Let's say we somehow find the temperatures and dT/dts, velocities and dv/dts, etc. of the stars, galaxies, planets, and general bodies of matter as well as electromagnetic forces in our universe and use that to trace back to the point of origin (the big bang or what have you). Let's say we've deduced the velocities, thermal, gravitational and electrical properties of all matter instantaneously after the universe's creation.

Now I'm not saying this is possible or that we'll likely ever have the technology or computational power to do so, but let's just say that we've somehow done this, for every atom in the universe. If you were to use all the relevant math and physics to predict and follow the movement and interaction of every atom, physical, electrical, and gravitational from that point on, is it theoretically possible to predict the future of course of matter? And thus the future of all things, including this Earth and you and I?

This seems plausible to me, until the origin of life and decision-making, where free will, present or not, would seem to throw a wrench into things.

What do you think?

4/17/2008 2:10:46 AM

Well, if we knew everything about everything, we could probably predict anything.

:E

4/17/2008 2:11:55 AM

can i buy some pot from you?

4/17/2008 2:13:51 AM

hahaha


i don't smoke pot

4/17/2008 2:16:13 AM

Dude, my mind is now officially blown!

4/17/2008 2:19:09 AM

I guess as long as you weren't considering any more unpredicted forces acting upon any atom in the universe, you could perhaps say this would be the case. However I feel like, within this thought experiment, that any action of a sentient, decision making being that causes a force to act upon the considered matter would change this calculated course of action, and since the actions of sentient beings cannot be predicted, then everything would go to shit. Know what I mean? Unpredictable forces would have to be nonexistent.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 AM. Reason : thing]

4/17/2008 2:20:10 AM

haha i didn't think you did, i was just sayin

4/17/2008 2:21:14 AM

Short answer: Yes

4/17/2008 2:22:40 AM

Frosted Butts.

4/17/2008 2:23:55 AM

Long answer: Frosted Butts.

4/17/2008 2:24:12 AM

Quote :

" If you were to use all the relevant math and physics to predict and follow the movement and interaction of every atom, physical, electrical, and gravitational from that point on, is it theoretically possible to predict the future of course of matter?"

Absolutely not. We ALREADY know that the state of certain atomic properties is probabilistic. Meaning that if we had a time machine and re-lived the events doing EVERYTHING identically, something could still take a different state than it did before because of the nature of probabilities.

So it's impossible to absolutely determine what will happen, based on what we know now.

You can probabilistically determine what will happen though, but as time approaches infinity, your probability of most things (all things actually, AFAIK, but I haven't looked in to the statistics too much) happening approaches 100%, which is not useful to know.

However, you can deduce from this that time travel is not possible, and a benevolent god doesn't exist. Because if the probability of all things being possible goes to 100% over infinity, and the universe/time is supposedly infinite, then we'd see more of an effect from both time travelers AND god, i'd think. The other explanation is that time and the universe are not in fact infinite, which has even more ramifications for physics, philosophy, and religion. Depending on how far you go, things can get pretty hairy.

4/17/2008 2:30:25 AM

Quote :

"haha i didn't think you did, i was just sayin"

Quote :

"However I feel like, within this thought experiment, that any action of a sentient, decision making being that causes a force to act upon the considered matter would change this calculated course of action, and since the actions of sentient beings cannot be predicted, then everything would go to shit"

I think that's basically what I'm asking. In retrospect, this just seems another way to pose the question of free will. But that brings up an interesting issue; if you could somehow have recorded the actions of every sentient being on Earth up till now and plot that against what was predicted, does that allow a way of deducing the presence other sentient life?

If we know X was what was SUPPOSED to happen, but we get Y when we factor in the known changes produced by free-willed life on Earth, but we reanalyze the universe and get Z, does that prove the existence of life elsewhere?



^ You know, I really didn't even think about the probability issue. It wouldn't seem to matter as much at this point, but could have a HUGE impact at the point of origin. Dammit. However, we've seemed to come to the conclusion that there IS in fact an origin in time and space to our universe, and the course of events thereafter have flowed somewhat linearly. The question now is the BIG COOL or the BIG CRUNCH, I don't think the infinity of time and the 100% probability of events is relevant here; let's assume the creation and destruction of this and only this universe.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM. Reason : moron]

4/17/2008 2:33:50 AM

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

This isn't completely on topic, but I think you might find it interesting nonetheless. It was supposedly written by Isaav Asimov.

4/17/2008 2:41:20 AM

free will throws a wrench in it

4/17/2008 2:57:27 AM

^thats why I take one for the team & just do as I'm told

being a mindless drone ftw?

