Is a Deterministic Universe Possible?

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Is a Deterministic Universe Possible?

Postby RArvay » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:07 pm

A minority of physicists agree with the late Albert Einstein that quantum physics is incorrect in its assertion that the universe is inherently random. They hold instead that the universe is deterministic. While I (not being a physicist) agree with them that randomness does not exist in the way that quantum physics describes it, there are, however, certain absurdities inherent in a proposed deterministic universe. Therefore, neither randomness nor determinism is an adequate explanation for physical phenomena. More is needed.

In this commentary, we shall examine the idea of determinism, and ask whether it contains inherent inconsistencies. If it does, then we may question whether a deterministic universe is possible at all.

Let’s begin with a simple thought experiment. This experiment involves setting up a computer simulation. The simulation can be as simple or as complex as you can contrive. As anyone knows who is familiar with computer programming, a computer program runs to its conclusion based on its initial parameters and its instruction set. Even a program that incorporates a random number generator (RNG) will run exactly the same way every time, if the RNG is set to the same seed number at the outset each time. This is because RNGs are not actually random, they are pseudorandom, which is what a deterministic universe would be.

Therefore, in our simulation, we have at its simplest level a deterministic universe, so to speak. If the actual universe is also deterministic, then the same principle applies. In other words, once the (deterministic) universe began, then everything that was ever going to happen in the future of that universe was predeterminied (thus of course the term, deterministic). All subsequent events were pre-scripted, inalterable, and unavoidable, to use just a few terms to emphasize the idea.

In a deterministic universe, then, it is pre-ordained that both Einstein’s Relativity theory and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty theory would be formulated and incorporated into the body of knowledge we call physics. It would be pre-ordained that disputes would arise concerning the validity of quantum physics. My writing this commentary, and your reading it would be pre-ordained. Your reaction to it would also be pre-ordained. Nothing at all would ever be optional. To quote from Zager and Evans, “Everything you think, do and say, is in the pill you took today,” where the pill is the deterministic universe.

While this in itself is not self-contradictory, it gives rise to some absurdities. One of them is that, in a deterministic universe, there is no true science. JBS Haldane said it well: “… if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.”

This statement bears more examination than it seems at first. We could use our computer simulation analogy to explore it further. Suppose in our computer program we had simulated a scientist, and set him to the task of studying the computer program which generated him. This would be akin to a deterministic universe having created a scientist who studies the universe that created him. The question then arises, can the simulated (or real) scientist ever hope to discern the program (laws of nature) that govern his study?

I think Haldane would say that the simulated scientist could draw only the conclusions that he was forced to draw, regardless of whether those conclusions were correct or not. Likewise, the real scientist, in a deterministic universe, can draw only those conclusions that nature has, by the action of its natural laws, forced the scientist to conclude. They might be neurologically correct, but that could all be an illusion, a self-defined correctness with no relation to actual reality. We would have absolutely no way of knowing.

Another, more subtle refutation of determinism is the prediction paradox. In this paradox, scientists predict an event which, deterministically, is inevitable. At the same time, the very prediction forces them to alter the course of events, so that the inevitable event cannot occur, resulting in the paradox. An electronic circuit known as the astable multivibrator might provide somewhat of an illustration of this paradox.

A deterministic universe rules out free will as anything but an illusion. The illusion is contained within the conscious awareness of each individual. The inward experience of conscious awareness (as contrasted with its external appearance) is, however, the greatest mystery of physics, so great that, were it feasible to do so, physicists would deny its existence as surely as they deny the existence of sovereign volition (free will).

Indeed, Sir Roger Penrose has commented that the explanation for consciousness might be contained in the gap between deterministic physics and quantum randomness.

Science without free will of the scientist further reinforces the comments of Haldane. In other words, there can be no science without conscious volition.

This is not to say that randomness is the foundation of the universe. It isn’t. But neither does determinism lurk there. Something else does. Haldane, a self-proclaimed atheist, referred to it as “spirit.”
RArvay
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:14 am

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library