4 ms·
The future is a lot less deterministic than you think. Unless our current understanding of physics is completely wrong, the future is entirely deterministic.
by kakarot 9y ago
The future is a lot less deterministic than you think.
Unless our current understanding of physics is completely wrong, the future is entirely deterministic.
I think you mean to use the word predictable, which insinuates that we don't have enough information to accurately model the future.
- CPLX 9y agoI believe Mr. Heisenberg would like to have a word with you.
- ubernostrum 9y agoMr. Heisenberg would like to have a word with you about classical versus quantum phenomena.
- kakarot 9y agoWe don't use quantum physics to measure significant amounts of time, we use classical physics. In addition to the uncertainty we encounter at that scale, the arrow of time is often irrelevant anyway.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoYou seem certain of that, but I don't think it's been quite that clear for some time. I'm not a physicist, but AFAIK the Copenhagen interpretation essentially requires indeterminacy. Suffice it to say that I don't think it's as clear-cut as you do :)
- kakarot 9y agoQuantum mechanics has no bearing on the macro scale that classical physics inhabit in our current models. We currently have not synthesized the two models into a singular theory. Classical physics is deterministic. I thought this was common knowledge...
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoThe whole point of quantum mechanics is that classical physics doesn't fully describe the world. Obviously phenomena that require quantum mechanics to describe them are rarely observable at the macro level, but it's clearly not the case that they are never observable because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to make the observations that led to the idea of quantum mechanics. It seems readily apparent that the future is not predictable solely using classical physics, because the development of the theory of quantum mechanics is something that happened and it could not have been predicted solely based on classical physics.
- kakarot 9y agoThe whole point of quantum mechanics is that classical physics doesn't fully describe the world. Quantum mechanics doesn't have a point, it's a theory based on observation of quantum phenomena. It is currently irreconcilable with classical physics, which we still use to model the universe on useful scales. Quantum mechanics therefore are irrelevant here. The current standard model, which is the best we've got right now, is deterministic on classical scales. Which brings me back to my original comment: Unless our current understanding of physics is completely wrong It's at least a little wrong, but to say that our theory of classical physics isn't deterministic is just wrong. Until we have a better theory, that's just what we have to go with.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoI'm not saying that classical physics isn't deterministic. I'm saying that classical physics is provably not a fully accurate model even at macro scales. For most problems at the macro scale, our best model is deterministic, but it is also easy to construct scenarios where macro scale events are not deterministic unless quantum phenomena are also deterministic, so clearly our best model is one that acknowledges that macro scale events might not be fully deterministic.
- kakarot 9y agoShow me such a case in the macro scale where the arrow of time reverses or disappears, instead of just postulating.