a Scientific theory about predetermination....

[yougene]

So.....basically, David agrees with me and CZ-74 partially agrees with me.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

you guys are batting the bunny around...

think about it like this... what if perspective is non-existent and inescapable at the same time...

Imagine you're at a chinese restraunt, and you're going to order some physicalities... There are two columns... one column lists different kinds of "observations" and the other lists "properties"...

On which list would "random behavior" fall?

 

[David]

Yougene - I agree it's a matter of perspective.

Well according to probability, it would non-definative mixture of both. It's the whole, "If a tree falls in the forest...", thing. You simply can not have observations with-out any sort of perspective. That would violate the basic rules of exsistence, and relativity. If you have observations they must be from a specific point in space, and taken at a specific time. All, of which would be in relation to the ping-pong balls.

Also, properties can be slagged into the same corner as observations, also. In order to know the properties you must observe them from a vantage point, or an origin of reference.

I could go into it deeper, if the topic continues. Currently though I see no other reason to chase this "white rabbit".



~Joe~

 

[dimitri9]

If you start to question everything the discussion has come into a dead end.... This point has come here.....

This thread lacks facts and reasoning.... and is drowning in "all-questioning-Philosophy" .... well guys.. have fun... I cant see any more logic behind any of this...

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

the whole difference lies in observations vs. properties and realizing that humans can only detect one of them...

 

[OmnicronDEVIL]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This whole discussion gives me the vague impression that Sir Douglas Adams was right.

An ancient race built a machine to find out the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thousands of years later, the machine spits out the answer: 42. The machine then told the ancient race that to understand the answer they must first figure out the question. Thus another machine was built: Earth. Only through a controlled experiment of life could they figure it out.

Days before Earth was to "question our answers" it was bulldozed to make room for an intergalactic highway.

In the end, God ceased to exist when we decided we no longer needed/believed in Him, Mice are the smartest creatures in the universe, and the dolphins (being second smartest) left days before Earth was destroyed saying simply, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Anyone see where Im going with this? Science will never answer all our questions or question all of our answers. LIVE and come up with your own truth!

 

[yougene]

If you start to question everything the discussion has come into a dead end.... This point has come here.....

This thread lacks facts and reasoning.... and is drowning in "all-questioning-Philosophy" .... well guys.. have fun... I cant see any more logic behind any of this...

The whole point of science is to ask questions so maybe one day the answers can be looked for. Sometimes the question is more important than the answer. If you cannot see this then I'm not surprised that you cannot see any fact, reasoning, and logic within this thread.

the whole difference lies in observations vs. properties and realizing that humans can only detect one of them...

And have blind faith in the other one, not very scientific if you think about it.

 

[yougene]

Re: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This whole discussion gives me the vague impression that Sir Douglas Adams was right.

An ancient race built a machine to find out the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thousands of years later, the machine spits out the answer: 42. The machine then told the ancient race that to understand the answer they must first figure out the question. Thus another machine was built: Earth. Only through a controlled experiment of life could they figure it out.

Days before Earth was to "question our answers" it was bulldozed to make room for an intergalactic highway.

In the end, God ceased to exist when we decided we no longer needed/believed in Him, Mice are the smartest creatures in the universe, and the dolphins (being second smartest) left days before Earth was destroyed saying simply, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Anyone see where Im going with this? Science will never answer all our questions or question all of our answers. LIVE and come up with your own truth!

I think I see what you were getting at but I don't neccasarily agree with the last couple sentences you wrote. We don't really know where science will ultimately lead us, just as we don't know where coming up with our own truths will lead us.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

you missed the point...

it's not about having blind faith in anything... It's not about faith...

It's about recognising the difference between what is and the way we see it... perspective vs reality... one has to be careful not to attribute characteristics of one to the other.

 

[David]

The biggest problem I see is that people are often unwilling to believe what they see with their own eyes. Perspective is the reality, of that particular moment, and that particular situation that you are put into. If you see something, there's a reasonable explanation for it. Nature is right in front of you, and you must realize that. Your thought processes themselves work on the same principles as everything else.

