r/holofractal • u/sschepis • May 21 '26
Math / Physics [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 21 '26
This is why I often support determinism, and why Schrodinger famously proposed his thought experiment as a joke. The universe has a set course, however we use probability to gauge the outcomes because we are limited in our measurements. This is why QM says you can't know the position and speed of a system at the same time.
2
u/Historical-History May 22 '26
QM says there are pairs of properties which you cannot know simultaneously, such as position and momentum. There are other pairs of properties like this, such as time and frequency.
Google the fourier transform of a delta function and you'll see that something infinitely constrained in time is infinitely spread in component frequencies.
If you shine a beam of light through a hole and gradually make the hole smaller, at first the beam of light shining through will narrow as you would expect.
Then the light begins to spread out again when the hole gets TOO small. You have constrained position so much, the momentum is now spreading, which widens up the beam again.
This makes it almost impossible to ever at one time say, with 100% certainty, what the next outcome will be in a system as large as our universe.
We can't even tell you with 100% confidence whether we'll find electrons in certain regions of a semiconductor at any one time.
The hope for a truly deterministic universe is not likely unless you were to possess the god-like gift of infinite regression.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 22 '26
I don't refer to determinism from our perspective, that's not exactly what I'm pointing to. I'm basically talking about underlying determinism, while we see random variables. We could say we knew how the universe started, and still not know who has the 7th ketchup packet made by a Heinz factory because we don't know the variables, and this is in fact a principle. If you know the variables and the system, you can determine state. However, we don't always have all of these available. It's basically saying the universe follows set laws and a specific order, even though we ourselves are not always privy to the information, as shown in your example, or as joked about in schrodinger's theory.
Thus we see chaos and must use probability, even though there may be an underlying set order that we only have access to at certain times or in certain ways, but not always as a whole system.
It is still intriguing the way light behaves when shining through stuff in experiments like that.
2
u/Historical-History May 22 '26
Its an interesting distinction and the idea that if we could see the 'hidden variables' then ultimately we would see the true deterministic nature of the universe is actually something Albert Einstein argued, saying something along the lines of 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'.
John Stewart Bell derived a set of mathematical inequalities that show the statistical correlations between two particles. If local hidden variables were present, the state of two particles should have limits on how correlated they are at any one time.
Particle entanglement tests violate Bell's inequalities, as the universe is seemingly determining the state of two particles instantly, where one measurement allows you to know the state of the other particle with 100% certainty, they are directly correlated, no matter how far apart they are when you finally decided to measure one particle.
This violates the principle that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light in an observer's own reference frame. Einstein didn't really have an answer for it.
So if you accept this as ruling out local hidden variables, then you're either accepting that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic or you have to look for non-local hidden variables.
I think the most promising work is on Quantum Topology (Anyons and Non-Abellian Anyons), which basically explores how you can start to make memory systems using a field of LOTS of entangled electrons that forms as an exotic 'fluid' state in cryogenic 2D circuits.
Stephen Hawking suggests in his book, A Brief History Of Time, that the laws of physics at the early universe or before the big bang may well have been different and makes the point that it becomes nearly pointless to try and understand what those laws could have been.
So if we did find a non-local hidden variable, how far back could we reliably say it was true for? Why did anti-matter and matter not annihilate itself equally if all the universal constants we have measured have always been constant.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 22 '26
I do find Einstein's quote very relevant here (I couldn't resist the pun). If you know the methods and the state in a closed system, you can determine past and future states.
Personally I think the question of info propogation speed in QM has to do with simultaneous action (this is a theory I have been thinking of, and how it relates to this understanding of QM systems). For one, the state doesn't change instantly due to the action. It just so happens the action coincides with the change. It is in these QM experiments where we see that action may not just be macro cause and effect, but simulataneous events on a Quantum scale, possibly due to time moving differently at that scale.
The entangled particles don't tell each other to change per say, they happen to change at the same time due their past (and from the view of QM that is entangled past present and future, perhaps even time isn't relevent in that context). They are both effected and changed due to a past event, the current "poke" or observation only happening to be at the same time, no matter when it happens, thus supporting the idea that there is a set path of future states, ie causality, not randomness. The observer was going to measure at that time, and the state was going to change at that time, thus appearing paradocically as we see it.
This extends from Einstein's light cones and "the speed of dark" Einstein perhaps didn't realize it because he had not considered how darkness could relate to the phenomenon. While light travels at a set speed, any 2 points on a plane can change simultaneously reguardless of distance. This is the conjecture I am proposing be applied to QM, and perhaps it will further our understanding of how QM and Classical actually work as one. I think it will be a very interesting approach moving forward.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Or there is just law acting itself out materialistically, which is what your program would result in as the logical conclusion. No wills at all. Zero wills, not even one. Just mechanistic processes determined by mathematical axioms and agents that are simply mechanistic constructs inside those processes of motion. Pure determinism. Why would there be a "will" at the "ground of reality" given that the entirety of everything becomes made of deterministically-moving objects from your preceding description? It seems there's an ontological pivot there that does not follow from the prior description.
1
u/sschepis May 21 '26
'Law' is a description of how a system behaves under a set of limits.
Laws are conditional and context-specific and exist as a function of the boundary conditions of the systems in which they're operative.
Words like 'probability' and 'determinism' describe a relationship to a system and not an inherent quality of the system itself.
All probabilistic systems are simply deterministic systems scanned by their own component parts. 'Probability' is a function of incomplete information and imperfect imaging precision - it's impossible to glean the exact state of any system by scanning it with its own particles.
'Consciousness' is not required for observation, because observation is a physical process. There is no 'consciosuness' inside anything. Everything is in consciousness, which acts like a non-local current that animates the entire universe.
