Just a few remarks on Determinism.
Micronote: Just a few remarks on Determinism.
Date: 23/05/2026
Version: 0.0
Deterministic, or non-deterministic, or something Else...?
Some folks think that everything already has been "laid out", from the past,
to the present, to the future. This (somewhat) looks like the core idea of the "block universe".
But you also can take a look at the principle of "determinism" itself. Would it hold?
Always, or in some cases only? Is it bound or needed for causility, observations etc...? Indeed, many questions.
Nobody reads this anyway.... But just suppose someone accidentally lands in this page (it's very unlikely):
Then: So what do you think of the following.....?
=> 1. One Easy observation.
One assumption often heard with determinism, is that later events are comletely determined by initial conditions.
Well, here is a very simple example, possibly on the contrary.... maybe...
Suppose we have a airtight box of about 1m3. It contains air, at normal temperature, at normal pressure,
just as atmospeher we are in. The box easily contains somewhere about 1025 molecules (probably more).
Compared to the Universe, our box is absolutely ridiculously small.
At any time, molecules collide with each other, and to the walls of the box.
Suppose we have selected one molecule, molecule A, at a very precise spot, precise energy, direction speed, at t=0.
After one day, would you say that it is possible to calculate the exact path of molecule A have taken, after one day has passed?
Or would you say, I need the position of all the other 1025 molecules, with precise location, speed etc..
Well, there is no computer that is able to calculate this. Very likely, never will exist such device.
By the way, it is easy to scale up: our box is 10km3 and lets see what we can calculate over 10000000 years.
Thus it's not possible to calculate or verify... But... The example is not even "very special" or something.
Maybe you agree: the notion of determinism, probably fails in normal Human circumstances (like a simple box with air).
=> 2. Causal Disconnected regions, and Hubble spheres.
Suppose you are only one lightyear away. An important event, at your place, needs a year
to reach Humans on Earth (for information travelling at the speed of light).
Are you, and Earth causally connected? No...., well, at least not immediate.
But suppose at your location there exists a massive "dark star", which becomes a Supernova...,
then yes... one year later we get $%%$&@#%%%^^@!!!!...
Here on Earth, almost everything (major events) is causally connected, due to the fact that information
can almost instanteneously (or short duration) reach you.
Most Astronomers/Cosmologist, usually share the assumption that the Unniverse expands. Remote galaxies constantly
increase the distance to us (while we move too in the Hubble expansion).
Now, the idea is, that while space "expands", the light from really far galacties gets "streched" more and more
resulting in ever increasing redshift, all the way up to the fact
that light/information, fundamentally, cannot reach us anymore. The corresponding distance is often quoted
as to be 13, 14 billion lightyears (orso). The max (per observer), would then be the cmb Planck map.
Such a sphere is often called the Hubble sphere (beyond which light/information cannot reach us anymore.
But... most Astronomers/Cosmologist, really assume that the Universe "goes on" beyond the Observable
Hubble sphere. Ok... now..., imaging lots of observers, each sequently, are 8 billion lightyears (and multiples thereof) away.
They all have their "own" Hubble sphere (observable universe). Some nearby, may overlap, but all the rest are disconnected.
Ofcourse, determinism does not perse need causality. But it is in my view reasonable to say that most regions
are disconnected. Thereby no influence/information can reasonably reach "everything".
Determinism therefore would be only be possible by local (reasonably "local") influences
in their own "sphere".
Mr. X asks Albert: "Long story... but what the f**k" is your point???? Well ???????!!!!"
Albert says:"Yes... sorry... I forgot what the point was! No... only joking... I guess I just want
that (really) Universal Determinism is not possible. At best... it's local....(but even that is not likely)"
Note: Expansion of space might not be clear. Does it act like elastic? Is new space created???
At the moment a good interpretation might be *"emergend space"* like described in various (arxiv) articles.
The current model uses "a change in metric" in some famouse SpaceTime theories from Physics/Cosmology.
This is for latr.
=> 3. Quantum physics.
Here I will only use a certain aspect of QM, to illustrate (possibly) non-deterministic phenomena.
Physicists are always busy with "what is it..., and how does it work...?". It's not possible to stop those folks.
QM produced many remarkable results. For example, the "wave-like" properties, of what formerly was believed
to be "true" particles. Experimental results, like interference patterns (clearly wave-like) suggested
a sort of wave-particle duality. It was mathematically described by "the wave function".
Most physicists would say that "the wave function" is equivalent to a "probability distribution"
for the location of a particle.
Please note that something like "probability distribution" may already be seen as sort of "anti-deterministic".
Just another example:
Also, it was theoretically, and experimentally found, that particles could have a quantum feature
called "spin". There exist no true classical equivalent to spin, but many folks compare it to
a magnetic momentum, or similar. But it is truly something "else"....
It really exist, and it has the remarkable property that it ("points"), either "up" or "down",
along some chosen direction. So, there are two states: Up, often shown as |1 >, or Down
often represented as |0 >.
One most striking feature of QM, is that, without any measurement performed, you don't know
the state, and both eigenstates are in een superposition. That is, both |0 > and |1 >
at the same time. In Quantum language, you would say that the state |φ> of spin of a particle,
must be written as:
|φ> = 1/√2 ( |0 > + |1 > )
When you would perform a measurement, you would find either |0 > or |1 >, each outcome
with a probability of ½
You see? QM deals in many cases with "probabilities", which might be interpreted as "anti-deterministic".
(By the way: study of all of the "interpretations" in QM, is truly facinating...).
=> 4. Philosophic Argumentations.
I think it's not possible to prove, or disprove, the concept of "determinism".
However, by aid of some (theoretical) "case studies", you can make the pro or contra, a tiny bit more likely.
Is the above (points 1,2,3) a bit biased? Must be...., because an amount of "bias"... is.. unfortunately
a bit unavoidable. Are there examples "pro" determinism? Actually... yes.
For example, an atomic clock (in extremely controlled conditions), seems to be abnormally exact, even for
hundreds of millions of years. That's actually (partly) QM too.
And.... there are by now some theories from Physics, from which you can decide to become a Monk in a monastery.
So...., what about Philosophy?????
When studying Philosophy, then you can see how rich this science is. Everything comes on the table:
neurosciences, medicine, laws, causality, computers/IT, physics, morality, free will, rationality, reality etc...
Then, there were, and are, a trillion of writers studying the subject...
So, it's rather useless at this point, to look at "determinism" from the perspective of Philosophy.
Sorry for that !!!! Yeah..., I am weird....