If you continue to break it down into the differences of the perspective vs. reality argument, your entire thought process needs to be thrown out. Simply because breaking it down that far means you are unable to conceive, and/or understand what you are seeing. Therefore, there is something there you are not noticing, or can't conceptualize. It is not the fault of difference between the perspective in relation to the reality. It's the fault of the viewer for either being unable themselves to see it, or just simply overlooking it.

This is the entire basis of Scientific experimentation, and why we as a scientific community never except something unless it's been shown to be a consistently re-occurring event in multiple attempts at the experiment. Merely by percentage, does something become an excepted matter of fact.

So, in the end it's all still a matter of perspective.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

So, in the end, you're still missing the point...

 

[OmnicronDEVIL]

Hey, Im all for science. Dont get me wrong. But in the end I cant understand some of these so-called "scientists." People have questions. Scientists have (or try to come up with) answers. Thats all well and good but sometimes when youve been told fact and you still argue fiction you need to just stop, realize that science isnt going to answer everything, and just go on with your life.

I mean it gets to a point when you analyze something so much that it becomes distorted and ridiculous. Some of the most interesting things I ever learned had nothing to do with chemical or physical science at all. Perhaps that makes me a philosopher. Perhaps I dont give a shit.

Getting back to the thread topic of predetermination I have to ask all of you a simple question: Does it really matter if your every thought, action, bowel movement was predetermined? You cant prove that it was going to happen before it happened and you were gonna do it anyway. Whats the point in argueing a mute point? Move on to a subject that may actually have an impact on your life.

 

[yougene]

you missed the point...

it's not about having blind faith in anything... It's not about faith...

It's about recognising the difference between what is and the way we see it... perspective vs reality... one has to be careful not to attribute characteristics of one to the other.

I think you are missing the point. I understand as does probably David that you assume there is a concrete reality that we observe and that we cannot fully observe it so you think it is important to make seperation between the two.

What is trying to be said and you are missing is that there is no concrete evidence for a concrete reality. As far as we can tell it could just be an illusion. Yes the world around us seems to imply that there is a concrete reality that we can't neccasarily gain full perspective of, but there are also reasons to believe that there isn't a concrete reality. Currently it all comes down to perspective because neither perspective can be proven more true than the other, and that goes for any situation.

If you think I am wrong, try proving to me that you even exist, try proving to yourself that you exist, try proving the world even exists, when it comes down to it we have full proof for nothing yet.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

It's not clear to me why, between assuming that reality exists and does not exist, neither of which can be proven, you would choose to accept that reality does not exist.

Look at these two models... one in which everything functions differently, depending on how it is percieved - vs. another model in which everything functions as it does, and appears differently depending on how it is percieved.

Only one of these allows for common mechanics.... Occam would agree with me.

Additionally, it seems strange to me that anyone who is seeking any information about anything would approach the issue from such a disabling perspective.

I do understand what you and David are saying.... I disagree.

And your argument of "try proving to me that you even exist" is weak in that is merely points out the incapacity of perspective without proposing why, which is what we are talking about.

Can you prove that reality does not exist? hmmm... it's another perspective issue... who would have guessed...

 

[yougene]

It's not clear to me why, between assuming that reality exists and does not exist, neither of which can be proven, you would choose to accept that reality does not exist.

I do not choose either. I exercise thought on both.

Look at these two models... one in which everything functions differently, depending on how it is percieved - vs. another model in which everything functions as it does, and appears differently depending on how it is percieved.

Only one of these allows for common mechanics.... Occam would agree with me.

One of these models could potentially be encompassed within the other model.

I think there are ways to allow common mechanics within both models.

Additionally, it seems strange to me that anyone who is seeking any information about anything would approach the issue from such a disabling perspective.

Sometimes you gotta look at things outside of the box.

I do understand what you and David are saying.... I disagree.

