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

a Scientific theory about predetermination....

so basically.... if you measure the position of an atom you get where it was, but you disturbed it and now no longer know where it is.

well yes.. I was familiar with that "fact".... but it has nothing to do with the theory! there is no uncertainty in the mechanics of colliding atoms.. jsut an uncertainty when measuring it. That is however not important. you don't need to measure.... the fact that counts is that the mechanics of atoms are NOT random.
 
you're on the right track here...

If the movement of atoms is not random, how could the fundamental interactions that produce atomic interactions be random?
 
Thats the thing... inability to measure it exactly doesnt make it random.....

Well... the atual basic question is, is there any physical interaction which is truly random on the atomic level? And I mean random to the point where there is NO way of predicting it even if you had complete "noninfluencing" knowledge about the system.
If the answer is yes, then the theory is rubbish... If god exists the theoryis rubbisch.. if our soul can bend the laws of physics in our brains in order for us to truly make choices than it is also rubbish.... and since I think nothing is random and there is no soul, god or miracles.... for me it seems like thats how it is.
 
As far as practicality goes it is random, because we cannot fully observe it. Perspective.
 
perspective is irelevant.. or do you think the number the ball ends up on in roulette is random? The speed of the ball, the angle of the dish, the speed of the wheel, the starting positions of ball and wheel all play part in it. This is all too complex for an observer to predict, but it is not truly random. Run the weel with 2x EXACTLY the same conditions (also air currents etc) and you will get the same number on the weel.

no matter if someone watches it or not (perspective)
 
Theoretically if someone doesn't watch it you'll get several different results. And try telling Einstein perspective is irrelevant. The importants of perspective has been one of the biggest breakthroughs in science ever.
 
Heisenberg wrote a book that touches on this topic.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's probable. In order to accuratelly measure on that scale you'd need to go to the -Nth degree scale, and scale up from there... On the atomic scale there are too many additional particles that you're missing. This is where "perspective" becomes "relative". It's always going to be relative in the end.
8)
 
dimitri9 said:
perspective is irelevant.. or do you think the number the ball ends up on in roulette is random? The speed of the ball, the angle of the dish, the speed of the wheel, the starting positions of ball and wheel all play part in it. This is all too complex for an observer to predict, but it is not truly random. Run the weel with 2x EXACTLY the same conditions (also air currents etc) and you will get the same number on the weel.

no matter if someone watches it or not (perspective)
Click to expand...

You will never be able to get the EXACTLY same conditions again..therefore your argument is irrelevant.

What happened to this thread? Too many opinions...try backing some of it up with facts.

CZ-74: i'd happily argue this with you, but we have the same opinion (or is that "perspective" 8))

<heads up>
I think they're gonna take the "GUT" approach;)
 
We can't possibly predict anything as of yet at least because science has not discovered everything there is about matter. For one thing there are many forms of matter, not just the one we usually think of.

There are anti-matter particles, various force carrier particles, neutrinos, etc., There is also dark matter which comprises a big protion of the universe but science has no idea what it is, we just know it exists because it has an effect on the surroundings but we can't directly observe it. We don't know how all of these interact with each other and if it even abides the laws of physics as we know them.

As of yet we have no idea about the full scope of things. And besides, the more science discovers the more questions arise. It's a continuous thing and there will always be something we don't yet know therefore we can never accomplish this task.
 
CZ-74 said:

A theories strength lies in its assumptions. Be careful about this. Convenient assumptions ruin a good idea.

Another hot tip - complexity is your enemy. The simplest arguements pack the strongest punch.
Click to expand...
That is true, but the simplest argument isn't ALWAYS true, although it seems to be a majority of the time, regardless it's another convenient assumption to take on. Besides what is truly simple? Is something simple something that takes little effort for a human to comprehend. Can something be simple and be uncomprehendable by a human.


What is the question this thread is asking - the free will of humans or particles ?
.
Click to expand...

Both, since they are part of the same construct.



Grim said:
We can't possibly predict anything as of yet at least because science has not discovered everything there is about matter. For one thing there are many forms of matter, not just the one we usually think of.

There are anti-matter particles, various force carrier particles, neutrinos, etc., There is also dark matter which comprises a big protion of the universe but science has no idea what it is, we just know it exists because it has an effect on the surroundings but we can't directly observe it. We don't know how all of these interact with each other and if it even abides the laws of physics as we know them.

As of yet we have no idea about the full scope of things. And besides, the more science discovers the more questions arise. It's a continuous thing and there will always be something we don't yet know therefore we can never accomplish this task.
Click to expand...

We can predict since we have the ability to predict, but it doesn't mean there will be any level of precision and accuracy to it. When it comes down to it we cannot even prove our own existance. So basically any predictions that science can accurately carry out are done with information that we can't even prove the existance of. It's always good to try and predict things to exercise the mind as well as possibly compare the predictions to any future findings.
 
Quote: You will never be able to get the EXACTLY same conditions again..therefore your argument is irrelevant.


