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

a Scientific theory about predetermination....

Is calling each other names really going to answer the original question? Lets not turn this thread into a post war, it has lots of good information in it.
 
Cpt. Pink Pants said:
^you're right... I'm finding David a little irritating... but that's no excuse.

Why thank you, I'm glad I accomplished my mission of ruining your day.
8)

I never claimed reality was governed by perspective, did I? I said the predictability of the events are governed by perspective. I don't think you actually understand what perspective really is...

per·spec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-spktv)
n.

A view or vista.
A mental view or outlook: “It is useful occasionally to look at the past to gain a perspective on the present” (Fabian Linden).
The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision.

The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole: a perspective of history; a need to view the problem in the proper perspective.
Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view
: the perspective of the displaced homemaker.
The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance: tried to keep my perspective throughout the crisis.
The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface.

adj.
Of, relating to, seen, or represented in perspective.



I never said reality is determined by perspective, but observations, and properties are. No matter what, the perspective that those points of data were taken at is what determines whether, or not you can "predetermine the outcome of any known situation.

You're also trying to argue the seperation of our senses, and reality. However, what you can physically observe has a scientific explanation, and can always be rationalized into a reasonable amount of data. This is our reality for us. Our perspective is our interpetation of our "known" reality. I'll drag this part of the discusion on if it needs be, but I'd prefer to drop it, on grounds that it gets us no where. What you see, is what you get...

I'm still trying understand why you brought reality into a totally hypothetical discussion though. Reality has no bearing on this particular thread.

It's like comparing a person with insider trading knowledge, and a trader with-out. Sure the trader with-out might get lucky every once in a while. The person with the knowledge will always be lucky though.
8)
 
David... you never said this???

"Perspective is the reality, of that particular moment, and that particular situation that you are put into. "

What're you going to tell me now... That I can't prove it was you who said it?

Just stop man... don't worry, everyone loses an argument now and then... even physics students (and engineers too, just not in this case... ;)). And save the eye rolling for when your right... it'll play better then than it does now.
 
Last edited:
Umm, ok. Read it, and tell me what it actually means. The perspective of that moment, and that position "is" the reality of that situation. It's your reality, but you decided to seperate it, and make the entire point void.

Read through my posts again, a pattern 'will' develop. Reality isn't "governed" by perspective, no. Your perspective is the reality of the situation though, yes. What you see is what you get. The reality of the situation doesn't change if you passively observe it. It changes on it's own accord.

I really am begining to think you don't understand perspective...8)
 
ok... maybe you don't know when to give... I do know when to stop the beating though...

you're entitled to your opinion, same as everyone...
 
8) Since when was this about opinions? English only goes one way. The definitions I've provided are how we determine the classifications of the two. Perspective is an interpretation of reality. At that specific moment it is your reality, but it doesn't alter your reality.

How should I give? You still don't seem to understand what I'm trying to explain. If you walk away not understanding, then the whole point of me even explaining it is void. I was hoping to help you understand the philosophical process of perspective in the standards of scientific principles.
 
It became about opinions when you started contradicting yourself... If you can't make your point without changing the parameters of the conversation, then your point lacks linearity (logical proof). I do understand what you're saying - and I disagree with you. don't sweat it.

;)
 
Last edited:
Ok, on a small enough scale (read: quantum) particles do not obey deterministic laws (read: ones that can be calculated) but they obey laws of probability. So if you believe in quantum theory then this pre-determined future theory does not hold.
 
I believe what was being argued by others is that quantum physics cannot be predetermined because of the limits placed on human observation. There may still be completely determinable/predetermined order to what is going on, but as far as we can tell and as far as our reality goes there is no predetermined order, just probabilities.
 
It wouldn't be scientific to hold this as truth though. Although some may "KNOW" that is how it is, if your truly trying to be scientific you will not hold that as truth.
 
Actually, can't we "predetermine" an action? We can do this with electricity. We can either see the particles where they are or predict where they will be, but neither at once.

If you ARE being scientific then you will agree that things are going to happen no matter what (predetermination). People act with no control really. They act apropos to their environment and their previous rules set up in their minds. They can't choose to do anything else but act.

OmnicronDEVIL said that science leads us nowhere. Actually now science is dealing with why humans act the way they are (read up the hedonistic imperitive). Basically, obviously common sense shows us, but now we're understanding the pleasure & want system. The OFC (don't remember exactly the name) makes us stop enjoying something after awhile. People with "addictive personalities" actually have a deficiency here, and their OFC doesn't regulate their pleasure to make them continue ahead.

Oh. And for people talking about REALLY REALLY small things (the quantum physics), you have to apply DIFFERENT laws. Astrologists are now studying far out into space why gravity doesn't obey the "law" within a very small confined area. Whire rabbit is correct in that they don't apply to the laws we've already determined, but they do apply to other laws. There's this cute theory about what happened before the "big bang." Basically, in this tiny tiny area these "colors" acted. It's really complicated and holds no relevance, except that they did obey laws, and thus the universe was created.

So "scientists" are actually onto something. You just can't apply one golden rule to everything as most people are trying to do here.

Oh, and probability is just a way the human mind can break up the prediction of the future. We, ourselves, aren't "smart" enough to understand how everything will act, and thus we create probabilities.

