Fate?

[Iamdan]

 

Uhh... Read your original post again.

 

I said everything is pre determined, (quantum physics not me) and then said hypothetically it can then be predicted.

 

 

 

I was talking about the behavior of particles determining macroscopic objects, it doesn't make sense to say the particle behavior is impossible because of your opinion on macroscopic objects.

 

I'm confused as hell. What is my opinion on macroscopic objects, and where am I saying the particle behaviour is impossible?

 

 

 

Ok, you basically said macroscopic events aren't pre-determined. That's what I gathered anyway from: "car driving at a constant rate for x...

[Lateralus]

Ah, quantum spirituality (sort of). I've got a book in my flat about why it's silly when people try and relate quantum mechanics to philosophy, I'll have a thumb through it when I get home.

[Ezz]

I believe in causal determinism (basically what you said, the laws of physics being applied etc.), and have yet to find something that goes against it in logic :P

[l0rd]

If you were able to "predict the future paths of all the particles in the universe" why couldn't we change it. Is that not in itself free-will?

 

 

 

The decision to change it comes from moving particles. :lol:

 

 

 

No, if you were able to predict the movement of the particles, that might be fated. But you could divert the string of events by looking at what the particles will do and do the opposite. This may seem like a paradox but its not - if you look at what the particles are going to do and do the opposite you have the step ahead.

[Bier]

Iamdan, as you stated you cannot know both the exact momentum and position of an object at the same time making it impossible to determine the future, there is no way to circumvent this problem. Even if you knew the momentum and position of everything in the universe, how exactly would you be able to build a computer that could handle all this information and predict the future at a faster rate than the time itself?

 

And even if you somehow would be able to build this computer it wouldn't work anyway because some things that happen are truly random, such as radioactive decay, which also means nothing is fated, but random.

 

 

 

And also, what about the creation of new objects?

 

Ever heard about the Conservation of energy?

[Infi]

 

Umm, what? That's not 'fate' as you call it then, it's just the future. Fate is fictitious for those who choose to believe in it or not. Everything is going to happen, based on your choice. It is not pre-determined, but it occurs when it occurs.

 

 

 

It's ok, you don't understand it. Don't worry about it.

 

Great argument. If you're going to post a theory, then be open for interpretation and stop waltzing around like it's fact. First you're saying one thing, then you're saying the other; basically contradicting all your arguments. I would not like to discuss this topic if you will not have the maturity to answer me properly, if all you do is respond "You don't understand". :roll:

[Rebdragon]

But he's right, you don't.

[Lenin64]

You're damn right I don't. Wouldn't your predictions already have happened by the time you've analyzed your data?

[Rebdragon]

You're damn right I don't. Wouldn't your predictions already have happened by the time you've analyzed your data?

 

That's evidence of the inability of man, not the impossibility of the theory. Like I said before, regardless of whether this theory is true or not, only a being at the level of God (that is, of omniscience) could be able to use it. But if this theory is correct, merely analyzing what happened at the Big Bang would be enough to predict the entire history, past, present, and future, of the universe. It's just simple cause and effect, the only problem is that there's just a lot of it.

[Nom]

only a being at the level of God (that is, of omniscience) could be able to use it.

 

 

 

Scientific proof of how God can be omniscient! Whoda thunk?

[nickeley102]

what you wrote is about determinism

 

 

 

from what i gather you are from australia, im from nz. we dont get taught philosophy in scools like i think you do in other countries that is why im 20 and really interested in it. also its covered in many eastern religions long before any western philosophers started thinking about it.

 

 

 

einstein and bohr had a series of debates on the same topic that were really interesting because they both had religous beliefs and a strong scientific background. i think this is where quantum physics was really born, and what people need to understand before arguing about religion.

 

 

 

but determinism is also used as an argument for religion with something called the omega point, and also laplaces demon or something

 

 

 

i like to think of determinism and causality on a quantum level like you have, but also on a personal level. that people are the way they are for a reason, when we are born we have no control over who we associate with and the values we gather from them, and these are the most critical times for establishing values. then we use these values to choose who we associate with when we grow up and go to school. so, in theory, our values and beliefs are as predetermined as the behaviour of electrons.

 

 

 

most religous scientists consider themselves 'soft dterminists'

 

 

 

you should watch waking life, it covers all the major philosophical questions and will really blow your mind.

[Lenticular_J]

I have wierd belief in fate. I believe in the multi-universe theory (billions of universes coexist an atom's length apart from each other, and one is always made when there's a so-called fork in the road), but I also believe fate will always make you end up doing something.

 

 

 

It would be nice if fate wasn't there, but sometimes I leave things to fate (nothing too major, I know better than that), which would make me have to be less lazy.