4/17/2008 3:03:08 AM

I would argue yes.... I think the stats argument is irrelivant you KNOW any individual outcome... so... you'd know any other outcome.

Free will is a tough arguement and I don't know enough about the human mind to argue intelligently about that.

:heart:
~Wizz

4/17/2008 3:05:13 AM

Quote :

"http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html"

great read

so maybe god is a hyperspatial computer composed of all the minds and knowledge of the previous universe?

4/17/2008 3:08:00 AM

Quote :

"free will throws a wrench in it "

Only if you presume will is something that exists outside of the universe, which isn't necessarily a right presumption to make.

^ http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf

You might like that too. It's written by the guy that does the Dilbert comics.

Quote :

"The question now is the BIG COOL or the BIG CRUNCH, I don't think the infinity of time and the 100% probability of events is relevant here; let's assume the creation and destruction of this and only this universe. "

Big Cool or Big Crunch are out-dated concepts in modern physics. It's no longer widely held things will cool or crunch, thanks to the puzzle of dark matter/energy. It's commonly believed, currently, that the universe will expand indefinitely.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:14 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2008 3:09:41 AM

^^ That's what I got out of it. But basically it was saying that the universe is so infinite and vast that even the most sophisticated computer we can imagine is incapable of processing all of the data.

4/17/2008 3:15:05 AM

i think you'll have to use something better than maple to solve it

4/17/2008 3:21:18 AM

But Maple is all powerful. That's what they taught me in calc 1-3 anyway.

4/17/2008 3:23:58 AM

LOL

Quotes in Chit Chat.

paerabol has won a life of existential wandering. Congrats!

For the topic, yes. For proof:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

We are itty bitty robot primate-hive creatures that are every bit as predictable as the ants we study. Only if, as observed, all the available facts, science and data are in.

4/17/2008 3:24:29 AM

^ You're wrong, and your interpretation of that study as it applies to this thread is flawed.

4/17/2008 3:30:06 AM

wacka wacka wacka

i can assert things

4/17/2008 3:30:57 AM

Yes, that much is already clear.

4/17/2008 3:35:29 AM

^ You're wrong, and your interpretation of that study as it applies to this thread is flawed.

4/17/2008 4:02:53 AM

Within the parameters of this thought experiment and removing, for a moment, such possibilities as an extant deity and the probabilistic nature of atomic properties (which I won't pretend to know enough about, or concede that we "know" anything about it at all at the moment), then yes, you could predict everything, and no, there is no free will, for us or anybody else.

Ultimately human beings are just piles of matter. We're not even exceptionally elaborate piles of matter. All of your decisions are the result of chemical and electrical signals that operate according to the same rules that govern all such interactions. They are not spontaneous. You do not in any meaningful sense control them.

4/17/2008 4:51:15 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

4/17/2008 4:56:52 AM

I'm no physicist, but here's my 2 cents

With quantum mechanics these days, it seems like you can't predict anything with a certainty. When you get down to atoms, we can't even tell where the electrons actually are. We just know where they might be 90% of the time.

Then there's the fact that observing something changes it. You can't accurately know a particle's position and velocity at the same time, because observing one changes the other.

^ good link. the "we could know everything" idea is based on Newtonian physics. Now that we know about irreversability and quantum mechanics, it's not looking so simple.

4/17/2008 10:11:36 AM

If we could observe the entire universe without changing the states of any particle, then yes. We would have to have every possible piece of relevant data within the known universe. Then you could predict anything.

The only problem with that though, is that even if we had a computer where the smallest form of data was represented by the smallest known particle, we would need one of those particles for every single one we wanted to monitor. In effect, the computer that it would take to calculate the entire universe like that would be, another universe of exact dimensions of our own. We would need a parallel universe that we could control in order to predict our own. And if we had that, why the hell wouldn't we just make a universe have whatever we wanted in the first place.

4/17/2008 10:25:40 AM

paerabol, do you ever watch "the universe" on discovery? they usually have some pretty good explanations/theories. also there's a book i finished reading not too long ago, i don't remember the title off the top of my head right now...but i can look at it when i go home for lunch...that explained a lot of that kind of stuff.

on a related note, this book is pretty good too

4/17/2008 10:36:38 AM

^ A Brief History of Time?

plus paerabol is an NE, don't they teach you guys about atoms & shit? you probably know more about it than us.

4/17/2008 10:43:08 AM

i think you'd have np predicting star positions and orbit changes but i don't think you'd ever be able to predict if the Cubs are gonna win 30 yrs from now, of whether Katie will wear green on a certain day.

if you were able to perform time travel you would need to account for spacial drift or whatever so you didn't end up time warping into empty space.

