Is the universe deterministic?

[Hank]

... and here I refer to the definition of various sources

One is dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deterministic

The second is PRINCIPIA CYBERNETICA WEB
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/DETERMINIST.html

The other is Mathworld
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Deterministic.html

Deterministic would mean that everything, every action including ours is already written.

The opposite would be non-deterministic or probabilistic.

I just have been in hot water with this in another thread, so for now I am leaning towards a partial deterministic universe. Where fate is nil, does not exist. We (I) determine our future. We just happen to be riding in a very much predictable environment. It is that enviroment, our universe, that I think is very much in/on a deterministic course.

I posted that thread mistakenly in the Apologetics forum, now it's in the right place.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Hank
... and here I refer to the definition of various sources

One is dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deterministic

Deterministic would mean that everything, every action including ours is already written.

The opposite would be non-deterministic or probabilistic.

The "opposite" is indeterministic. 

And the universe is indeterministic, bythe definition in your first website. Not all events are determined by antecedent events.

The implications of that for theology and free will are well discussed in Chapter 7 of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.  It's well worth the money and the time to read.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Hank
[B We (I) determine our future. We just happen to be riding in a very much predictable environment. It is that enviroment, our universe, that I think is very much in/on a deterministic course. [/B]

The universe is not on a deterministic course. Absolutely not.  Besides the Uncertainty Principle, both Chaos and Complexity Theories have shown that universe is not deterministic.

What we have is the appearance of determinism on the macro level due to the constancy of the probabilities on the quantum level. But it is appearance, not reality.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by lucaspa
The universe is not on a deterministic course. Absolutely not.  Besides the Uncertainty Principle, both Chaos and Complexity Theories have shown that universe is not deterministic.

What we have is the appearance of determinism on the macro level due to the constancy of the probabilities on the quantum level. But it is appearance, not reality.

Care to elaborate? I see in Chaos only a painful way to do math, and stay away from it like the plague. How would this theory show the universe to be either way? Sure my classical Physics (Newton) is inaccurate, but sufficient to establish a trend.

Say I design a Water Pump. I know I deal with turbulences (very much Chaos) and what not. But when I am done with my design, I know water will go to where it supposed to go at the designed quantities. That design will be off by at least five percent, I admit that, but the water goes up.

 

[David Gould]

You are right - it is perfectly fine for us to act as if the universe is completely deterministic. We may be out by a little bit but not enough to matter.

However, that does not mean that the universe is completely deterministic, does it?

 

[Rize]

As far as I know, current physics suggests that the world is not deterministic.

Naturally, Christian theology strongly suggests that it is not deterministic (or else we don't have free will).  Yet some how, God knows the future anyway

That's one of those impossible paradoxes of Christianity.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: The implications of that for theology and free will are well discussed in Chapter 7 of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.  It's well worth the money and the time to read.

DNAunion: Not if he is as dishonest in it as he is when he "refutes" Behe.

 

[TimeBeast]

Well Chaos theory certainly is deterministic... all chaotic events do have underlying laws... they are simply too deep to be predicated by our approximations. Newtonian laws are deterministic.

However, on the subatomic level, ie. quantum mechanics, the universe is not determanistic... events only have probabilities and there is no certainty. Nobody can predict them, but you can know the likelyhood of a given event. However, because these events happen so often, in general they stick away from the highly unlikely. And even when the highly unlikely occurs, its on such a small level it has no effect we will ever notice outside a specially equipped lab.

However, whether the universe is deterministic or not, both systems rule out choice. Either the universe is fixed and inhibits choice, or it is random and again inhibits choice. However, christians know that we have free will... the only way we can exercise that is by effecting the random aspect of existance. However, it seems that effect is bound to our body... our brain. We can only effect our own choices and ourselves.

Edit: I didn't want to start a whole diffrent debate, but the fact that God can see the future may have nothing to do with a undeterministic universe but instad the fact that time is a concept of the universe and maybe not of God. If he does not follow time like we do but is instead seerate from it, the past and the future have no distinction...

 

[Rize]

Profound.

In fact, it is not physically possible to have an actual infinite in time as far as we can tell.

However, lack of time implies lack of change (which the Bible says of God), yet lack of change implies lack of will!  How can a being act and make decisions without changing!

