Einstein himself said that the past, present, and future are but illusions. (Not time, as I've heard many people confuse this and think time does not exist.)
If space and time are relative but space-time absolute. Then in a sense, what happened in the past is still "happening" and what happens in the future "has already happened". How then does this allow for free-will? Or does it not allow for it?
And does quantum theory affect your views at all?
2007-03-08 15:58:13 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
First of all, to say time is just a human invention is completely ridiculous. So before there were humans there was no such thing as time? To say there is no time is as ridiculous as saying there is no such thing as movement.
As far as the "hasn't happened yet"....how can we be so sure? It simply hasn't happened yet FOR US. We have certain preconceived notions of time because of how it works for us, on a macroscopic level. But for an alien billions of light years away traveling at high speeds, well, he will have a drastically different idea of time from ours. So drastic that when he "looks" at us, he will be seeing into our "past" or "future".
On Einstein, you aren't taking his words too literally. That quote may be open to intrepetation , but he has CLEARLY stated many times that he does not believe in free will. So, I think its safe to say that quote is in fact literal. Especially when according to Einsteinan physics, there is no mathematical distinction between the "past" and the "future".
Yours is an interesting question. Some might think that your question is philosophical and not scientific.....but isnt the point of physics to determine the nature of reality? Your question seems to border the fuzzy line between physics and metaphysics.
The previous poster (scyth..) brings up some very good points. However, his cookie analogy is a little off, because although we "knew" the baby would take the cookie, we could not predict it with 100% accuracy. A better analogy would be something like if we put a baby in room and tilted the room 75 degrees....would the baby "choose" to roll over? or can an epileptic "choose" not to have a seizure? Or can we "choose" not to fly? Its here that the definitions of "choice" get fuzzy. Some would say that the because the 2nd option is highly improbable doesnt preclude it as an option. The point being, even the baby choosing....did he really exert free will in that choosing any more than a computer programmed to do a task chose to run its process?
As far as quantum theory goes.....again, your question is interesting here. As quantum theory's essense is probability, which seems to give rise to the possiblity of free will. But even here, some would say the the COMPLETE randomness of quantum theory again does not endorse free will.
Free will vs determinism, one of the great debates and mysteries in philosophy, is also a mystery in science (at least for now) also. However, the "scientific" debate on this issue seems as if it were a byproduct of other scientific goals while the answer is truly sought after in the realm of metaphysics.
The final truth is....at this point, noone has won the argument for either side. All the greatest philosophers have differing views and hopefully one day science can shed some more light on the subject.
2007-03-09 08:52:09 · answer #1 · answered by wizexel22 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is one place where Einstein's theory of relativity clashes with quantum theory, since the former is entirely deterministic, while the latter is intrinsically probabilistic. So, this is a good question, and it all goes back to the hoary old philosophical question of free will vs determinism, a problem that realy took life after the development of deterministic Newtonian physics.
Einstein had lost the battle with quantum theory, however. Check out "hidden variables" theory in the wiki link below. Experiments have been done confirming predictions based on the absense of spacetime causaltiy. Experimental evidence in favor of absolute determinism just haven't been forthcoming nor convincing. So, for the philosophers that have posited that free will implies non-determinism, lack of evidence in physics for absolute determinism is at least not invalidating this philosophical form of free will, Einstein's comments notwithstanding.
However, on the philosophical level, it's not true that free will means perfect unpredictability. Just because I can predict that a child who thinks he's alone in a room will grab for that chocolate cookie in front of him means that the child has no free will! Certainly he is exercising his free will, even though I may know what he is about to do. Brain research today is closing on means of actually predicting what a person will do before he acts on his thoughts. Does that mean he has just lost his free will? No. What has been lost is our naive definition of free will, which should be replaced with the ABILITY to come to decisions as we see fit and act or not act upon them, regardless if certain others may already know what we're about to decide or act upon.
2007-03-09 00:19:04 · answer #2 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the sense he meant it, the past and future can be seen differently by different observers. But cause and effect are still in play.
That is, causes still preceed effects. So, although the flow is different, the order remains the same.
Now, if you glom that, you can see that free will (which for other reasons I personally have difficulty with) is a sort of cause. In all schemes, free will comes before the effect of that free will.
Finally, since time by itself is relative, the very notion of past and future do not apply to time alone, only to space-time, which is absolute. That is, to 'see' future events, you have to 'see' them happen at some particular place, which invokes space-time, and not just time alone.
2007-03-09 00:08:20 · answer #3 · answered by xaviar_onasis 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are taking some of Einsteins musings much too literally.
The reality of his mathematics, relativity theory and especially the graph of a light cone clearly show that the future does not exist until we move through time and it becomes the present -and as we move even further, it soon becomes the past.
Life itself, with all of its complexities, is a really good example of the uncertainty principal. It allows for complete free will.
Check out the cause and effect principals concerned with the speed of light - we have no future until we travel into it, and the decisions we make along the way are certainly done, within norms, with total freewill.
Quantum theory (the non relativistic theory) really doesn't give me any pause to reconsider my views expressed above.
2007-03-09 00:16:23 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, quantum theory does affect my views, I believe if you look hard enough all subjects are eternally intertwined. I don't think it does allow for free will in the sense we think of free will. that would require spontainous actions anyway, which no credible science can account for. everything is based on what has happened in the past, if you subscribe to such beliefs anyway.
2007-03-09 00:02:58 · answer #5 · answered by wingends 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you've got it wrong. Time is a human invention, yes. But the future hasn't 'already happened'. It's not been done yet. And science has nothing to say about the concept of free will past the point that the future is NOT set in stone.
2007-03-09 00:07:34 · answer #6 · answered by eri 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