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

a Scientific theory about predetermination....

D

dimitri9

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
170
Hey.... Ok... since I am really quite impressed with the scientific level surfacing in this board, I thought posting this theory might get a couple of interesting responses..... ok.. so here we go..

THe theory is supposed to explain that the future of matter (atoms etc) is set in a defined path, and is not changeable. This however is ONLY the case if there is no god, no soul, no miracles or anything that does not stick to the basic laws of nature, physics and chemistry (This is what I think is the case in the universe).

ok... I have to start with a simple model.

Imagine a 1 meter times 1 meter times one meter box with solid walls floating in free space. Now we put a ping pong ball into the centre which travels at speed X in direction Y. The space inside is complete vaccuum, so no air resistance occurs.
If we know the speed and direction of the ping pong ball it would theoretically (in a computer model for example) be possible to predict the exact position of the ping pong ball in any point of time in the future, since it moves, collides and redirects its direction according to simple well understood physical laws. So the path of this ball is pre determined.

Now lets make the walls 10mx10mx10m and put 10 balls inside. This becomes a lot more complicated, and while there are probably too many factors to actually calculate the future position of each ball, they all still behave along those simple laws. If we are still able to calculate it or not is from this point onwards not important.... what is important is that it has a set path.

Now lets make it 1kmx1kmx1km with 10 000 balls. Same principle... every ball has its set path into the future if no outside forces act on it (god for example).

now lets take 100000 0000000 billion balls, remove the walls and add gravity. the simple calculatable attraction between atoms. a new factor came into it, but it behaves along set laws of physics.

Now lets make every ball into an atom and fill a whole universe with it. there are infinite factors involved and while it is NEVER going to be calculateable for us it is still following set physical rules. the movement of every single atom is set for ever into the future.

Ok... we have molecules so we have to consider the laws of chemistry where certain atoms will bond together, but that is also physical.

So what could disrupt this set future? Basically anything that does not follow physical laws. God, a soul... basically anything that can disrupt or change the flight of an atom without letting it collide with another atom.

So if god exists... this is all wrong.. because then each of our souls performs numerous miracles in our brains where it influences matter with thought..... but i do not think god exists.....

Does anyone see a catch in this theory? No one I asked (and that understood it needs to be added) could find one.
 
Personally, I think you're on the right track... Go read Peter Lynds' paper called "Time and Discontinuity in Classical and Quantum Mechanics"... It's published on Lynds' homepage (google for it).

I did some thinking on this a couple years ago and came to the conclusion that HUP wa mis-represented as a function of nature - when it fact it should have been accounted for as a boundary of human perception.
 
I think it comes down to perspective as I have mentioned in previous posts. From a perspective outside of the universe if such a perspective exists, everything that is happening is a byproduct of cause and effect. This includes everything we do too. From this perspective if you had the ability to be all knowing of the universe that you are viewing, and had the power to process information faster than the universe is processing it then you could potentially determine the future outcome of the universe simply by entering some key variables and let it be simulated. From the human perspective everything seems to be predictable if we can understand it, everything else is percieved as chaos. From the human perspective we have control of our miniverse to do as we wish with it. If "god" does exist it would be possible it has control over the "universe" that it has created, from god's perspective. If you become an outside of "god" and his universe you may find that "gods" actions are predetermined by whatever aspects govern his aspects.

In conclusion everything is and isn't predetermined depending on the perspective you are going to take.
 
"In conclusion everything is and isn't predetermined depending on the perspective you are going to take."

FOUL!

How about:

In conclusion, everything is. You may percieve it as predictable or chaotic, depending on your perspective.

Always be sure to associate perception with the perciever... not the percieved.
 
It is possible for a perciever to take on the perception that is not native to he/she/it. A perciever could potentially have numerous perceptions simultaneously.
 
Science is good for explaining predetermination, there is just certain knowledge that is lacking. With time perhaps science will gain a grasp of it.
 
"It is possible for a perciever to take on the perception that is not native to he/she/it. A perciever could potentially have numerous perceptions simultaneously."

In what way would a perceiver having a singular, or multiple perceptions have any effect on the objective nature of an object or phenomena?

If a perception is the product of a "percieving action" on the part of the perciever, it is highly illogical for any aspect of that perception to be natively associated to the object or phenomena being observed>perceived.

Ultimately, the perception belongs to the perceiver...
 
I agree with pink pants.. :) (never thought I´d ever say this scentense)..... only because you view something with different knowledge of the system doesnt change it.... it will still be AS IT IS...
 
In other words..... there are no "versions" from different observers... there is only FACT. if the observers recognize it or misunderstand it has no efect on it.
 
"I agree with pink pants.. (never thought I´d ever say this scentense)....."

What's up with that? As far as I can tell, I say all sorts of shit worth agreeing with...

;)
 
Cpt. Pink Pants said:
"It is possible for a perciever to take on the perception that is not native to he/she/it. A perciever could potentially have numerous perceptions simultaneously."

In what way would a perceiver having a singular, or multiple perceptions have any effect on the objective nature of an object or phenomena?

If a perception is the product of a "percieving action" on the part of the perciever, it is highly illogical for any aspect of that perception to be natively associated to the object or phenomena being observed>perceived.

Ultimately, the perception belongs to the perceiver...
Click to expand...

