General / Off-Topic So... Do we have free will? :)

If MWI is correct, then any event will cause a split of the Universe, meaning that considering the amount of events, the linear part of the branch, will be "infinitely" small compared to the time it takes the brain to make a choice. The weird thing is that you continue in two separate minds after each split, but right now in this moment, you only perceive one. That could mean that the "meaning of life" could turn out to be a matter of always keeping on track with the version of you, that makes the right choices. Then it all becomes rather close to what we experience with our consciousness and our feeling of being able to choose. Highly speculative I know, but whereas causal determinism closed the door on free will, MWI opens it slightly, even if it's yet only a hypothesis. Anything concerning free will is also just a hypothesis at this particular moment of branching. ;)
I understand the theoretical concept of multiple universes. That there are so many, almost an infinite number, that it is possible that somewhere out there, theoretically there could be another earth and even another me; out there somewhere. However: The Ace Rimmer concept, where each decision I make; the opposite is played out, on an other planet; is just silly, or over the top. Simply because, it would mean that other mes, would be popping into existence, each time I make a choice and then other mes would be popping up, each and evey time, each me, made a choice. What I will accept, was another me, was born somewhere else, in another universe and it lead its life; as it came. Which could have been very different to mine. The numbers could support such a thing happening.
 
@Arry
The Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation are not quite the same, even though there are similarities. They might merge into one theory at some time. Multiverse originates from cosmology, and MWI from quantum mechanics.

One thing that has been on many minds for quite some time, is whether the Universe is infinitely large. It could curve back onto itself. With the latest data, it seems that the Universe is extremely flat, meaning that it probably really is infinite. An interesting consequence of that is, that because the amount of atoms on Earth are put together as they are, if you hypothetically traveled far enough you would find an identical copy of Earth. You'd need a VERY engineered FSD for that though. The point is that even though the Earth has an enormous amount of atoms, which can be combined in a mindblowingly large amount of ways, that amount of ways is still finite. Therefore, if the Universe is flat and infinite, there should be an infinite amount of copies of you and me out there.
 
I understand the theoretical concept of multiple universes. That there are so many, almost an infinite number, that it is possible that somewhere out there, theoretically there could be another earth and even another me; out there somewhere. However: The Ace Rimmer concept, where each decision I make; the opposite is played out, on an other planet; is just silly, or over the top. Simply because, it would mean that other mes, would be popping into existence, each time I make a choice and then other mes would be popping up, each and evey time, each me, made a choice. What I will accept, was another me, was born somewhere else, in another universe and it lead its life; as it came. Which could have been very different to mine. The numbers could support such a thing happening.
Once again i'm with Arry on this one, MWI and the Multiverse Interpretation is a mere theoretical mathematical equasion rather than a practical one, in my opinion.
 
@Arry
The Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation are not quite the same, even though there are similarities. They might merge into one theory at some time. Multiverse originates from cosmology, and MWI from quantum mechanics.

One thing that has been on many minds for quite some time, is whether the Universe is infinitely large. It could curve back onto itself. With the latest data, it seems that the Universe is extremely flat, meaning that it probably really is infinite. An interesting consequence of that is, that because the amount of atoms on Earth are put together as they are, if you hypothetically traveled far enough you would find an identical copy of Earth. You'd need a VERY engineered FSD for that though. The point is that even though the Earth has an enormous amount of atoms, which can be combined in a mindblowingly large amount of ways, that amount of ways is still finite. Therefore, if the Universe is flat and infinite, there should be an infinite amount of copies of you and me out there.
Yes I understand that.

Humans have issue with the concept of infinite. Just as they have the same issue, when thinking about an endless nothingness: such as what could be above and below us. The same calculations, make alien life possible and thinking about it, the other me, would be thought of as, an Alien.
 
Once again i'm with Arry on this one, MWI and the Multi verse Interpretation is a mere theoretical mathematical equation rather than a practical one, in my opinion.
That to me, is the same with Black holes. With the maths taken to its extreme; again, they become stupid and I don't care how cleaver those people using infinite numbers, to turn black holes in to possible worm holes etc. etc. My take is simple: Black holes a result of gravity accumulating mass. Enough mass, creates enough gravity, that even light cannot escape. Fair enough, we have a what is now known as a Black hole. However: This process, cannot go on forever. Why? Do to with what is know as a critical mass. Everything has a critical mass, it is how nukes basically work. So sooner or later, that mass at the centre of a black hole, goes nuclear and thus, you get a big bang and another universe is born.
 
