Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

In article <TvKm+IKGzuiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, koehler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler) writes:
In article <40ea2$46e0317d$cef8887a$11281@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Unless the various laws that govern the universe (physics etc) change,
then the future is already pre-determined.

What century are you living in? The laws of physics specifically say
that is not so and have said that for about 100 years now.

The newtonian classical universe is entirely deterministic ie a clockwork
Universe.

Relativity is even stronger. Two events separated in space which I regard as
happening simultaneously will be regarded as having happened at different times
by someone in an inertial frame which is moving with respect to me.
The only way to maintain a single consistent universe is to suppose that
space-time forms a fixed block and that the "now" which each inertial frame
observer sees is a slice through that fixed block - the angle between the
slices viewed by different inertial frame observers being determined by the
relative velocities of the different inertial frames.
The total fixed block is the complete space-time history of the Universe.
Hence the total history of the Universe is fixed ie predetermined.


In quantum theory (which I didn't really want to get into again) the
Schroedinger wave equation is perfectly deterministic however we don't have an
accepted mechanism for the collapse of the wave function (or even in some
interpretations an acceptance that it does collapse) hence we are unable to say
anything about the deterministic nature of that collapse.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
    ... laws of physics. ... In GR your claim is plain and simply false: there is no "inertial frame ... wasn't aware that the universe wasn't static, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
    ... that is a system in physics. ... changes the centre of mass. ... It is not the entire universe. ... but you can’t derive from it any inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
    ... frame is one in which the laws of physics hold true. ... What the inertial frame does NOT imply is that any one of the bodies ... What it also does NOT imply is that the center of mass of the bodies ... It is not the entire universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Einstein geometrized away Newtons "force of gravity"
    ... some physical phenomenon you imply that human imagination ... in which the bulk matter in the universe is at rest" -- given the existence of that inertial frame, then any frame moving uniformly relative to it is also an inertial frame, but the "bulk matter" is not at all at rest in this other frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The CMBR falsifies SR
    ... GR lives without a notion of an "inertial frame" and is doing fine. ... In a thread about the CMBR SR is not sufficient. ... and the expansion of the universe can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)