No it is not... this theory is not about getting the prediction of the future by using science... the theory is about the course of things.. even tough it will never become useful to us.

As to perspective... ok.. whoever thinks it makes a difference if some one watches an apple to fall doen wor not.... fine... but this is just too far beyond logic and reason for me to discuss further...

Leaving perspective behind.... Does anyone UNDERSTAND the original idea behind it? All I see here is philosophical views on free will, perspective and general limitations and circular arguments... anyone got anything factual scientific to say to the theory? *hoping*
 
dimitri9 said:

As to perspective... ok.. whoever thinks it makes a difference if some one watches an apple to fall doen wor not.... fine... but this is just too far beyond logic and reason for me to discuss further...
Click to expand...
Actually it's too far beyond common sense, this is stuff that is studied in laboratories on a daily basis.

Leaving perspective behind.... Does anyone UNDERSTAND the original idea behind it? All I see here is philosophical views on free will, perspective and general limitations and circular arguments... anyone got anything factual scientific to say to the theory? *hoping*
Click to expand...

The idea is understood. Scientific thought can affect philosophical implifications and vice versa, it does not make them irrelevant although many find it neccasary to leave philosophy out of the scientific method. Well I dunno, I've presented a pretty good amount of information, do YOU have any factual information to present for your argument? So far I have mostly seen examples with you implying common sense results to them.
 
all the basic laws of mechanics, velocity and collision and so on speak for the theory. To take the box of ping pong balls for example.. the future path of each is predetermined.... UNLESS there is a realy Random (by which I mean completely unpredictable and not just not predictable by man) process that ALSO affects the flight path of the ping pong balls.

If now someone says if no one watches they all stop moving and have a party in the corner... ok... dont have much to say to that.

But ok.... lets take the easiest model.. one pingpong ball in the box.... in form of a computer model. Do you doubt that the exact position of the ball is calculateable in exactly 3 days, 3 hours 8 minutes 2 seconds and 450 milliseconds?
 
There are also laws that govern particles, which ultimately govern classical physics, there may or may not be order to it. We don't really know and anything said about it is usually a good guess at best.

If a pingball was to truly be simulated within a contained area, then you definately cannot predict where the ball is going to be after that long with any certainty. Since you would have to simulate every single underlying layer to build up the system, otherwise it would not be a true simulation. That being said if we could simulate the "randomness" of particles than in theory we could know where it is going to be. But what if there is another layer under the particle layer that we have to make sense of now, now we have another layer to accurately simulate before we can make accurate and precise simulations.
 
Do you blelieve that if all data on all layers of complexity of the system were known it would still contain randomness?
 
I think it's definately a possibility that the amount of information contained within this universe is finite which would potentially make it possible to make everything that is seen predetermined. However is that all that exists? Is it possible that we are within an omniverse of universes, containing an infinite amount of information. It really depends on the construct we are within that we just don't have enough information on, all we can do is speculate possible scenarios.

Keep in mind that there isn't a single thing in existance that humans can prove to exist. For all we know truth doesn't exist and is just an illusionl. The search for truth seems to have comeup with useful information that we can apply to everyday existance and build technology with it, making what we hold as truth to be true. But the outcomes we experience such as technology could just be an illusion also.

This iswhere I think philosophy comes into scientific thought. Science is the search for truth. So science assumes truth does exist. Eventually the existance of truth needs to be questioned, since that seems to be part of the scientific method. That is where philosophy comes into play.
 
Of course.... unknown "variables" might contain randomness in them and mess up the system.... i agree to that, but all this anti matter or dark matter that was mentioned earlier doesnt necessarily mess it up!

Ok, so if matter colledes with antimatter they cancel each other out and so on... whatever happens with those particle, as long as they stick to physical rules the theory persists....

Unknown phenomena that do indeed contain a random variable would, just like god or the soul, disproove the theory.

An yes.. I know that from a philosophical view all one knows is his own exitence.. all else could just be an illusion (a la matrix).... while its possibly true, the result of this is pretty much a dead end.... how can anything be true? is this an apple or an orange I hold in ma hand, even tough it looks like a banana....... If you start to question absolutely everything you are standing still... because why think of implications of someting that you are not sure exists.....

I think that is way beyond the "healthy" amount of philosophy one should posess....... Personally I find philosophy (while sometimes interesting) more as a break to science.
Things like: what if complexity goes in infinate levels both ways so that they encounter each other again and form a circle of complexity..... are just not going to get you very far in an experiment for example.
 
Quote: Eventually the existance of truth needs to be questioned, since that seems to be part of the scientific method. That is where philosophy comes into play.

No.. this is where every scientist says good bye and leaves... since that is the point of dead end with no result other then circular thought...
 
Or starts learning about metaphysics, or other possibilities. I don't think you can predict that with any certainty.
 
Yeah, I said this before, but in the end it was lost. Perspective still means everything. We can't 'generally' even begin to fathom what scales are in exsistence. Much less even prove their exsistence with-in a scale that actually matters enough to alter the gross outcome of any sequence of events.:\ Perspective still matters, no matter what else is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top