God is a paradox.  He is impossible to fathom from our point of view.  Yet, we cannot eliminate him any more than we can accept him (logically) because the universe cannot exist either (yet it does).

In other words, the universe is temporal and this implies a beginning.

However, something that is not temporal (eternal) cannot change and thus make decisions.  So we lack a crucial peice of this puzzle either way.

 

[judge]

Hi!

I think the only solution to the tension between "chance" and "fate" is to realise that the cosmos is personally sustained by God Himself.

IOW mechanical laws don't rule , and chance doesn't rule either. God governs the universe and maitains it in an orderly way.

Thus we can rely on the laws, but the laws aren't absolute.

 

Some scholars think this view was instrumental in the development of science itself (as we know it).

The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest. .

 

Stanley jaki, Science and Creation... intro p.viii

 

 

Other scholars such as Prof Charles Cochrane in his work "Christianity and classical culture" saw much the same tensions at work in the breakdown of classical culture.

writing of the tension between "fate" and "chance" he said...

"The acceptance of such beliefs involved a picture of nature in terms either of sheer fortuity or (alternatively) of inexorable fate. By so doing, it helped to provoke an increasingly frantic passion for some means of escape. This passion was to find expression in various types of supernaturalism, in which East and West joined hands to produce the most grotesque cosmologies as a basis for ethical systems not less grotesque." 

 

Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study in Thought and Action from August to Augustine (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, [1944] 1957), p. 159

 

It is interesting in our own day to se the same re-emergence publically of interest in occult supernaturalism and it's offer of escape through the same "grotesque cosmologies'

 

This breakdown in culture which resulted from these irreconcilable outlooks (fate and chance) was only remedied by the permeation of faith in the personal Creator revealed in scripture.

 

[Rize]

I see what you are saying.  It is very interesting.

What's more interesting is that people are seeing that it is more and more difficult to be a scientist and not believe in some kind of God.

There is the idea of multiple universes (an infinite amount each with different physical laws), but this requires just as much faith as belief in God.  It is something that cannot be tested.

So perhaps everything will come full circle one day soon.

I don't think it will though... I believe we are nearing the end of things.  I give us another 100 years tops.

I honestly think it could be more like 20 or 30 though.

 

[TimeBeast]

Well it certainly seems like things will be coming to an end soon... things are certainly heading that way. However, it could be any time this millenium. Its a wait and see thing.

However, what I was trying to say concerning time is that perhaps there is something that trancends it. The problem is as you said... we can't test outside our own universe- besides, concept of existance without time is very difficult because we live in linear time.

God is able to allow people to prophesy the future... he knows the future. However as we have free choice he cannot have a linear existance like ours as he knows both past and future. this suggests he either is non-linear and does not follow classical idea's of time, or is beyond the idea of time altogether.

Lack of time does not necessarily imply lack of change. In our universe with our idea of time, maybe. But God does not necessarily follow our rules, our laws. Time may be just a concept of our feeble mind to deal with the large amounts of information gleaned from life... perhaps it is sometihng that exists only in our heads...

 

[lucaspa]

4th February 2003 at 06:56 PM Hank said this in Post #4

Care to elaborate? I see in Chaos only a painful way to do math, and stay away from it like the plague. How would this theory show the universe to be either way? Sure my classical Physics (Newton) is inaccurate, but sufficient to establish a trend.

Say I design a Water Pump. I know I deal with turbulences (very much Chaos) and what not. But when I am done with my design, I know water will go to where it supposed to go at the designed quantities. That design will be off by at least five percent, I admit that, but the water goes up.

The water pump is the probabilities I mentioned that give the appearance of determinism. Follow each water molecule and it's course is not determined. But in the aggregate, yes 95% of the water molecules will end up at the destination.

Shine a laser light at a mirror.  95% of the photons will be reflected but 5% go thru. There is no way to determine which photon will go thru.  That is indeterminism.  However, since each time you shine the laser light at the mirror, only 5% go thru is the appearance of determinism.

 

[lucaspa]

5th February 2003 at 01:13 AM Rize said this in Post #6

As far as I know, current physics suggests that the world is not deterministic.

