Chances Are Zero or 100%
In a deterministic universe no one is in control - everything must happen according to completely determining causal relationships.
Everything in the universe affects everything else. Scientists believe the universe periodically contracts to become a very dense little ball, which subsequently explodes. After these ‘big bangs’ the universe gets pretty large. And yet everything always remains connected by gravity. The universe can be described as a field. Each particle of the universe is joined by gravity with every other particle so that the sum total of all the particles affects each individual particle.
From the moment of the big bang everything has interacted in a chain of events leading up to the present. The universe will now continue unfolding until it contracts back into a small dense ball once again. At this point another big bang will occur and so on…forever.
At each point in time the universe has a configuration, which has been determined by the configuration of the universe in the previous point in time. The next point in time will have a configuration that leads from the current one, and so on. By configuration is meant the pattern of the universe’s constituent parts. The parts may be called matter, or they may be called energy, since the two are interchangeable. But whatever the parts are, and however they are arranged, it is all determined by what has gone on before.
Each of us is made up of some of the stuff that makes up the universe. And like all the other stuff, we fully interact with the rest. The
behavior of the stuff of which we are made is determined by its interaction with all the other
stuff in the universe. We are not somehow independent autonomous beings - we are made up of stuff, such as atoms and molecules, which has the same characteristics as the rest of the universe and follows the same patterns.
The idea that we somehow have free will to act other than according to the universe’s dictates is wrong. We have evolved to feel like we control ourselves, but that is an artifact of the functioning of our brains. We are simply matter and energy in the form of human beings.
The universe functions in a very definite way. It follows a completely determined cycle of events from big bang to big bang in a never-ending succession. If we knew everything there is to know about the universe we would see the patterns - we would know the cycles and what is coming up next. There would be no need for probability because we would know exactly what was going to happen next... and next... and next....
However, since we do not know everything we have to guess what will happen next. Depending on how confident we are we assign a probability to these guesses.
To be more accurate about the future, I think it would be better to say things will happen with zero probability, or a 100% probability, and that unfortunately we may not know which.
Chances (of whatever) are either zero or 100%.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
If Only The Workings Of The Universe Were Obvious
By Krantz
If the workings universe were obvious there would be no religion, or talk of free will. There would be no need to debunk ghosts and psychics and all the other paranormal imaginings. There would also be no Skeptics Canada.
But the workings of the universe are not obvious. In fact the universe is very often quite misleading. Hence the need for science and, as part of science, the need for a healthy dose of skepticism.
Ironically, my being a skeptic means I am somewhat sceptical of the above paragraphs. I know that I am subject to the same mental foibles and predilections suffered by all mankind. Is anything that anyone thinks or writes accurate?
Even though science provides no evidence of an omnipotent being running things, maybe something is out there somewhere and science is misleading me?
Even though science tells me that the brain in my head is made up of the same sort of stuff as the rest of the universe, I feel like I have free will. Maybe there is some sort of special essence that somehow grants me autonomous action?
Maybe the idea behind Occam’s razor is wrong? And maybe whoever asserts something does not have to support his or her assertion?
Unless we know absolutely everything about everything, we cannot know absolutely everything about anything. Does that mean nothing is truly known? Maybe it does.
The only logical way to deal with this conundrum is to either demand absolute proof and so refuse to believe anything, or to accept fallibility and go with ideas that are “supported to such an extent it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent” as Stephen Jay Gould so succinctly put it.
I find pondering existential questions pleasurable and that is why I do it. I also find scientific explanations intellectually satisfying and that is why I read scientific material. Hopefully by pondering life’s mysteries, and by reading scientific explanations, I will gain a reasonable view of the way things are.
By Krantz
If the workings universe were obvious there would be no religion, or talk of free will. There would be no need to debunk ghosts and psychics and all the other paranormal imaginings. There would also be no Skeptics Canada.
But the workings of the universe are not obvious. In fact the universe is very often quite misleading. Hence the need for science and, as part of science, the need for a healthy dose of skepticism.
Ironically, my being a skeptic means I am somewhat sceptical of the above paragraphs. I know that I am subject to the same mental foibles and predilections suffered by all mankind. Is anything that anyone thinks or writes accurate?
Even though science provides no evidence of an omnipotent being running things, maybe something is out there somewhere and science is misleading me?
Even though science tells me that the brain in my head is made up of the same sort of stuff as the rest of the universe, I feel like I have free will. Maybe there is some sort of special essence that somehow grants me autonomous action?
Maybe the idea behind Occam’s razor is wrong? And maybe whoever asserts something does not have to support his or her assertion?
Unless we know absolutely everything about everything, we cannot know absolutely everything about anything. Does that mean nothing is truly known? Maybe it does.
The only logical way to deal with this conundrum is to either demand absolute proof and so refuse to believe anything, or to accept fallibility and go with ideas that are “supported to such an extent it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent” as Stephen Jay Gould so succinctly put it.
I find pondering existential questions pleasurable and that is why I do it. I also find scientific explanations intellectually satisfying and that is why I read scientific material. Hopefully by pondering life’s mysteries, and by reading scientific explanations, I will gain a reasonable view of the way things are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)