Yes I understand that.

Humans have issue with the concept of infinite. Just as they have the same issue, when thinking about an endless nothingness: such as what could be above and below us. The same calculations, make alien life possible and thinking about it, the other me, would be thought of as, an Alien.
Maybe most people, yes. And quite understandable, as we're naturally used to very short cycles and distances (compared to cosmic dimensions of course). But don't overgeneralize that: infinity, both in time and space are the main pillars of my personal theory that doesn't require a big bang. I really would like to talk with a quantum- and astrophysicists about some lose ends of my theory, if for nothing else but disproving some parts of it so I could finally put this whole idea to rest. Would certainly make me sleep better.

I think the really hard part for us to imagine, is the link between such hard to grasp things like virtual particles (that spontaneously appear even in absolute vacuum) that had have (and still have) infinite time to evolve into steady matter and from there into some giant structures like galaxies. To make this happen, would require the extremely unlikely event of a collision between 2 virtual particles that are not just a pair of matter and antimatter (and thus immediately eliminate each other), but two "real" ones (don't know the terminology of a virtual particle that is no anti-matter) that would interact and build a persistent particle. An event probably so rare that we'll never be able to detect it in our housefly-like existence and with limited resolutions of technology, but would be no obstacle if infinite time and space would be available, in which case it definitely would happen (if you have infinite time, time simply doesn't matter).

The crucial question is: Is this possible at all or can this categorically be excluded. I'd really like a comment about this from a real physicist...

For now that's still on the border of esoteric, since virtual particles are so volatile and tiny that it currently seems impossible to create any interaction with them. All we know about there existence so far comes in form of background noises form e.g. highly integrated circuits.
 
Last edited:
That to me, is the same with Black holes. With the maths taken to its extreme; again, they become stupid and I don't care how cleaver those people using infinite numbers, to turn black holes in to possible worm holes etc. etc. My take is simple: Black holes a result of gravity accumulating mass. Enough mass, creates enough gravity, that even light cannot escape. Fair enough, we have a what is now known as a Black hole. However: This process, cannot go on forever. Why? Do to with what is know as a critical mass. Everything has a critical mass, it is how nukes basically work. So sooner or later, that mass at the centre of a black hole, goes nuclear and thus, you get a big bang and another universe is born.
I see we have a similar perception of the world around us :)

That's the thing, often i feel when it comes to Astrophysics that theory and reality are often not compatible.
I never got how one could think a black hole could be seen as a Wormhole booster like those Sonic the Hedgehog Speedbumps.
It'll rip anything apart down to its molecular and atomic level. No matter can withstand the force untouched, way to much gravity and rotational force.
Unless someone comes up with a new supeglue (kidding)


Which brings me to an interesting question, if you had the free choice whether to go into a black hole or take the long way around, what would you do? ;)
Do you trust Astrophysicists enough that you deem it safe to make the passage?
 
Last edited:
...
Do you trust Astrophysicists enough that you deem it safe to make the passage?
You mean, if you have to meet your great love in that other galaxy and you only have the choice to take the full risk or will arrive in 2.5 Billion lightyears as a pile of bone-dust or deep-frozen while you still could study the diaries of your love after your arrival?
Pretty mean example, I know... :devilish:
On a more serious note, I also find wormhole considerations quite audacious to say the least (in reality, not in games of course).
 
You mean, if you have to meet your great love in that other galaxy and you only have the choice to take the full risk or will arrive in 2.5 Billion lightyears as a pile of bone-dust or deep-frozen while you still could study the diaries of your love after your arrival?
Pretty mean example, I know... :devilish:
On a more serious note, I also find wormhole considerations quite audacious to say the least (in reality, not in games of course).
Ha, oh that really is mean! 😏
 
That to me, is the same with Black holes. With the maths taken to its extreme; again, they become stupid and I don't care how cleaver those people using infinite numbers, to turn black holes in to possible worm holes etc. etc. My take is simple: Black holes a result of gravity accumulating mass. Enough mass, creates enough gravity, that even light cannot escape. Fair enough, we have a what is now known as a Black hole. However: This process, cannot go on forever. Why? Do to with what is know as a critical mass. Everything has a critical mass, it is how nukes basically work. So sooner or later, that mass at the centre of a black hole, goes nuclear and thus, you get a big bang and another universe is born.
It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.

Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star? :D
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.

Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
 
It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.

Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star? :D
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.

Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
That's an interesting thought.
Technically blck holes ARE basic objects. They are defined by only two quantities - mass and spin. There is of course the third, emergent property - the radius of the event horizon, but that is not a defining physical property per se.
We don't actually know whether they are singularities, though. We only know their radius is smaller than the Schwartschild radius and we only assume they are singularities from the equations that give us infinite mass/radius ratio. But they may as well be "normal objects". Maybe they are the next step from neutron stars in quantum degradation - a sort of "gluon soup" stars. Even though neutron stars are very tightly packed, they are still made of whole particles that have volume. Maybe black hole is simply on another level of packing. Maybe it's just strings themselves packed closely together. :)
 
I see we have a similar perception of the world around us :)

That's the thing, often i feel when it comes to Astrophysics that theory and reality are often not compatible.
I never got how one could think a black hole could be seen as a Wormhole booster like those Sonic the Hedgehog Speedbumps.
It'll rip anything apart down to its molecular and atomic level. No matter can withstand the force untouched, way to much gravity and rotational force.
Unless someone comes up with a new supeglue (kidding)


Which brings me to an interesting question, if you had the free choice whether to go into a black hole or take the long way around, what would you do? ;)
Do you trust Astrophysicists enough that you deem it safe to make the passage?
i would be heading in the opposite direction; if physics, allowed it of course.
 
It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.

Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star? :D
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.

Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
OK, maybe nuclear, is not the right word; but they still go bang. Critical mass is the key.
 
OK, maybe nuclear, is not the right word; but they still go bang. Critical mass is the key.
Non of the known forces in the universe could do that. We know that 17 billion suns is below that critical mass at least.

Perhaps the critical mass is exactly one universe and it sets of a big bang? :D
 
That's an interesting thought.
Technically blck holes ARE basic objects. They are defined by only two quantities - mass and spin. There is of course the third, emergent property - the radius of the event horizon, but that is not a defining physical property per se.
We don't actually know whether they are singularities, though. We only know their radius is smaller than the Schwartschild radius and we only assume they are singularities from the equations that give us infinite mass/radius ratio. But they may as well be "normal objects". Maybe they are the next step from neutron stars in quantum degradation - a sort of "gluon soup" stars. Even though neutron stars are very tightly packed, they are still made of whole particles that have volume. Maybe black hole is simply on another level of packing. Maybe it's just strings themselves packed closely together. :)
The event horizon is not based on the pulling power of a Black hole its self, (well it is sort of). The Event Horizon must be based on the possible escape velocity of the object approaching it. Therefore, the 'event horizon', is varied.

Example: Earth requires an escape velocity of proximately 43.000kph, so if anything passing within the Earth's gravitational pull, would have to be travelling faster than 43.000kph, to pass by and escape. Anything travelling slower, would be drawn downwards and either burn up, or hit the ground. This maybe a simplified example, but then I am a simpleton myself.

Singularities: Is just another one of those 'infinite theories'; they look good on paper, but the numbers have been taken to impossible extremes.
 

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Hello Everybody.

As you will have noticed the thread has had a considerable number of posts derailing the thread with personal beliefs etc.

I would have cleaned out the posts and the replies but due to the large number of them there would have been a mass of thread inconsistencies and swathes of missing content which would have made others question their sanity.

And blame pointed at yours truly.

However the situation has been addressed and the discussion on free will can continue without further distractions.

I'm not however explaining if this was my own choice via free will....
 
Non of the known forces in the universe could do that. We know that 17 billion suns is below that critical mass at least.

Perhaps the critical mass is exactly one universe and it sets of a big bang? :D
Those 'suns' are not black holes. Black holes eat 'suns/stars, for breakfast and have amasses lots of them over time.
 
Hello Everybody.

As you will have noticed the thread has had a considerable number of posts derailing the thread with personal beliefs etc.

I would have cleaned out the posts and the replies but due to the large number of them there would have been a mass of thread inconsistencies and swathes of missing content which would have made others question their sanity.

And blame pointed at yours truly.

However the situation has been addressed and the discussion on free will can continue without further distractions.

I'm not however explaining if this was my own choice via free will....
Sorry mate. Black holes are a prime example of 'not having any free will' when encountering them.
 
Top Bottom