Like throwing a dart at a board sectioned into 4 regions. 25% chance of hitting a region, but 100% of hitting the board. When we throw the dart, we're going to throw it at a certain point. That point is determined because of everything we've learned (how high to throw, where to throw to hit the middle, etc.). So isn't that predetermined? The second we let go of that dart it's going to hit that point no matter what. We just can't predict it ourselves because we only know where it is NOW and where it will be, but not both.
 
That is the popular view of modern scientific discovery you do not have to neccasarily believe in those conclusions to be scientific though.
 
sexyanon said:
Oh. And for people talking about REALLY REALLY small things (the quantum physics), you have to apply DIFFERENT laws. Astrologists are now studying far out into space why gravity doesn't obey the "law" within a very small confined area. Whire rabbit is correct in that they don't apply to the laws we've already determined, but they do apply to other laws. There's this cute theory about what happened before the "big bang." Basically, in this tiny tiny area these "colors" acted. It's really complicated and holds no relevance, except that they did obey laws, and thus the universe was created.

So "scientists" are actually onto something. You just can't apply one golden rule to everything as most people are trying to do here.

Quantum is different than Astro, but I won't hold that against you. So far though there is no real set law for gravity. We don't really understand what it even is. Is it a particle, a wave? We can't tell we haven't discovered significant evidence of either yet. We have to work on it in order to understand it. You can't blame the science, we just don't have the technology, yet, to detect such things. Our technology just needs to catch up with our theory.

This theory of "colors" what is this? I've never heard about it.

Yes, we can apply one "golden rule" to everything. We just need to figure out what that rule is. It's not like it's written down in the "How to be a Human", guidebook or anything.


Cpt. Pink Pants - The universe isn't linear. Why restrict it to linear logic, and linear thinking? Maybe that was lost somewhere in the mess, but that was a point I made in another thread. I just can't remember which one. Here it is. http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140198&r=8

I t works into a theory I'm working on.:p
 
Rabbit - sorry for misunderstanding. Didn't mean to say that you felt it was right. I was just saying that you're correct in believing that "if you believe in quantum theory then this pre-determined future theory does not hold."

David - What do you mean we don't understand gravity? It's in part the concept that everything has a pull to everything else. Like the computer has a pull to you, while the earth's core's pull to you is so great that you're stuck on your butt.

The theory of "colors" is so out there that I don't even want to get into it. Maybe if I dig up that magazine I'll PM you about it. Incredibly interesting.

Anyways, I know that quantum is different that astro, but astrologists are using physics to determine planets and universes, etc.

I'd say that the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. Not to sound like an annoying child, but everything we've encountered has needed seperate rules. Maybe we're just overlooking the most simple rule of all that could be applied - who knows? Such a philisophical debate.

Oh, and isn't the universe forever expanding? And it's expanding towards the other universes out there, as the rule of attraction applies here as well (supposedly). The universe is at least 2 dimensional, not merely linear.
 
Yes, we can see gravity working around us, and understand that it works, but we simply don't know how exactly it works. Not for lack of trying, it's mainly because most theories out there require graviton particles, but where are they?

The scale of Quantum makes it pretty much useless for astro. In astro we usually use GR, and basic plot mapping. Computers help with this obviously.

There is a golden rule otherwise the universe would not have any constants, and we can see that there are constants everywhere. Your electricity works everytime if the circuit is set up properly, right?

We're not sure about the universe expanding, yet. It's reasonable to assume so with all the evidence that says it is, but we just can't say for certain, yet. Wait two more years we'll have new telescopes that can help with such matters. Other universes. I never heard that one, it's possible, but not for certain.

As far as dimensions go. I care not to start an argument, but I believe we shouldn't be using that term. It was used to describe objects in XYZ based geometry, but that's still a linear form of geometry. Something new is needed, but there isn't any serious interest in discovering what that could be. Most people are too concerned with their bankroll, and how they look. Sad, but science is falling out of favor again. Nothing new, we'll just sit around waiting for another wacko to seal himself in his attic to figure it out.
 
Quote: If you ARE being scientific then you will agree that things are going to happen no matter what (predetermination). People act with no control really. They act apropos to their environment and their previous rules set up in their minds. They can't choose to do anything else but act.

Which basically is the implication of my model.... so I agree...

Quote: Oh. And for people talking about REALLY REALLY small things (the quantum physics), you have to apply DIFFERENT laws. Astrologists are now studying far out into space why gravity doesn't obey the "law" within a very small confined area. Whire rabbit is correct in that they don't apply to the laws we've already determined, but they do apply to other laws.

exactly.. as long as matter does apply to laws.. whatever they may be... its future actions are set.

Quote: Oh, and probability is just a way the human mind can break up the prediction of the future. We, ourselves, aren't "smart" enough to understand how everything will act, and thus we create probabilities.

True.. jsut another way of saying: our inability to understand or observe exact processes lead us to apply a likelyhood or probability to what is in reality a totally exact process.....

Quote: So far though there is no real set law for gravity. We don't really understand what it even is. Is it a particle, a wave? We can't tell we haven't discovered significant evidence of either yet.

BUT it does behave in a predictable way.... hence.. there is a law.... we just dont know it..
 
So what I am trying to figure out is if this thread is trying to be scientific or philosophical. So far it just seems like philosophy because scientific thinking requires evidence and support instead of just brainstorming. Yet it seems as if people are trying to portray this as scientific theory which is impossible because it lacks any facts, its simply ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy philosophy, but don't try to convey random ideas as a scientific theory like the name of the post suggests.
 
Top