Yes. While you can say that control is what matters to the subconscious mind, I would say that all of our beliefs of control over the outside world comes from the concept of ourselves having free will.

@Draug

I'd love to know what Krellin's opinion on this is, since he hasn't posted here.

I just think that of all the sciences that we currently have, the one that makes the least amount of sense and is also the least stable (as I'm sure you would agree), is QM. Thus, it would be the science most affected by the many things that we will learn about the universe as physics improves in the years ahead.

"I would say that all of our beliefs of control over the outside world comes from the concept of ourselves having free will. "

I would agree with this statement. The difference, it seems, is I think free will exists, while you don't.

Going back to animals. Not only am I talking to you write now, I'm aware that I'm talking to you. It's this lack of self-awareness that animals lack (as far as I know). It's because of this that I don't think any comparisons involving free will can be made between humans and animals.

@Doom

I think a lot of things are less stable than QM. String Theory for one.

In any case, even if QM is wrong, that doesn't prove determinism. I've yet to hear a solid argument on why determinism is correct.

Well, I agree that animals have lower levels of self awareness than humans, but I don't think that's really relevant to our argument about how the illusion of free will is very helpful to humans and other animals.

Well yea, you're right, string theory is definitely less stable. But string theory is just a theory, and for the most part, QM fits the profile of an accepted physical law. I will amend my comment and say that of all of our accepted laws of physics, QM is the least stable.

In addition, if QM is wrong, I believe that it's the last nail in the coffin against non-determinism. QM is the toughest obstacle to disprove for determinism, but everything else has been disproven, so QM is the last (known) obstacle.

abgemacht - I just read the Wikipedia article (or at least most of it) on QM and I did not see anything in there anywhere that said particles do not have a definite location. Rather, it talked a whole bunch about measurement (and probabilities of measurement) and particles moving like a waveform or being in a particular "cloud" with x% probability (which could really just mean "we know it is somewhere around here").

QM, as best as I can tell, is based quite stronly on the HUP being true. Even if it is true (and I will even grant for this discussion that it is), that in no way means that particles are not in an exact location and traveling with a specific velocity at any given moment in time. It just means that there is no way to know the position/velocity at any given point in time.

Now, as far as whether QM is true - Sure, it can be true (as a method of modeling), but that is because we are not omnipotent. If we somehow were, then there would be no reason for a probabilistic system because we would just "know" where things were and we could then determine much more exactly how they moved/interacted. However, because we have no means by which to figure out where things are and how they are moving simultaneously, we have to create a system that models our ability to observe the system, not the underlying means by which the system actually works.

Kreator of Doom - Though I would agree that there is no such thing as material undeterminism, I don't think QM being right, wrong, or otherwise has anything to do with absolute determinism (as in ALL things) being correct. Material determinism may be correct, but that does not make absolute determinism correct. It is, of course, not possible for me to "prove" this per se (nor can you "prove" your hypothesis of absolute determinism either), because in so doing you would automatically assume the existence of nothing but matter, something which I do not believe to be true. I will add, though, that the cyclic universe theory has a severe weakness in that it really does not make any sense that a material system governed by time could just "exist" in some sort of functioning state forever with no beginning at all. To believe this is true is no more logical than any other belief system you could propose, and I would actually argue that, given the second law of thermodynamics, the universe would become increasingly chaotic over time until such point as there was no order at all or heat death occured, so the cyclic universe theory is actually less logical than other alternatives.

@Nola

How could material determinism be correct with absolute determinism not being correct? What in the universe could change events in the world, without changing the underlying physical events that caused them?

Also, I understand that cyclic universe theory has holes in it, but as I believe in hard determinism, I need to subsequently believe that either a god or higher power predetermined everything (consciously or unconsciously) at some point before the big bang, or that the universe had to have had no beginning. I think that the belief in an inexplicable god that created everything is a cop-out, so I'd rather go with the concept that can be explained. The universe has simply always existed, going through infinite big bangs and big crunches, and it will continue to exist forever.

@nola

If you're interested, this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) gives a good explanation on QM. Granted, it's not the only one, but it is still the most widely accepted on by scientists.

@Doom

I feel as though we've begun to beat a (maybe) dead cat, so let's move on.

Can you explain the cyclic universe theory?

I sort of explained it in the post above.

Haha yeah, that was a little creepy. I posted mine before I saw your post come up.

I'm not sure I understand that. What causes the universe to stop expanding and fall back in on itself?

