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