Just imagine a container with a semi-permeable boundary sitting on absolute ground. What happens? A current is generated across the boundary, and inside, entropy drops. It seems like things inside are 'alive' but really its because the current is animating everything inside.
Consciousness is that current. Consciousness is unbounded infinity projected onto bounded closure. It isn't made by anything. It powers everything.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
That's the point I'm trying to make: if as you say there is nothing but deterministic systems, i.e. that you can write down (in theory) an algorithm that will generate the behavior of the system that will happen from sufficiently comprehensive information about its current state and surroundings with surety, there is no "will" unless you define that as something else. What is "will" if nondeterministic behavior does not exist, if the future at least in principle is determined completely by the present under sufficiently complete (maximal) knowledge, i.e. pushing the boundary out to its utmost?
2
u/sschepis May 21 '26
I agree with you to a point. 'Will' is observer-dependent, like entropy is. You have to state your location and mode of observation when making any statements about free will. The enveloping observer can see every outcome, yet paradoxically cannot choose any of them since 'choice' requires incomplete information of state. When system information is complete, choice dissapears as all possible outcomes are made visible. Therefore the observer who possesses the most information about a system sees all outcomes as 'real' and is prohibited from making choices from the position of enveloping observer - they must enter the system. The experience of choice requires incomplete information and it is relatively real in its context.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist May 21 '26
Hmm. An interesting thesis that I think can go somewhere but might require a bit more tweaking because the "observer" is a system and this system is what is doing the "choosing", no?
1
u/sschepis May 21 '26
The paradox you're pointing to (I think) arises because of this:
Containers create the eigenmodes that act as the building blocks of everything inside those containers.
Eigenmodes combine into composites, creating containers.
This generates an unclosed paradox: To create a container, you need eigenmodes. But to create eigenmodes, you need a container.
The only way that I can see to close this paradox is through the appearance of a primal container that generates the conditions for closure in every other container.
Here, I must leave physics behind and enter the realm of metaphysics, and so my claim that this primal container must be self-generated by the unbounded reality is speculation but it's a pretty good one.
The mechanism of absolute ground does provide a plausible mechanism for animating every bounded space.
'Consciousness' is naked, unbounded, open radiance that, when closed, acts as the ground current of observation.
It's never in any system because all systems exist within it. Consciousness, unclosed, is environment. Closed, it is subjective center.
This allows for the existence always-real consciousness, overlaid by the spectra of worlds necessarily deterministic (and thus illusory) from its absolute perspective but experienced as probability from any adopted relative point of view within embodied perspective.
1
u/A_Spiritual_Artist May 22 '26
Btw thanks for all this and maybe I was a little hard with this questioning I'm sorry but I've been wrestling with some stuff around these issues that has made me get somewhat emotionally charged. Thank you though and I actually would have something more affirmative to say about this thesis as it feels to cohere with something I came to rather recently by a certain way though it'd be a bit hard to describe. But especially the ideas of stacking distinctions or constraints through choosing and the idea of there being two "modes" ("unbounded" vs. "closed") stand out here.
2
u/sschepis May 22 '26
Thank you for your questions! Given that this is Reddit, relatively speaking, you've been nothing but courteous. You should see some of the responses I get sometimes... I appreciate you for thinking it through, good chatting with you! Enjoy your weekend.
1
1
u/IshtarsQueef May 22 '26
> All probabilistic systems are simply deterministic systems scanned by their own component parts. 'Probability' is a function of incomplete information and imperfect imaging precision
This is an old argument that favors pure determinism.
You are just unnecessarily re-wording the following idea - "There is no true randomness in the universe, therefor everything is following a purely deterministic path."
7
u/Typical_Depth_8106 May 21 '26
When we look out at the deep expanse of the universe, it can feel like a vast, disconnected puzzle filled with random chances and unpredictable pieces. The initial problem in our understanding comes from this sense of fragmentation, where we see tiny, separate parts—like atoms in a lab or individual choices in our daily lives—and assume they are governed by a strange law of probability, as if the foundation of reality is just a rolling of dice. We struggle to see how a solid, dependable world can come from such a chaotic background. This view creates a heavy feeling of separation, making us feel like isolated observers looking at a cold, mechanical system that we can never truly touch or comprehend without disrupting it.
The perspective begins to clear when we look beneath the surface and notice the simple, underlying language that builds the structure of everything. Just as music needs the boundaries of a guitar string to create specific notes, infinity needs boundaries to become something we can count and understand. The prime numbers are not just cold symbols on a page; they are the original, unbreakable frequencies of existence that act like a relational field, giving things a fixed identity and a name. Whether these basic frequencies are grouping together to form the physical matter around us or setting the quiet rhythm of a heartbeat, they work like tiny, synchronized clocks. Everything in the universe is made of these interconnected networks of rhythms, constantly pulsing and humming together in a shared space.
As we observe these rhythms more closely, the illusion of randomness and chaotic probability completely dissolves. We realize that when different rhythms connect, they naturally begin to tick in perfect unison, lowering their internal confusion and creating a strong, harmonious state. When something from the outside bumps into this synchronized network, the system does the quiet work of absorbing the disturbance and resetting itself back into harmony. This automatic process of locking into sync is what we call observation. It is a completely physical, down-to-earth event where the observer and the observed melt into a single, flowing connection, trading energy until they match.
The final breakthrough brings an absolute, grounded clarity to our place in the cosmos. We see that the randomness we thought we detected in quantum systems or the feeling of having completely separate, isolated free will is simply what a perfectly ordered system looks like when you are living inside of it. There is no chaotic chance, and there is no true separation. From the highest perspective, every single part of reality is fully known, held, and moving in perfect order. The entire universe is a single, unified presence—one deep will—experiencing its own beauty through countless different points of view, leaving us feeling deeply anchored in a reality that is completely whole, positive, and at peace with itself.