@nola2172
I think you should consult more than just wikipedia for an understanding of quantum theory. The idea that quantum entities in some states have no specific location is fundamental. Even more mind blowing is the the fact that they can actually have more than one specific location in space/time. I recommend a good documentary on the subject called "What The Bleep Do We Know, Down The Rabbit Hole"

Honestly, I'm much more of a philosophy person than a physics person, and as such, I believe in it because it makes sense philosophically, not physically. That's not to say that it doesn't have any grounding in physics, because it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

Honestly, I don't really understand why it would collapse in on itself, but it makes more sense to me than the universe having a beginning or an end.

How can something philosophically make sense but not physically? Let me take a look at this link...

You are making one huge assumption with the last part and that is that everything with a beginning must have an ending. Just because the universe started with a touch of God's finger causing a mass to go critical (one view) doesn't mean it has to ever end.

@Draugnar

I never actually made that particular assumption. I don't believe that there has to be an end if there is a beginning, but I don't believe there is a beginning for other reasons.

@Abge

No, it may make sense physically, that's just not the reason I believe it. I believe it philosophically, and as a result, I think that physics will prove it correct.

@Doom

I'll freely admit that I'm not fluent in astrophysics, but it seems that The Big Crunch also requires current theories that are seemingly solid to, in fact, be wrong. So, you are now claiming that both Quantum Theory and Astrophysics are wrong and replacing them with this new idea that has no backing at all. How is that a more reasonable approach?

@Doom

That's a poor way of thinking. You need to look at the evidence and make your best guess off of it. Not come up with an idea and then wait for everything to fall into place.

For my own knowledge, what theories need to be false for the big crunch theory to be correct?

With that said, the Cyclic Universe Theory has been mathematically proven through M-theory, but I barely understand M-theory at all, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was wrong.

As far as a collapsing universe, there are two general theories: Curved space where all matter in the universe eventually curves back to it's starting point - the singularity that started it all, and Einstein's theory of general relativity which would indicate that the expansion would eventually slow to a stop and gravity would cause a collapse.

Right now it is believed the universe is accelerating it's expansion which could indicate the curved space theory has some basis in reality. It's estimate that in 150 billion years, the known galaxies will be so far apart as to be invisible, but that could be about where the curvature effect starts and the begin to come back into view of each other. But another model (Linde-Kallosh model) says the universe will collapse back on itself in about 10 billion years.

According to the article you linked me, "If the universe is finite in extent and the cosmological principle (not to be confused with the cosmological constant) does not apply, and the expansion speed does not exceed the escape velocity, then the mutual gravitational attraction of all its matter will eventually cause it to contract. "

So, this requires the cosmological principle to be incorrect.

The last paragraph is also telling:

"Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.[3]"

Basically, it says that current evidence suggests the Big Crunch won't happen, but because we don't know everything, it might. Not terribly convincing.

Again, though, I don't know much about cosmology/astrophysics, so if anyone can shed more light on this...

I generally feel that physics is more likely to change as it develops (as it has throughout history) while Philosophical theories are more likely to stand the test of time because they require only pure logic. Thus I prefer to base my ideas in philosophy, even though they may not always go along with current physics theories.

@Draug,

But does the Linde-Kallosh model say that it will start again, or just remain collapsed?

abgemacht - I read through the particular article you posted. I still did not see anything that said "the particle is nowhere" or anything like that. As I was commenting before, QM is designed to model how particles move given our ability to measure them. Just because we can't measure the exact motion/position of a particle does not mean it lacks an exact motion/position; it just means we can't measure it.

It is not my lack of understanding about the details of QM that leads me to comment this way, so I probably don't need another link to a QM article (or something related). However, my point is that our ability (in inability) to observe reality does not make reality; so the fact that we can't tell what is going on does not in any way mean that something quite ordered and deterministic is not happening, we just lack the ability (and may fundamentally lack the ability) to tell what is happening.

@Doom

What pure logic are you using as a basis, then?

@Abge

Well I'm skipping through physics theories in favor of philosophical theories. So for instance, I believe in determinism because it makes sense logically, and I'm ignoring QM because I do not believe that physics theories supercede philosophical theories, because physics theories are subject to change. From determinism I believe that the universe must either have a creator that determined everything, or was always here. I have ruled out a creator because I believe that everything in the universe can be explained, and a creator simply bypasses that rule. Thus I believe in an infinitely long cycle of universes.