Science
Related: About this forumIndeterminist physics for an open world
From phys.org:
In classical physics, or Newton's physics, it is accepted that everything has already been determined since the Big Bang. The evolution of the world is explained by mathematical equations that describe the world as unfolding from these initial conditions in the most precise way. For this, physicists employ the language of classical mathematics and represent these initial conditions by real numbers. "These numbers are characterized by an infinite number of decimals that follow the dot," says Nicolas Gisin, professor emeritus at the Department of Applied Physics, UNIGE's Faculty of Science and the author of the observation. "This implies that they contain an infinite amount of information." Such typical real numbers are far more numerous than numbers that have a name, such as Pi, and consist of a series of decimals that are completely random. We do not encounter them in everyday life but their existence is an accepted postulate in classical maths and they are used in many equations in physics. There is a problem, however: given that our world is finite, how can it include numbers that are infinite and that feature an infinite amount of information?
...
To circumvent the impossibility that the finite contains the infinite, professor Gisin suggests going back to the source of classical physics and changing the mathematical language so that we no longer have to resort to real numbers. "There is another mathematical language, called intuitionistic, which doesn't believe in the existence of the infinite," continues the Geneva physicist. "But it was completely crushed by the classic mathematical language at the beginning of the twentieth century." Instead of real numbers containing an infinite number of decimals at a given moment, intuitionistic mathematics represents these numbers as a random process that takes place over time, one decimal after the other, so that at each given moment there is only a finite number of decimals, andit followsa finite amount of information. " This solves the contradiction of classical physics, which uses infinity to explain the finite," adds professor Gisin.
There is another difference between the two mathematical languages: the truth of propositions. "In classical maths, a proposition is always either true or false, according to the law of excluded middle. But in intuitionistic maths, a proposition is either true, false or indeterminate. So, there is an accepted part of indeterminacy," continues professor Gisin. This indeterminacy is much closer to our everyday experience than the most absolute determinism advocated by classical physics. In addition, randomness is also found in quantum physics. "Some people endeavor to avoid it at all costs by involving other variables based on real numbers. But in my opinion, we shouldn't try to bring quantum physics closer to classical physics by attempting to eliminate randomness. Quite the opposite: we must bring classical physics closer to quantum physics by finally incorporating indeterminacy," says the Geneva-based physicist.
a little bit more ...
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)Thanks. That's a very interesting viewpoint and insightful as well, as I have randomly determined by the predetermined randomness of my amor fati. There is some food for thought there. I have found that the random and the predetermined are an interesting, yet frustrating paradox. However, it is in paradoxes that we often find the threshold of conceptual thinking and its limits to the point that suggests more how the Universe transcends the intellect itself.
It is also interesting to note that there are many people who may not be keeping up with the current advances in the hard sciences and I do understand that is quite a task for us laymen. Updates are valuable though because those who espouse certain views base them on certain ideas that are becoming rather dated and I guess that's just a knowledge lag though it gives us a form of scientism as an ideology used for ulterior purposes and that often strays from the essence of empirical methodology in sometimes absurd ways.
I cherish the excluded middle