Then how can you say there is no faith involved in believing in what you believe in. There are certain things that seem to show you the way the world is, in your case predetermined. There is also lacking evidence that what you are experiencing is even valid and real. To go along with believing that there is a concrete reality of truth would need faith, since there is no way you can prove it, you can only believe in it.

And your argument of "try proving to me that you even exist" is weak in that is merely points out the incapacity of perspective without proposing why, which is what we are talking about.

Can you prove that reality does not exist? hmmm... it's another perspective issue... who would have guessed...

Maybe to you it points out the incapacity of perspective, to some it may point out more.

I cannot prove that reality does not exist, nor do I neccasarily believe that. My point was we are on equal ground and there really is no reason to believe your way of looking at things is more valid than my way of looking at things.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

"Then how can you say there is no faith involved in believing in what you believe in. There are certain things that seem to show you the way the world is, in your case predetermined. There is also lacking evidence that what you are experiencing is even valid and real. To go along with believing that there is a concrete reality of truth would need faith, since there is no way you can prove it, you can only believe in it."

The only thing I "believe" in, if you must use these terms, is that we can quantify and qualify the processes by which we derive our perspective. We can disect the human eye and see how it recieves light and what it does with it. Part of science if looking at things in ways that permit further investigation... what you're discussing here is not really science so much as philosophy...

"but there are also reasons to believe that there isn't a concrete reality. "

There are none except that we cannot see around our perspective... This whole idea is summed up in your "prove that reality exists" arguement.

"One of these models could potentially be encompassed within the other model. I think there are ways to allow common mechanics within both models."

You can group the perspective theory as a subset the reality theory, but not the other way around. The primacy of common mechanics prevents it.

You may think that common mechanics exist in the perspective model, but then all you're stating here is that QM is a valid field of study. If you're sitting on the answer to this question, you should probably go ahead and publish it.

 

[yougene]

Yeah it does go along with philosophy. There are points where philosophy meets science.

As stated earlier we don't really fully understand the mechanics everything so to say that it can work one way but not the other is just an assumption.

What about the theory of relativity, where everything is relative to perspective?

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

I would have to cite that as a limitation of perspective... QM also...

To me it seems implicitly stated. It's not the most simple solution...

I just can't entertain the negative probabilties underlying the concept explaining why the mechanics governing the entire universe would be contructed around a concept that happens to stand between by the only species in known existence to investigate these questions and the answers that species seeks.

I'm not saying these ideas are poorly founded - in fact, the opposite. I'm just saying that they delineate (and describe properties of) our perspective, not reality.

This idea grew out of an idea I had a while ago while listening to my stereo... Given that I could detect sound with more than my ears, I got to wondering about how sound would be percieved by a species that had no sense of hearing - with two specifications- a. sound was not a naturally occurring phenomena in their common surroundings, and b. they had recently become sufficiently technologically advanced to encounter it elsewhere.

 

[David]

You have diluted your own argument, into nothingness. In essence, what you just said confirmed what I said already. It's a matter of perspective.

If a species evolved with-out hearing any sound, and learned how to detect it. The sound was always there, but their perspective wasn't able to detect it. Even if their enviroment had no sound, and they went somewhere else where there was. The sound was there before they got there, but they had to develop a way to detect it, because it wasn't a requirement of their previous enviroment. Therefore, wasn't necessary for an accurate perspective to move, and feed.

It's all still a matter of perspective. All modern physics are based upon this very basic outlining principle.

Besides, you can see sound, and feel it other than hear it, but we won't cont that into that discussion.


Please don't drag this into a philosophy vs. science argument. Any first year physics student learns, that all of science was started by a bunch of philosophers. They should also be aware, that critical thinking used for theoretical physics is the evolutionary cousin of philosophy.

 

[Cpt. Pink Pants]

"Even if their enviroment had no sound, and they went somewhere else where there was. The sound was there before they got there, but they had to develop a way to detect it, because it wasn't a requirement of their previous enviroment. "

wow... you can prove my argument while saying I have no argument all in the same breath...

If the sound was there first, then reality is not governed by perspective.

<removed the derogatory remark...>