4/17/2008 10:44:01 AM

Quote :

"A Brief History of Time? "

no. the title lists 3 things i think...like "the universe, black holes, and something". i've look through the books on amazon and checked booksamillion.com (bc i bought the book at the store), but no luck. the author was a woman i think.

4/17/2008 10:45:55 AM

Quote :

"Ultimately human beings are just piles of matter. We're not even exceptionally elaborate piles of matter. All of your decisions are the result of chemical and electrical signals that operate according to the same rules that govern all such interactions. They are not spontaneous. You do not in any meaningful sense control them."

Is that true though? How do we know we're not a sum greater than the parts? On a scientific level I'm inclined to believe that consciousness, free will, and self-awareness are all characteristics we've assigned to ourselves to explain the unknown, but I could be easily convinced otherwise.

Quote :

"Then there's the fact that observing something changes it. You can't accurately know a particle's position and velocity at the same time, because observing one changes the other."

I was conveniently choosing to ignore this aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty, and the random aspect of quantum mechanics in general. I should be ashamed to call myself an NE

Quote :

"The only problem with that though, is that even if we had a computer where the smallest form of data was represented by the smallest known particle, we would need one of those particles for every single one we wanted to monitor. In effect, the computer that it would take to calculate the entire universe like that would be, another universe of exact dimensions of our own. We would need a parallel universe that we could control in order to predict our own. And if we had that, why the hell wouldn't we just make a universe have whatever we wanted in the first place."

I think you're taking this theory a little too far. There's no reason that I see that, given all necessary information and unlimited computing power, we couldn't chart the progress of the universe within a hypothetical computational framework. Again, the problem lies in reliably obtaining this information to an almost infinite degree of accuracy, but that is why this is a "thought experiment" and not a scientific question.

Quote :

"paerabol, do you ever watch "the universe" on discovery? they usually have some pretty good explanations/theories. also there's a book i finished reading not too long ago, i don't remember the title off the top of my head right now...but i can look at it when i go home for lunch...that explained a lot of that kind of stuff."

I used to, but I don't have cable anymore. Most of the stuff on that show was nothing new, it's sortof The Elegant Universe of television, but sometimes I'd learn something that makes it worth watching. I would like to know the name of that book you're referring to.

The book that is probably solely responsible for my interest in quantum physics is The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov. One of the most amazing books I've ever read, not only for introducing me to a whole new world of physics but because it's really a book about personal growth and philosophy, framed within a book about quantum physics. I recommend anyone to read it, even people that know a lot about this stuff.

Quote :

"i think you'd have np predicting star positions and orbit changes but i don't think you'd ever be able to predict if the Cubs are gonna win 30 yrs from now, of whether Katie will wear green on a certain day."

why not?

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : sasf]

4/17/2008 11:59:18 AM

choas/mr. murphey have their place

like that part in jurrasic park when dude was explaining why the water drop went a different way every time

4/17/2008 12:29:25 PM

as I understand it, we can't perfectly predict the interactions of more than TWO bodies, because when you've got more than two you have to decide what order to do the sums in

it is possible for God, but practically it is impossible even in theory

4/17/2008 12:36:56 PM

dem some nice jumblees

4/17/2008 1:02:49 PM

Quote :

"free will throws a wrench in it"

we have the free will to do what we want

we can't change what we want...how could we? we'd have to want to change it first

thus, free will and determinism can indeed coexist

4/17/2008 1:55:28 PM

fuck

i forgot to look at the book title. i will make a note to check it when i get home from work.

4/17/2008 1:56:40 PM

you're forgetting quantum fluctuation's, thusly this is not possible, ever

4/17/2008 2:59:32 PM

^ hence, irreversibility. but again, let's not get too detailed with the mechanics of HOW it's done

4/17/2008 7:57:03 PM

I was about to say "yes" until free will is thrown into the equation. But then I got to this sentence ...

Quote :

"This seems plausible to me, until the origin of life and decision-making, where free will, present or not, would seem to throw a wrench into things."

Which said the same thing.

4/17/2008 8:08:11 PM

the book is "The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything" by K.C. Cole

http://tinyurl.com/3s8u7k

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM. Reason : tiny]

4/17/2008 10:30:11 PM

Edward Lorenz said something along the lines of: we should believe in free will. If we are right we are right, if we are wrong we had no choice.

4/18/2008 1:18:19 AM

^^ hahaha I have that book. Bought it years ago and still haven't read it.

^ I like that.

4/18/2008 1:20:21 AM

you should read it. it's a pretty good read, as far as books about astrophysics and whatnot go. the author is pretty entertaining (without being corny or stupid) compared to others in the same genre.

4/18/2008 9:04:06 AM