Timeline for Physical laws and free will
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2022 at 12:39 | comment | added | haxor789 | It could also be that both premises are incorrect. The first already is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem | |
| Jun 27, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | Ask About Monica | Premise 1 is false not just because of quantum indeterminacy, but because it implies an infinite regress. If you can simulate precisely the universe, the simulation itself contains a full simulation, which also contains a full simulation, et cetera. You can simulate a different, simpler universe, or part of a universe, but not the full. | |
| Jun 14, 2016 at 1:15 | answer | added | The Subtle Simpleton | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 20:32 | comment | added | user4894 | "It is possible for a human being to create a machine that, given the intial state of the universe, can predict the future state of the universe at any time," -- No it's not. Chaos and rounding errors make it impossible. In other words the universe might be completely deterministic yet totally unpredictable. As a striking example, we don't even know if the solar system is stable under deterministic Newtonian gravity. amazon.com/Newtons-Clock-Chaos-Solar-System/dp/0716727242 | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 20:25 | answer | added | Alexander S King | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 20:11 | answer | added | user3017 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 19:33 | comment | added | Era | Premise 1 is known to be false. The underlying idea (determinism) may still be valid, but it is hard to satisfactorily reconcile it with the most widely accepted interpretations of quantum physics. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 19:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 13, 2016 at 22:01 | |||||
| Jun 13, 2016 at 19:18 | history | asked | eepperly16 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |