• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

a Scientific theory about predetermination....

kittyinthedark said:
I think you guys are going a lot too far into this all.... :)

The initial post makes sense. If "God" does not exist, then YES, *everything* is predetermined because everything will play out according to the rules of physics, *whatever* they may be. Given the set of rules, you could accurately extrapolate anything and everything that would ever happen or had ever happened. End of story. Physics dictates ALL if there is no "greater force" there to alter things.
Click to expand...

The rules/laws exist regardless of whether there is or isnt a god (i dont believe in god FWIW). The laws may well have been conceived by god to dictate structure, and a sense of order (side note: shut up to anyone who mentions QM;)) to a certain degree...HUP may have been a limit brought about by god to say "thats enough, you may not look further"

With that, i can argue day and night as to why god doesnt exist, The only real stepping stone is...you guessed it...In the beginning...M theory claims to be able to go passed 0 time when the universe was smaller than a full stop you see at the end of my sentences, but (unfortunately) it doesnt hold to renormalisation at the present time.

++++++++++


I wholeheartedly agree with CZ-74: you shouldnt use science to "prove" predetermination, science is a tool better used to disprove it.

Youre going about it the hard way, good luck though...i'd liken it trying to nail jelly to wall...or using the past to predict the future. Its very easy to ignore the facts that may contradict you opinions.

:)
 
ok.. each in turn..... Yougene.... Exactly that is the problem.... if you dont break it down to the neurone.. even to the sub-atomic level the theory doesnt make sense.... you can view the brain as an isolated entity from the surroundings.... but this is not the "true" view. Everything out of matter is influenced by everything out of matter.... a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane across the world.... this is ONE HUGE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX system... everything intracts.... but if every atom sticks to physical laws, all the interactions are in a set path.

CZ-74... well then... dont answer the question with philsosphy, but an argument that disrupts my initial theory...


yougene quote:
Probably not in the traditional sense. It's a complex system that processes information and is aware of itself. That is my hypothesis.

the universe is nothing but matter... and the motion of this matter contains a lot of information.. but this information is not processed or recorded in any way.... i also disagree with calling it a computer.... i thought the "quantum" compuiter was jsut an example of a conflict in the theory.....

Kitty in the dark... :) exactly what I ment... :) happy to hear your answer... :)

yougene quote:
I wholeheartedly agree with CZ-74: you shouldnt use science to "prove" predetermination, science is a tool better used to disprove it.

Youre going about it the hard way, good luck though...i'd liken it trying to nail jelly to wall...or using the past to predict the future. Its very easy to ignore the facts that may contradict you opinions.


Science is perfect to proove and disproove things.... and the question is really not if one should use science to determin the future (since it is simply impossible).. but if putting all this together actually makes it look like everything has a set path.

Well.... I have yet to hear a factual argument conflicting with this theory... something on the basis of physical laws rather then "one should not... and free choice exists depending on the point of view"....

:)
 
... yet another thread that has descended into baseless conjecture...

I never thought I would see someone try to argue in favor of free will and predetermination in the same paragraph.
 
dimitri9 said:
ok.. each in turn..... Yougene.... Exactly that is the problem.... if you dont break it down to the neurone.. even to the sub-atomic level the theory doesnt make sense.... you can view the brain as an isolated entity from the surroundings.... but this is not the "true" view.
Click to expand...

To break it down to the neurons is not a complete breakdown just as breaking down the human to its organs, which includes the brain. That being said neither one is the "true" view anyway because there are still underlying functions under it. Currently Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle keeps us from truly knowing what is going on the subatomic level. It may seem as though it's complete randomness and chaos that governs things on the subatomic level, which could give the perception of free will to some since that cannot be predetermined. That does not mean there is no order on the subatomic level though, we just cannot observe all the information we need to observe at the moment.


Everything out of matter is influenced by everything out of matter.... a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane across the world.... this is ONE HUGE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX system... everything intracts.... but if every atom sticks to physical laws, all the interactions are in a set path.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you just look at things as atoms interacting. But then you gotta take it down another level and see what governs the interactions. All chemical reactions for example are governed by electrons. Electrons are seemingly random and chaotic from what we can percieve at the moment. So is randomness and chaos predetermined? Is Randomness and chaos just order we do not understand yet?


the universe is nothing but matter... and the motion of this matter contains a lot of information.. but this information is not processed or recorded in any way.... i also disagree with calling it a computer.... i thought the "quantum" compuiter was jsut an example of a conflict in the theory.....
Click to expand...

Matter makes up a very small percentage of the universe. Most of it is currently believed to be made of "Dark Energy." And what about the structure that contains the matter and energy? What is it made of? What structure does it have? You say the universe is nothing but matter because that is what you percieve it as, and you percieve the predetermination from such a perspective, well there are many perceptions that need to be taken into account before anyone can conclude what a "true" perspective is.

There is no way to tell yet whether the universe processes and reecords information, but recent entanglement experiments seem to suggest it. Call it what you want, it is what it is. Quantum computer was an example of conflict in theory but it is also a real possibility.

Well.... I have yet to hear a factual argument conflicting with this theory... something on the basis of physical laws rather then "one should not... and free choice exists depending on the point of view"....
Click to expand...
Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle
 
" "true" perspective "

^contradiction in terms... "true" is objective... as in "pertaining to the object".. perception is inherently altered.

And plesae clarify your point from earlier - regarding free will and predetermination...

Are you ignoring me - or what?
 
Cpt. Pink Pants said:
... yet another thread that has descended into baseless conjecture...

