.

Unless Relativity is wrong (unlikely), or it arises as the result of another system, as Cortes/Smolin's currently broken Time Asymmetry Theory suggests (which also requires laws Thermal Dynamics be wrong), then the universe is deterministic. Until you had some sci-fi crap like Albuquerque-white drive, it's true, you won't be able to test it, but it's the only conclusion that fits the current observations, which are thoroughly tested.

>it’s another theory which does not make any predictions and can’t be tested episode

Why would God create deterministic universe, since he’s all knowing and would already know the final state?

Checkmate, determinismfagfs!

If you mean Time Asymmetry, yes - though it's a work in progress.

If you mean Relativity - open your map on your phone. It makes predictions, and they've been tested to sixteen decimal places, which is more than you can say about just about any other predictive theory.

Eh, if you're all knowing, you already know the final state, determined or not. This is what omniscient means - you know the known unknowns, the unknown unknowns, and the unknowable unknowns.

He's also omniscient, so he can will himself into ignorance about your actions... Which, under some variants of the religion, is how he grants souls. (Don't ask why, it's fucking God, he's unknowable - fuck you, magic.)

>He's also omniscient
omnipotent*

beyond a few concrete places where you can kind of make a distinction (probabilistic vs having unique value), I've never even been totally clear on what a deterministic universe should mean. What is the totality of data that is sufficient to predict all things in the universe? How many properties need to be accounted for? I am not sure such a program even makes sense. Seems to have more to do with how to apply theories to the world than about the world itself.

I mean the determinism part. If you deduce that the universe is deterministic, you would need to make some prediction based on that which would not be the case if the universe was not deterministic. Just changing how you view time and then saying that therefore the universe can’t be anything but deterministic is not really science, in that case the “just a theory” actually would apply

It's the only way the current observations and relativity work, due to Relativity of Simultaneity being a thing.

We know, mathematically, under the current theories, that a black hole will pull you apart into tiny bits. We can't currently test it, but everything we know states that, and the same theories that lead us to this conclusion allow various machines to function.

You're basically saying we can't know we can't breath on Mars, because we've never tested it. We measured the atmosphere, but never directly tested it. Same thing here - we've measured relativistic effects, we use them, we know Relativity of Simultaneity is a thing, therefor we know the future must be fixed. In both cases, it's true, unless and until we find some other explanation for the observation - either relativity is a useful illusion or that all the atmospheric sensors we sent to Mars just happened to be on the fritz.

You can test whether there is oxygen on mars, you apparently can’t test whether the universe is deterministic.

If it’s such an abvious result of relativity, explain to me how the simultaneity means that the future can be predicted precisely. I’m doing a graduate degree in physics so no need to explain the special relativity, just go right for the argument. So far I just haven’t seen a good argument why determinism follows from relativity in this thread, just statements that it does

>What are the contradictions?
Postulated collapse contradicts Schrodinger equation, you can get different results depending on how you compute.
>That’s just an assumption that is made to avoid having anything indeterministic in there.
It proves that if single outcome can't be predicted indeterminism doesn't follow.

You mean numbers that those tests give? MWI gives the same numbers, but is deterministic, consequently indeterminism doesn't follow from those tests.

What do you mean by postulated collapse? Any Schrödinger wave function can collapse, and that is perfectly well within what the theory expects

How does assuming all outcomes happen prove that indeterminism doesn’t follow? Indeterminacy either requires there not to be any hidden variables, or if loosely used at least no way to predict the outcome

isn't that the main thing about determinism anyway? Even if there was convincing evidence for a fully deterministic universe, at the moment we are far far away from being able to predict 'the next step'.

What is more interesting is the socio-political implication. If our world is deterministic, than the concept of responsibility will have to be re-written, and you might find a large majority in a population that opts for re-designing i.e. criminal law, the prison system, .. all these things.

The serial killer was always meant to do what he did. He had no choice.

>explain to me how the simultaneity means that the future can be predicted precisely
It doesn't. It only means the future is fixed, as one frame of reference's future maybe another's past, but no single reference frame can communicate with its own future or past (at least, not under normal circumstances).

There's a ton of videos, links, and descriptions as to why this and why the Block Universe is the current understanding of physics in this thread, and even counter proposals arising from said, you're just ignoring them because you don't like the idea. There's a whole lotta unlikable discoveries in physics.

Another interpretation, which we used to be taught in special relativity at uni is that simultaneity can shift depending on the observer, and the temporal order of two events is only fixed if they are not within each others lightcone.

