Oh no not another free will thread.

[henryp]

They don't know why or how it happens.  The random aspect is a mystery. 

So much a mystery, that the prevailing theories are 1) It's truly random.  2) That new instances of reality are created for each event, so both result 1 and result 2 happen.

Regarding 2, not quite (if we're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation, that is). It's not like new instances are being created for each event, more like there are preexisting worlds for each instance of the "collective event". The branches aren't being formed as we speak, they exist already and instances of us are following these various branches along the way based on some predetermined pattern.

So, what's the smallest possible unit of time?

[GrandizerII]

Regarding 2, not quite (if we're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation, that is). It's not like new instances are being created for each event, more like there are preexisting worlds for each instance of the "collective event". The branches aren't being formed as we speak, they exist already and instances of us are following these various branches along the way based on some predetermined pattern.

So, what's the smallest possible unit of time?

I don't know, and not sure what point you're making. I don't think there is a limit if the universe/cosmos itself is continuous. In this local universe at least, there seems to be some limits indicating it's discrete (maybe), but this says nothing about beyond in terms of continuousness.

[henryp]

Just thinking of the universe as a collection of states representing space/time/world. How long is an individual state?

[Edwardo Piet]

Regarding 2, not quite (if we're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation, that is). It's not like new instances are being created for each event, more like there are preexisting worlds for each instance of the "collective event". The branches aren't being formed as we speak, they exist already and instances of us are following these various branches along the way based on some predetermined pattern.

So, what's the smallest possible unit of time?

Isn't that this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Apologies if I'm wrong. I'm not very science-y.

[henryp]

So, what's the smallest possible unit of time?

Isn't that this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Apologies if I'm wrong. I'm not very science-y.

Is that what presentism goes with?  That 'now' is a unit of planck_time?

[Angrboda]

How about we do this same problem with quantum randomness?

It is a non-causal event.  Determinism can't be used to predict whether you'll get result 1 or result 2.

Of course quantum randomness may actually be pseudo-randomness and ultimately be entirely causal. All we really know is that scientists aren't able to find the causes, and it doesn't seem causal.

My intuition is that all randomness is pseudo-randomness. The notion of the entire universe being causal, it's just some elements to reality (i.e. quantum randomness) are so strange that we are unable to pinpoint the causes... that's all more parsimonious to me than the idea that the universe mostly seems causal and to make sense but then on the quantum level it's acausal suggesting that what seems causal all over the universe is actually probabilistic. To me, causality makes sense of everything, it's more parsimonious to assume the universe as a whole makes sense... as the universe certainly does seem to be governed by laws that make sense. Gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, general relativity, etc.

The way I see it... when things stop making sense that's a failure of us as humans....

Your view that quantum randomness is just a failure of explanation seems to be contradicted by science.  From Bell's inequalities we know that the underlying assumptions of such a view can't all be true (first citation), and that there is no way to improve the predictions of quantum mechanics by a significant amount (second citation).  This seems to point to a deterministic conclusion that quantum randomness is real, and not just an artifact of this or that bit of ignorance.

The Quantum Theory and Reality — The doctrine that the  world is made up of objects  whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.

Can quantum theory be improved?

[Edwardo Piet]

Isn't that this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Apologies if I'm wrong. I'm not very science-y.

Is that what presentism goes with?  That 'now' is a unit of planck_time?

No......... you keep confusing philosophy and science.

---

Your view that quantum randomness is just a failure of explanation seems to be contradicted by science.

No because I was talking on two different levels.

I accept the fact that it all seems acausal within science. I'm talking about my intuition that outside of science it isn't.

From Bell's inequalities we know that the underlying assumptions of such a view can't all be true (first citation), and that there is no way to improve the predictions of quantum mechanics by a significant amount (second citation).  

That's interesting.

This seems to point to a deterministic conclusion that quantum randomness is real, and not just an artifact of this or that bit of ignorance.

Real within science. Science doesn't speak outside of itself. That wouldn't even make any sense.

[GrandizerII]

Of course quantum randomness may actually be pseudo-randomness and ultimately be entirely causal. All we really know is that scientists aren't able to find the causes, and it doesn't seem causal.

My intuition is that all randomness is pseudo-randomness. The notion of the entire universe being causal, it's just some elements to reality (i.e. quantum randomness) are so strange that we are unable to pinpoint the causes... that's all more parsimonious to me than the idea that the universe mostly seems causal and to make sense but then on the quantum level it's acausal suggesting that what seems causal all over the universe is actually probabilistic. To me, causality makes sense of everything, it's more parsimonious to assume the universe as a whole makes sense... as the universe certainly does seem to be governed by laws that make sense. Gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, general relativity, etc.

The way I see it... when things stop making sense that's a failure of us as humans....

Your view that quantum randomness is just a failure of explanation seems to be contradicted by science.  From Bell's inequalities we know that the underlying assumptions of such a view can't all be true (first citation), and that there is no way to improve the predictions of quantum mechanics by a significant amount (second citation).  This seems to point to a deterministic conclusion that quantum randomness is real, and not just an artifact of this or that bit of ignorance.

The Quantum Theory and Reality — The doctrine that the  world is made up of objects  whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.

Can quantum theory be improved?

Bell's Inequalities don't apply to MWI, so randomness is still not necessarily inherent within the nature of this reality we see ourselves in.

The study in the second link ignores the MWI, it seems.

[Edwardo Piet]

Bell's Inequalities don't apply to MWI, so randomness is still not necessarily inherent within the nature of this reality we see ourselves in.

And that's just the reality we see ourselves in

Of course it's the only reality we will by definition ever live in, so many people wouldn't even consider objective reality that is completely unexperiencable 'reality' at all. Regardless of the depth of reality outside of us, we can never quite reach it. Everything will always be filtered to an extent, that's the nature of being a being with senses.

Still, I like to think about useless stuff anyway. I'm no pragmatist.

[henryp]

Is that what presentism goes with?  That 'now' is a unit of planck_time?

No......... you keep confusing philosophy and science.

So it's fully like theism.  Just coming to whatever conclusions you feel like coming to, without having to tie it to anything tangible.  That's not really my bag.