I never thought I would see someone try to argue in favor of free will and predetermination in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...

you learn something new everyday.
 
I was quoting the previous poster who called it the true perspective, I didn't say it does or does not exist, I just said many perspectives need to be evaluated before definitive assumptions can be made about it.

What exactly would you like clarified, can you please be more specific?

And no I am not ignoring you.



Well the way I could see this arising is if there was an infinite amount of layers to existance and/or infinite loops of layers. When you figure out one layer such as atoms, you come to another layer, sub-atomic particles, and there are more underlying layers. If layers spanned infinitely in both directions then there could be no "true" layer of existance that made predetermination true over free will and vice versa.

In my simulation within simulation example you could potentially get a similar infinite loop of simulations within simulations. This is also an infinite amount of layers and depending on from which layer you are looking at things free will does or does not exist.
 
That all may be true, but all your doing here is philosophically restructuring nature for the sake of restructuring...

Additionally, you suggest that to achieve "definative assumptions" you have to consider many perspectives... What perspect, besides the human perspective, are you suggesting...?

Wouldn't it make more sense to analyse a single perspective to deduce the ways in which that perspective modifies the nature of the observation being made?
 
Quote: It may seem as though it's complete randomness and chaos that governs things on the subatomic level, which could give the perception of free will to some since that cannot be predetermined.

well if this is truly random, and there is no (yet unknown) law behind it that would be true indeed. But only if it really makes the path atoms fly unpredictable.

you do not need to go into even "lower levels" ... since.. for example.. even if it was completely random what colour protons are... it would not have an influence on the flight of an atom (which is required to disproove the theory).
 
quote: I never thought I would see someone try to argue in favor of free will and predetermination in the same paragraph.

uhm... was i ment with that? dont see where I did argue for both.... i think the theory is correct and hence no free will is possible. only "predetermined" reactions to timuly directed by the rewiring pattern of our brains.
 
Cpt. Pink Pants said:
That all may be true, but all your doing here is philosophically restructuring nature for the sake of restructuring...
Click to expand...
I'm interpreting it in a way that I can make most sense of it. It could be true, it could be false, it's just a personal interpretation other people can have completely different interpretations and they can be equally true or false.

Additionally, you suggest that to achieve "definative assumptions" you have to consider many perspectives... What perspect, besides the human perspective, are you suggesting...?
Click to expand...
Multiple human perspectives, perspectives of future civilizations, the perspective of a rock, the human perspective on psychadelics, etc... So far we are limited by what our imagination can come up with. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when he imagined what it would be like if he traveled at the speed of light and caught up with a photon.

Wouldn't it make more sense to analyse a single perspective to deduce the ways in which that perspective modifies the nature of the observation being made?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree that would make more sense, that would be the common sense way of going about it. Common sense can be a limiting factor when dealing with such subjects though, because alot of it deals with stuff outside the realm of common human experience.
 
Quote: Additionally, you suggest that to achieve "definative assumptions" you have to consider many perspectives... What perspect, besides the human perspective, are you suggesting...?


Why perspective? Two guys are standing on a road.. one thinks.. that car is going to hit us... the other thinks.. no.. it will break... 2 perspectives... but still only one truth.

You dont need perspectives for this... there is truth.... following facts... sorry if i mentioned "true perspective".... wasn't said properly.
 
dimitri9 said:
Quote: It may seem as though it's complete randomness and chaos that governs things on the subatomic level, which could give the perception of free will to some since that cannot be predetermined.

well if this is truly random, and there is no (yet unknown) law behind it that would be true indeed. But only if it really makes the path atoms fly unpredictable.

you do not need to go into even "lower levels" ... since.. for example.. even if it was completely random what colour protons are... it would not have an influence on the flight of an atom (which is required to disproove the theory).
Click to expand...

It does make matter unpredictable, we can predict things with fairly good accuracy on the atomic scale, not 100% though, The larger the scale the less and less accurate the predictions get. There is more to what is going on that just "flight of atoms."

Try reading up on some physics you might find it interesting.
 
dimitri9 said:
Quote: Additionally, you suggest that to achieve "definative assumptions" you have to consider many perspectives... What perspect, besides the human perspective, are you suggesting...?


Why perspective? Two guys are standing on a road.. one thinks.. that car is going to hit us... the other thinks.. no.. it will break... 2 perspectives... but still only one truth.

You dont need perspectives for this... there is truth.... following facts... sorry if i mentioned "true perspective".... wasn't said properly.
Click to expand...

So what would the truth be if the car didn't break? Did the car hit the people? Or did the people hit the car?

According to some quantum theories, both do happen, that is beyond the scope of explanation in this thread though, a bit too mind boggling for me to explain coherently.
 
Quote: It does make matter unpredictable, we can predict things with fairly good accuracy on the atomic scale, not 100% though, The larger the scale the less and less accurate the predictions get. There is more to what is going on that just "flight of atoms."

Try reading up on some physics you might find it interesting.

Is there really any randomness in the direction an atom will bounce off a surface if it hits it with 30°?
Dont think so... I think this law is well understood.... and no randomness in it.
 
Yes there is randomness. At the atomic level randomness rules over order. Like I said, read up on it.
 
how then can we still predict flight patterns of projectiles for example? those do follow definite laws of physics!
 
ok.. I have read up on the heisenberg uncertaincy principle..... here is a quote of the core of it:

This is due to the fact that whenever I make a measurement, I must disturb the system. (In order for me to know something is there, I must bump into it.) The size of the uncertainties are not independent, they are roughly related by
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top