Naturally, Christian theology strongly suggests that it is not deterministic (or else we don't have free will).  Yet some how, God knows the future anyway

That's one of those impossible paradoxes of Christianity.

Or maybe not.  It is a belief that God knows the future.  Perhaps He doesn't.  Perhaps in giving us free will and an indeterministic universe God dropped foreknowledge of the future.  Does it matter to Christianity if God doesn't know the future?

 

[lucaspa]

5th February 2003 at 07:02 PM DNAunion said this in Post #7

DNAunion: Not if he is as dishonest in it as he is when he "refutes" Behe.

That's two major "ifs", DNA.  If Miller was dishonest in refuting Behe. I have argued extensively in other threads that he was not.  The last I checked, you hadn't answered those posts.

Then, even if Miller was dishonest there, that doesn't mean his logic is in error elsewhere.

Why don't you do the read yourself before offering an empty opinion?

 

[lucaspa]

6th February 2003 at 11:06 PM Rize said this in Post #11
What's more interesting is that people are seeing that it is more and more difficult to be a scientist and not believe in some kind of God.

Care to document that, Rize?

There is the idea of multiple universes (an infinite amount each with different physical laws), but this requires just as much faith as belief in God.  It is something that cannot be tested.

So? It's not offered as a belief, but as a hypothesis.

So perhaps everything will come full circle one day soon.

By that you mean that theism will triumph in the atheism vs theism debate? 

It's obvious that all the human arguments don't mean a thing.  Either a deity exists or doesn't. All the "logical" arguments advanced isn't going to change that reality.  When the data is in, then then data will be in.  Until then, be tolerant of other people's beliefs.

 

[lucaspa]

7th February 2003 at 02:02 PM TimeBeast said this in Post #12

God is able to allow people to prophesy the future... he knows the future. However as we have free choice he cannot have a linear existance like ours as he knows both past and future.

If the universe is indeterministic and if we really have free will, then God can't know the future.  Yes, He can make a good guess how we will choose in a given situation, but since we have free will, we may not choose that way. In fact, choosing against our nature is the whole basis of salvation, isn't it? To choose to go against what we want and choose God instead?

Since the future isn't written yet, there are multiple possible futures, not just one.  So there isn't the future for God to know.

 

[Hank]

4th February 2003 at 08:48 PM David Gould said this in Post #5

You are right - it is perfectly fine for us to act as if the universe is completely deterministic. We may be out by a little bit but not enough to matter.

However, that does not mean that the universe is completely deterministic, does it?

I think there is no black and white here. We (science) look at things a little too small. Just because there is no way to identify one specific water molecule and thus make any 'detailed' prediction about it impossible to proof, does not exclude some determinism in our universe.

 

[Hank]

Yesterday at 10:41 AM lucaspa said this in Post #13

The water pump is the probabilities I mentioned that give the appearance of determinism. Follow each water molecule and it's course is not determined. But in the aggregate, yes 95% of the water molecules will end up at the destination.

Shine a laser light at a mirror.  95% of the photons will be reflected but 5% go thru. There is no way to determine which photon will go thru.  That is indeterminism.  However, since each time you shine the laser light at the mirror, only 5% go thru is the appearance of determinism.

(Not sure about the actual data.)


If anytime I shine a laser at a mirror, and exactly 95% of the initial photon stream is  being 'reflected' due to the type of glass or medium then I am very much accurate. Because I can repeat the event over and over, and come out with the same results. Just as a water molecule there is not much difference between one photon and the next one. Why would it matter which photon does what?

 

[TimeBeast]

lucaspa: my whole point about the fact that one of the basic insistances of Christianity is that the universe is not-determanistic (ie. free choice), combined with the fact that God prophecied on the scale of millenia (of which he cannot afford to be wrong and loose credibility) suggests to me that God simply cannot follow our rules.

As for the water/mirror idea, in general it all makes no diffrence on the macro scale ie. galaxy's colliding. However, it only takes one particle to start a chain reaction... on a random occasion it could matter. We're back to chaos theory... it is highly unlikey it will happen in humanity's existance and really shouldn't be a worry. Still, the basic point is that the universe on a precise scale isn't determinitic but in general on the macro scale, is. An exception? Weather... (again, chaos theory, where small changes are enlarged rather than ironed out)