Lets hypothetically say there is an objective existance that is more valid than other perspectives. One of the objective truths of this hypothetical system is everything is predetermined and is a product of cause and effect. If that is the case then it would seem that with enough information and a powerful enough machine the universe could be simulated faster than it is unfolding for us, to the present moment. The machine simulates you doing something right after that moment, you do something else just to go against what the machine has predicted seemingly braking cause and effect and predetermination. From the perspective of whoever is percieving the predictions of this machine and going against them has free-will. Now lets say an outside perciever runs his own simulation of the universe and within that simulation there would be that person who made his/her/its own simulation. That simulation would simulate the perciever going against the predictions of the first simulation, just another effect of a cause. You would end up with an infinite amount of simulations within other simulations. This would be an infinite loop of free will and predetermination depending on the perspective that is taken.
 
I`m not too sure I understand what you are saying.... but besides that.... free will does not exist if this theory is true..... our choices and responses would only be the result of our different rewiring patterns in our brains responding to specific stimuli.

I say: what is your name?

and the wave traveling through the compression of air particles will reach your ear.... be converted into electrical stimuli and follow the paths of neurones that make you understand and respond with the answer.

So if this "mashine" were to show the future, the result would hit your neurones and trigger the natural response to that.... which is exactly what that mashine has shown you.

but this mashine is really out of question.... it would be part of the system it is trying to calculate (as it consists of atoms) and that makes calculating faster impossible.. since the calculation changes the mashine....

(besider the obvious fact of all the path and speed info of the universe not to be obtinable)
 
dimitri9 said:
I`m not too sure I understand what you are saying.... but besides that.... free will does not exist if this theory is true..... our choices and responses would only be the result of our different rewiring patterns in our brains responding to specific stimuli.
Click to expand...

Like I said it does and does not exist at the same time. From your current perspective if what I said is indeed true than you percieve it as just cause and effect because you break down everything into its underlying working parts. Is this the one and only truly objective way too look at it though. Why not look at the brain as a collective single entity, interacting with the outside world. If you do so then the brain is indeed the one making decisions and has a will of its own. Why would breaking down the system to neurons firing be any more valid than just breaking things down to the brain interacting with the outside world. Neither one is a complete breakdown of the underlying functions anyway. Just how the brain is made up of neurons, neurons are built up of other underlying functioning components. As I've said before Free Will exists depending on your perspective. Part of the perspective is how you break things down, since that is how the brain usually makes sense of information, by breaking things down and comparing. If you don't break things down at all then we are a collective part of the universe, the universe doing what it wills through us, making the will of the universe exist, making free will exist. The perspective could potentially be taken even further out of the box, and the universe could be seen as one of countless "universes" within the universe of multiverses, possibly somehow interacting with each other bringing back Cause and Effect within this perspective.

I say: what is your name?

and the wave traveling through the compression of air particles will reach your ear.... be converted into electrical stimuli and follow the paths of neurones that make you understand and respond with the answer.

So if this "mashine" were to show the future, the result would hit your neurones and trigger the natural response to that.... which is exactly what that mashine has shown you.
Click to expand...


Unless you are aware of that happening and you do something to prevent that from ever happening, bringing back the perception of free will.


but this mashine is really out of question.... it would be part of the system it is trying to calculate (as it consists of atoms) and that makes calculating faster impossible.. since the calculation changes the mashine....

(besider the obvious fact of all the path and speed info of the universe not to be obtinable)
Click to expand...

Such a machine would not necasarily have to be made out of atoms. Atoms are just a certain form energy takes on, it could potentially be possible to make a machine out of putting certain energies in certain structures.

It could hypothetically be possible to transmit information using the properties of quantum physics. A quantum machine could potentially process information within transcended time and send results back to the moment that the perciever considers present.
 
CZ-74 said:
Let me explain:

Logic and the scientific perspective are tools, to build a construct of reality.

Don't get me wrong, it has many uses and can explain many phenomena.

But like all tools, they have limitations. I believe this is one of them.
Click to expand...

The only limitations I can see is the ability to communicate complex ideas, and the ability to comprehend complex ideas.


Give up trying to turn all you see into numbers.
Click to expand...
No. Numbers are good for making sense of abstract concepts. Although it is still best to take in all perspectives when analysing something.

The universe is NOT one huge supercomputer.
Click to expand...
Probably not in the traditional sense. It's a complex system that processes information and is aware of itself. That is my hypothesis. Would you like to give a reason why it's absolutely positvely NOT a "supercomputer?" Please elaborate when posting.
 
Intuition is indeed an important ability to have in the scientific process.
 
Attacking belief systems can be counterproductive, but constructive criticism is always appreciated. That being said I'm sure many people including myself would appreciate any criticism and thoughts that you have to offer. It is important that ideas are elaborated. Without elaboration things can be interprited in many ways, which causes a lack of communication/miscommunication.

If you can illustrate your point further.
 
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.

That being said, the rest of your arguments hold. All this really depends on is perspective for *us.* If we believe there is a God, then the original assertion is a bunch of bullshit, because a greater force exists, and vice versa. But this is still all *our* assumption/perception. We can't ever know until we know whether or not that greater force exists. So until we can prove or disprove "God" scientifically, definitively, and absolutely, we will never know the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top