[net.religion] the case against identical universes

andrew@tekecs.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (08/24/83)

	"Imagine two parallel universes such that at some instant in
	time all the objects, all the atoms, all the quarks, etc., etc.
	are moving in an identical fashion in both universes.  I claim
	that these universes would remain identical for all eternity."

There's this bizarre little rule in modern physics called the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible in
principle to nail down the exact position and velocity of any particle.
The closer you determine the position, the less you know about the
velocity, and vice versa.  This is not just a problem with the
mechanics of observation, but is considered to be a fundamental.

One of the implications is that it is meaningless to say that two
universes are identical.  Not only is it impossible to make this
determination, but the word "identical" is meaningless in the same way
that "simultaneous" is meaningless under relativity.

	"It seems to me that each universe would remain in "synch"
	forever.  This seems then to imply that given the state of the
	universe at any point in time, the future is entirely
	deterministic.  This would include the actions caused by any
	cognition in the universe."

It sounds as though you're one step from the "no free will" argument,
which states (briefly) that, since the future is entirely determined,
it is nonsense to believe that you can make a choice between two
actions; one of them is going to happen and you have no choice.  It
then follows that we cannot blame you for your actions, since you had
no choice.

We free-will advocates breathed a sigh of relief when we found out
about Heisenberg.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)  [UUCP]
                       (andrew.tektronix@rand-relay)     [ARPA]

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/26/83)

>   There's this bizarre little rule in modern physics called the
>   Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible in
>   principle to nail down the exact position and velocity of any particle.
>   It sounds as though you're one step from the "no free will" argument,
>   which states (briefly) that, since the future is entirely determined,
>   it is nonsense to believe that you can make a choice between two
>   actions; one of them is going to happen and you have no choice.  It
>   then follows that we cannot blame you for your actions, since you had
>   no choice.  We free-will advocates breathed a sigh of relief when we found
>   out about Heisenberg.
>   
>   -=- Andrew Klossner  (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)  [UUCP]

Logic is an amazing thing when used by those with something important to say.
Determinism claims that there is no free will because every action in the
universe can be predicted by physical laws.  The Heisenberg principle claims
that according to physical laws there is NO way to make such predictions.
Therefore there must be free will.

To anyone who follows that logic:  I've got some land in Florida and a bridge
in Brooklyn...

Given the evidence, I have no choice (but what about free will!!!!!) but to
believe in some middle ground between determinism and freewillism.  Call it
'indeterminism' if you will.  I guess if physics can't predict everything,
maybe the universe is simply random/unpredictable, but this doesn't imply
free will.  More like 'random will'.  This notion that "it can't be random;
something must control all of this" is the same notion that leads some tto
jump to the conclusion that there "has to be" a god.		Rich

mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/13/83)

#R:tekecs:-191300:uiucdcs:33000009:000:294
uiucdcs!mcewan    Sep 12 22:21:00 1983

Perhaps a physicist can enlighten me if this is wrong, but I don't see
what uncertainty has to do with non-determinism. The uncertainty principle
just says that you can't predict what will happen - that doesn't mean
that its not all predetermined.

					Scott McEwan
					pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan

sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (09/20/83)

Firstoff, this discussion doesn't really belong in net.religion.

Second is the answer to the question: "I thought that the Heisenberg
principle meant you couldn't predict what would happen - I didn't think
that it meant that it wasn't predetermined."
These words are paraphrased from Scott McEwan.

The Heisenberg principle is not (as is commonly thought) a statement
about observation, it is rather a statement about the essential characteristics
of the electron. It is not just that we cannot predict the momentum,
the electron truly doesn't HAVE a single momentum - the concept of
momentum doesn't apply to electrons.
It is like trying to applying the terms "greater" or "lesser" to positions
on a map - they don't make sense.
The Heisenberg principle (and subsequent quantum mechanics) says that
it is not just that we aren't smark enough to predict the momentum
of an electron - no being regardless of how omniscient can.

   Steve Den Beste
   Tektronix