The problem is that this block universe explanation really is just that, an explanation, and not a theory. What good is simply saying that the outcome is fixed, if you cannot then predict it with the information given at any one point in time. It also doesn’t stop quantum physics from working, nor does it reveal any hidden variables. It literally just redefines determinism and that’s it

As a last point: physics doesn’t really understand the universe, it just just models it. I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but I think there was a quote from Newton about how he disapproves of how his peers tried to explain reality instead of keeping it to theories which can be tested, and looking back he was completely right as their explanations were completely false

Also I forgot to mention, but reference frames do not have a time, one frames future could only be another frames past if you had an independent reference time to tie this to, which you don’t

>All outcomes happen

Yeah. No. Either you can try to construct an deterministic quantum model (i.e.de Broglie Bohm) which is not that bad, but it can't be non local. Since non locality is proven many times (a recent paper from 2015 has even done one completely loophole free bell test) which concludes that quantum nature is in its core non local and thus non deterministic, since outcomes occur randomly and no other model describes nature better

>Many worlds
many worlds is shit and not falsifiable (for now)

>What do you mean by postulated collapse?
Collapse is postulated to happen during measurement: vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html

>Any Schrödinger wave function can collapse, and that is perfectly well within what the theory expects
The theory has two conflicting expectations in this case, one according to Schrodinger equation (without collapse), another according to postulate of measurement with collapse.

>How does assuming all outcomes happen prove that indeterminism doesn’t follow? Indeterminacy either requires there not to be any hidden variables, or if loosely used at least no way to predict the outcome
It's necessary, but not sufficient for indeterminism, consequence only follows from sufficient conditions.

>but it can't be non local
And it shouldn't, non-locality was a mistake and brings nothing but problems.

>Since non locality is proven many times (a recent paper from 2015 has even done one completely loophole free bell test)
Bell theorem only addresses the hidden variables model, it doesn't address locality.
>many worlds is shit and not falsifiable (for now)
If the hidden variables model was true, it would falsify MWI.

>Collapse is postulated to happen during measurement: vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html

Ah so you just meant a regular wavefunction collapse. No need to add the “postulated”

>The theory has two conflicting expectations in this case, one according to Schrodinger equation (without collapse), another according to postulate of measurement with collapse.

Schrödinger expects the collapse at measurement though, so where is the issue?

>It's necessary, but not sufficient for indeterminism, consequence only follows from sufficient conditions.

Ok so if it is physically impossible to predict the outcome, how is that not indeterminism? What else do you need?

>Schrödinger expects the collapse at measurement though, so where is the issue?
Schrodinger equation expects unitarian evolution operator, but collapse is a non-unitarian process, it mathematically can't fit in Schrodinger equation, that's why it's postulated, otherwise it would be absent from the theory.
>What else do you need?
As I said consequence follows from sufficient condition, so to prove indeterminism you can prove condition that is sufficient for indeterminism.

First of all, who the fuck uses “unitarian” in this context, I googled it and found literally one mention in a book. Also, if anything the Schrödinger equation is a continuous evolution of the wave function, so non-unitary.

But definitions aside, yes, the Schrödinger equation does not predict its own collapse. Obviously not, as that is done by an external influence which wasn’t included in the equation to begin with.

>As I said consequence follows from sufficient condition, so to prove indeterminism you can prove condition that is sufficient for indeterminism.

Yes, but the question was what do you consider a “sufficient condition”?

Either way, we will likely never prove indeterminism, as that would mean proving our inability to predict the future, and it is always possible to miss some way to do this. What I was saying is that the arguments made in this thread which supposedly prove that the universe are deterministic are not proofs, just interpretations

Ah fuck, I meant non-unitarian not non-unitary. That’s what comes from using that term when there is an actual term which is fairly close in terms of spelling

>Either way, we will likely never prove indeterminism, as that would mean proving our inability to predict the future
Something we predict to be the case, determinism or not.

>What I was saying is that the arguments made in this thread which supposedly prove that the universe are deterministic are not proofs, just interpretations
I've never heard of an interpretation that counters relativity's demands of a fixed future (assuming that's what yer on about). Do you have an interpretation that allows for a non-deterministic future, without throwing relativity out the window or otherwise supplanting it?

As I mentioned in the way we were taught in special relativity class was that simultaneity varied depending on the observer. Simultaneity surfaces can vary anywhere between the limits set by the lightcones of observers, therefore only allowing the temporal order of events to be fixed outside of the lightcones. This makes sense as it means you only define simultaneity as it can be measured, rather than assuming some observer independent simultaneity.

That means that you don’t have the issue of “one frames future being another ones past” as you said, and therefore don’t say anything about determinism

And when you have three frames as they relate to each other, and two of them moving in opposite directions relative to the third, what then?

Where did you go to school that they taught you relativity in this fashion? Fixed future has always been a key element of relativity SFAIK. I don't see any way it could function without it.

It’s literally just this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity and it’s taught like that everywhere. I went to a global top 10 uni and graduated not that long ago so I doubt that suddenly changed