 

 

 

with something called the omega point,

 

Mmm, a theory by the French priest, philosopher, and paleontologist/geologist Teilhard. He believed that humanity - indeed, everything - could evolve into oneness with God. I don't believe he knew anything about quantum physics, though.

[Saru Inc]

Iamdan, as you stated you cannot know both the exact momentum and position of an object at the same time making it impossible to determine the future, there is no way to circumvent this problem. Even if you knew the momentum and position of everything in the universe, how exactly would you be able to build a computer that could handle all this information and predict the future at a faster rate than the time itself?

 

And even if you somehow would be able to build this computer it wouldn't work anyway because some things that happen are truly random, such as radioactive decay, which also means nothing is fated, but random.

 

 

 

And also, what about the creation of new objects?

 

Ever heard about the Conservation of energy?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I know about that, lol, I meant something else.

 

 

 

 

 

And as stated earlier, for me, at least, fate is more mental than physical. And you can't predict anything that is mental, ever.

[armourdilo]

I guess this is one of those many things we won't find out. By the time we manage to either the human race will have died out, the universe will no longer exist or when we do find out the universe triggers it's "occupants know too much" fail safe and destroys itself.

 

 

 

Interesting idea though - I likey!

 

 

 

Now what would be interesting is if everyone checked their outcomes, changed them somehow and the time-space continuum warped and everyone, everywhere who ever existed meets up with us. But what about those from the future that never existed because of this change...?

 

 

 

*gathers remains of fried brain and goes off to sleep*

[Da_Latios]

That's very interesting! Thank you for this post. :thumbsup:

[Nenga]

I guess this is one of those many things we won't find out. By the time we manage to either the human race will have died out, the universe will no longer exist or when we do find out the universe triggers it's "occupants know too much" fail safe and destroys itself.

 

 

 

Interesting idea though - I likey!

 

 

 

Now what would be interesting is if everyone checked their outcomes, changed them somehow and the time-space continuum warped and everyone, everywhere who ever existed meets up with us. But what about those from the future that never existed because of this change...?

 

 

 

*gathers remains of fried brain and goes off to sleep*

Well if something is 'fated' to happen it will happen no matter what you do. After all you can't change your fate. (unless fate doesn't exist.)

[Iamdan]

 

No, if you were able to predict the movement of the particles, that might be fated. But you could divert the string of events by looking at what the particles will do and do the opposite. This may seem like a paradox but its not - if you look at what the particles are going to do and do the opposite you have the step ahead.

 

Diverting the string of events would have been pre determined. Anything that occurs after the creation of the universe will have been pre determined.

 

Iamdan, as you stated you cannot know both the exact momentum and position of an object at the same time making it impossible to determine the future, there is no way to circumvent this problem. Even if you knew the momentum and position of everything in the universe, how exactly would you be able to build a computer that could handle all this information and predict the future at a faster rate than the time itself?

 

And even if you somehow would be able to build this computer it wouldn't work anyway because some things that happen are truly random, such as radioactive decay, which also means nothing is fated, but random.

 

I agree that it's not possible at least with todays technology, it's really just hypothetical - as is a lot of quantum mechanics.

 

 

Great argument. If you're going to post a theory, then be open for interpretation and stop waltzing around like it's fact. First you're saying one thing, then you're saying the other; basically contradicting all your arguments. I would not like to discuss this topic if you will not have the maturity to answer me properly, if all you do is respond "You don't understand". :roll:

 

I'm not trying to avoid anything, your posts really do show that you don't understand. I don't mean anything by it, It's just that I feel I've explained it well enough, and anyone who still doesn't understand shouldn't worry about it. Feel free to argue, but before you do read my posts again and make sure you understand it. By fate I never meant anything spiritual, just pre determinism.

[assassin_696]

If we assume that all macroscopic interactions are (at some fundamental level) governed by the behaviour of particles governed by quantum mechanics, then talking about fate and determinism is redundant. All we can do is assign probabilities to outcomes. So although you might be able to say with 99% certainty that an electron should be at point x, there's always a 1% probability that it's somewhere completely different (and in theory, anywhere).

 

 

 

There's also the fact that to make long term predictions of macroscopic bodies perfectly we'd need to know their initial values to an infinite degree of accuracy, which is of course impossible and physically meaningless. Some systems display chaotic behaviour, which is still fundamentally deterministic, just not computable.

 

 

 

In short, I'm not a believer in determinism. I also don't like the airy fairy pseudo-philosophical links with fate and free-will, but that's another matter.

[LinovUSA]

Nice theory, you can also think about pros and cons about everything you do, that way no matter what happens you already thought about it at least once :D