Multiple Pasts Theory

[Steerpike07]

Isn't the universe more like your bank account rather than the abstract algebra problem? You can go out and find evidence of which past led to it as it is. On the other hand determinism is compatible with free will if there are multiple futures that 'exist' 'now' - every alternative future 'exists' - but we can choose which one we 'will' 'remember'. But - there are still multiple 'pasts' that still 'exist'- but only one apparent 'past' for each of us - the one we remember.

[dbmcmillan]

Quantum Mechanics has disproven determinism/causation though. On a side note, the idea of a "participatory universe" derived from interpreting quantum mechanics is pretty interesting, and may be a basis upon which to claim genuine, libertarian free will.

[HayBailProductions]

I view it as all possible combinations of the past create our current existance, and our limited attention and mental capacity condence all possible options of the present into a single state. Then as we look towards the future we are faced with several possible paths. It's kind of like a bow tie effect.

[WorBlux]

Most languages describe time as being in front on you because it's what is next, but a few describe the past as being in front because you are not blind to it, and the future being what is not able to be seen.

Now that you've told me I'm blind either way, I'm going to start using sonar as a metaphor for life. e.g. Death is just a blip on my screen.

[danielsondanielson]

In my view, if we take the hard version of determinism (that one proposed by Laplace), there is only one possible past and only one possible future of the Universe that you can think about (as the state of universe in the T+dT point is strictly determined by the state in T, the same is true for the relation between the T state and T-dT state). Sure, the quantum mechanics doesn't support the hard determinism. But what is actually determinism as such if it is not hard? I have problems with it.

[Cailwyn]

You say irrelevant, but if one of a hundred causal chains lead to the universe in its current state then it cannot be irrelevant.

If it is true that the universe could be deduced to a current state of being points out the severity of of what causality is and why it is important to not negate how it got there or where it's going.

A causal chain, no matter how similar to any setting, only points to a state of is. It cannot show what 'could be'.

[Cailwyn]

It does not make any irrelevance that two universes could hold mirror images of being because the fact of is is not overturned.

As far as we can possibly know; even with the "randomness" of quantum mechanics,; is is.

Is 'is' is? Or is 'is' what could possibly be. My money is on is is is. I have no other basis.

[Cailwyn]

Stop fragging my mind. Is metaphysics a bullshit error?

[bigsmallconsciousman]

do you think the universe is what it is because chopin's shit was boiled into ink and he wanted to write the Newest Testment? Mexican fingerspeak: economics = negative numbers as a can opener in shakespeare's sister's cleavage? this universe is asphalt children eating doritos while taking a shit in a diet coke can? i was just curious what people's thoughts were on this. are you Fredrich Nietzsche?

[Sepero1]

I think it depends on whether someone believes in the existence of true randomness or not.

I believe in determinism, but I don't believe in true randomness. This logically leads me to believe in only one past and only one future. A single time line.

[brainpolice2]

Actually, one can fully believe in determinism without thinking of causality as linear.

[Sepero1]

Yes, I didn't mean to necessarily imply that time was linear. I can fully accept that time is potentially infinitely circular or perhaps even some other way.

[Bigd6786]

You couldn't be more dead on. There is only one eternal moment and from this moment stems the branches of infinite possibility and potential.

Imagine a spider web and at the very center where all strands of possibility/potential converge, this is the moment which we are perpetually in. The strands of time flow past and it is always our decision which strand to follow.

every potential laid out before has is and will happen again. its an endless repetition of pre determined causality

[trick0171]

Interesting to think about. If we were to assume 100 different possibilities to the state we are in now, that would mean that all points in time until now could not have more than 100 possibilities. So if we co back 1000 years from now to a given point in time, that point might have 75 possibilities, but it could have no more than the current number. (MORE)

[trick0171]

In other words, if it was possible for the point in time 1000 years ago to have 150 possibilities, then our current state would need at least 150 possibilities. For each moment that passes, the more possibilities there are that could have lead up to the very same state at that moment.

[Individualism101]

As a separate point: it is impossible to define the state of the universe, because the definition would be included in itself. Ie the person trying to determine the state of the universe is part of the universe.

[XOmniverse]

I agree, Individualism101. There is an infinite recursion there because the agent itself would grow more complex as it attempts to understand itself.

[zuiprax]

Assuming perfect causal determinism, I don't think you can have a scenario where multiple initial states lead to the same result down the line.

It's just too many variables, any difference in the initial equation would yield a much different result because the universe gets more complex as it expands, not less complex.

[zuiprax]

But I think determinism is unfalsifiable, because our brains evolved to understand only causal processes, so if there's anything else, we can't differentiate it from a causal process we don't yet understand.

I think causal determinism is a safe assumption to make, we don't lose anything by making it, but claiming it is "true" is arrogant.

[juliecranford]

: )

[paultoronto42]

That was an interesting idea. Thanks for sharing. But the universe isn't -2, it's 42 (according to Douglas Adams)

[fede2]

we can consider several theories as to how the now came about but i get the feeling the best posibility is explained by chaos theory.

[Perserus]

Well, I feel that you neglect something in this. And that is which way the world is going. The presumption is that all these different universes collapse into the same universe after a set amount of time. If that still has meaning in this context. This doesn't sit very well with me. Imagine this scenario, you stand at one spot and roll a ball over spot x. Later you stand somewhere else and roll the ball over the same spot, for a moment it was at the same place. But the two rolls parted the next

[canerdc]

1- Universe is "most probably" a closed physical system.

2- In a closed system entropy drops linearly as a function of time.

If those two axioms are correct (which as far as we know are correct) than that means every single momentum is passed through particle to particle, AND every momentum gained by a particle is from another particle IN the system. As a result every situation (position and momentum, -in time) is reverseable. So there can only be ONE past situation.

[dexarouskies]

If you investigate something such as radioactive decay, you'll discover that the overwhelming view is that it is acausal, and not a limitation of our knowledge, but the heart of quantum mechanics.

[dnoohi]

Lets say get 2 apples, even if you do come up with infinite example you still have to get those apples from somewhere making it deterministic and visible for future observer.

Go step by step from the start and it is determined and unique. What you do is skipping the beginning right into middle and then wonder what brought you there.

Not knowing which exact past happened does not mean that future can go unpredictably, actually it cannot (dis)prove anything except our own human limitations.

[Stargazer5781]

Sort of along the same lines as how we cannot know where we are going, we cannot possibly know how we got to where we are. The infinite complexity of what you're bringing up is mind-boggling, I don't think I can even begin to imagine the number of possible ways a brief moment of time could come about in the infiniteness of the universe, or even what that probability might be. It'd be like, infinity divided by a bigger infinity. Mind trip! lol.

[brainpolice2]

In other words, you're suggesting non-linear causality.

[XOmniverse]

To be honest, I'm not sure. I started off thinking of it as an epistemological problem, but it does seem to have metaphysical implications.

[brainpolice2]

The two often beg each other's questions.

[Slug99]

Isn't this basically how the justice system is in theory work?

In order to find someone guility of a crime, you have to prove that one chain of events during which a person committed a crime is either the only one possible or at least extremely more likely than many others.

[chris3443]

Hmm...in the case of x+y=-2 there can only be one TRUE answer that occured in reality, whereas before it occured, any number of results could have given us -2. So while it is true that the universe might have come about a 100 different ways, only one way DID bring it about, so I would say it is still very important to focus on the single cause that is the causal step...Damn this is so abstract I can hardly think about it clearly hehe

[XOmniverse]

"So while it is true that the universe might have come about a 100 different ways, only one way DID bring it about"

In theory, yes. But if there's no way to know which one is the true one, then from your perspective, they are all equally probable and equally worth consideration.

[anastasiaw]

Wow, that was really interesting. You make fucking awesome videos. :D

[MaikUniversum]

very insightful :) thanks.

[narkfly]

an interesting spin on the mr. destiny past / future idea. but why do you have to be so negative? :P

[hellavadeal]

If a person could go back in time than someone already has. If there are more dimintions than the 4 we experiance , then there would be no way to observe them. If somehow ,someone did see another dimintion , How could he describe it?

[chris3443]

"If a person could go back in time than someone already has. " The paradox, however, is that according to logic, one "reality" must have come first, so either it is impossible to time-travel, or we are the first reality to reach this far in time.

[hellavadeal]

I love Dr Who. LOL . What if ?? someone went back in time and killed a tyrant before he did his thing ? If time is determaned, than someone else with a simular name and situation would do what the other one would have . Making the future onfold basically the same.

HAHAHAHA Who knows ?

[fuckamerica109]

i have no idea what the hell your talking about

[yikeswood]

math is just attempting

[tpsisokayiguess]

Memory. Remembering the past in some way can help determining what the actual past was.

One could look for evidence in the universe that holds some kind of remembrance.

[XOmniverse]

Ah, but if multiple pasts could've led to you having the memories you have now, that doesn't really solve the dilemma.

It also doesn't address anything that happened before you existed.

[tpsisokayiguess]

Hm, yea. You're right.

So let's say you have a memory of everything, the whole past. Assuming that memory is accurate, somehow objective, that right there would be the knowledge of the only one past.

Assuming multiple pasts therefore assumes missing information, events without consequences.

[XOmniverse]

Omniscience would solve the problem only if one could have DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST.

As it stands now, our only knowledge of the past comes from observation of the present, which has the limitation I brought up in this video.

[tpsisokayiguess]

Yes, but I'm not talking about a personal memory, but a broad universal one. The memory of the universe itself, perhaps observable through evidence / examining it. Of course we can't know everything. But theoretically, I think it works.