science proves fate?

[Kromoh]

alright, please read the whole post before flaming me Every smart person knows that the universe obbeys laws. I'm not talking about scientifical laws, as those could possibly be wrong; I'm talking about a universal law. For instance, objects with mass tend to approach each other because there is gravity. The effect of gravity is not random, it always follows a specific criteria, depending on many variables. Which means that, if two exactly identical corpses were set completely isolated, they would behave the same way, having exactly the same outcome. Of course that such a hypothesis does only work in theory, since it is impossible to completely isolate a body or to make an identical copy of it (including sub-atomical structure). The universe is led by the action-reaction rule. Actually, it is a much more complex chain of reactions followed by reactions followed by reactions.. Let's take a theoretical example: Action #1 - Reaction #1 - Reaction #2 - Reaction #3 - Reaction #4 Analysing that hypothesis, no matter when or where Action #1 happened, it would succeed into Reaction #1, then Reaction #2, then Reaction #3, and finally Reaction #4. As a rule, the outcome of Action #1 would eventually be Reaction #4. Simply because the chain of reactions is determined by the laws of the universe, and would succeed the same way. So, by knowing Action #1 happened, you can predict that Reaction #4 will happen. No matter how or when or where, that would be the outcome of Action #1. All the universe is an infinitely complex chain of actions and reactions, following a much more complicate structure. If all the universe follows the same laws, the end of the universe could be already determined at the beggining of it, as long as we know the rules. Of course, that task would be incredibly complex, and impossible to work out, even with the best computer ever made. But still, it would be possible. Applying that to our everyday lives, we can assume that everything that happens is the outcome of reaction, either on a chemical or physical level. Even our thoughts, which are the combination of several chemical reactions in our brain, would be determined by the laws of the universe. Concluding, the universe is already fully made, we are just a bunch or organised chemicals that correspond to these laws.Since the laws are applicable to every corpse, we too are just the outcome of several reactions. One may ask "what is the reason of living then, if everything that will happen will happen? If we don't have free will, what does our existance change at all" That is of course true, but think about it: the very fact that one had such assumption is the outcome of such reactions. We have the impression that we have free wil because we, too, are made of matter and work through the action-reaction chain. The final thing one may consider is that the laws of the universe change, behaving differently according to time or to the place where the matter is. The theory doesn't lose it's veracity even in such conditions. Even if the laws of the universe vary, it would still be regular: it would depend on either the time or the place where a corpse is. Which means that another corpse, displayed in the same time or place of another one, would behave in the same manner. For that, the changes in the universe's laws could be tracked, and considered. To me, these assumptions kind or scientifically prove that there is no way to change the future: it has already been determined, from its very beggining. Feels free to discuss the possibilites

[Replicon]

I've come up with that theory once. Set up the initial conditions, and things will take their course, right? I have two observations though, one philosophical, one scientific: 1) The system is so complex that it is almost absolutely unpredictable. We can predict such things as 'weather' or 'where the asteroid will land', but those are all holistic views, because we couldn't possibly process the whole "sum of the parts". So, if what I'm about to "think" and "decide" are predetermined... well, they're not predetermined to ANY human being, and therefore, we can live on the assumption that we have full free will. And if you feel that that's just not the case, well hell, I guess that's how the initial conditions have led you to feel, but it makes no difference. 2) The theory of "setting the initial conditions and letting chaos theory take its course" is fundamentally flawed, because it does not support quantum superposition (uncertainty principle), which has been observed (pardon the pun hehe).

[Kromoh]

well and where does that "uncertainty" come from? It must come from somewhere, or else it wouldn't exist (just like movement exists because of time - if there was no time things wouldn't move). The indertainty probably follows an unknown rule as well. the idea behind it was mainly to prove that "Oh, if I pray, God will come and help me" is all placebo and finally, this was to prove that nothing can change what will happen, simply because nothing can break the laws of the universe.

[Replicon]

Oh, you don't need this whole thread to claim that it's placebo .

[Kromoh]

well, I like to take discussions to a new level

[Moonbeam]

Even if there is uncertainity introduced by quantum events, there still leaves no explanation for free will. I think it is an illusion, but we have to act as if we have it.

[Xaqaria]

Nope didn't read the whole post since you were wrong from the very beginning. There are no such thing as universal laws. Science doesn't deal with them. There is no way of telling whether or not different sets of laws exist in other parts of the universe. Also, you have a poor understanding of cause and effect on the quantum level. Effect can predate cause. There is no natural time-line for a series of events as you are describing. It is possible even that the birth of the universe itself happened because of some event that will occur at the end of the universe. Time is not some one way street that everything must follow allowing you to watch everything go down this street and predict where they will end. Some things are coming the other way on the street. Some things turn around. Some things take a side street and are lost to our knowledge.

[Xei]

Kromoh; yeah, that's the philosophy of determism. However, your fundamental postulates are wrong. On the classical level, yes, determinism applies. However, when looking at the very small, science suggests that actually, such definite laws and outcomes of events do not actually exist. It's one of the really weird things about quantum mechanics; an electron could whizz off to the right, or to the left; and it's not that we just don't know which way it's going to go, but the universe itself did not have a predetermined path; it is, basically, random. Many scientists seem to think that such randomness is ludicrous, however. Einstein always thought there was some kind of underlying mechanism. The counter argument is that we're just using the logic of the world that we see. The world that we do not see follows completely different laws (perhaps).

[Kromoh]

Well, again I stick to my ideas. And even if quantum schience suggest a possible randomness, what certifies there is not an "underlying mechanism" as you said? If there is not rule that determines whether if the electron moves to the right or to the left, then it wouldn't move at all. About time - I'm aware of such things as the bending of time. Still, if something changes time, in an identical situation, it would behave the same. And I do also actually think that the end of the universe is its beggining. But that is another topic. We still know very little about the number ∞. Just as a teaser, maybe ∞ = -∞. That is something to think about for some time And Xaqaria - as i said, I don't believe science is always right. I believe the universe always follows a principle or working, a flawless scheme that simply cannot be skipped. I bet you did only read the first paragraph and didn't see my example.

[Xei]

Well, again I stick to my ideas. And even if quantum schience suggest a possible randomness, what certifies there is not an "underlying mechanism" as you said? If there is not rule that determines whether if the electron moves to the right or to the left, then it wouldn't move at all. See, this is the major controversy of quantum physics. There are some, such as Einstein, you, and in fact most rational people at first, who find the idea of randomness in physics imperfect and untrue. But the fact is, the electron does move. It could go left, or it could go right. No matter how much information you have about the universe, you could not tell which way it is going to go; the 'universe', so to speak, does not 'know' which way it is going to go. It really is random like that. One suggestion is that we only find such logic absurd because we live on a macroscopic scale, where quantum physics doesn't actually work. We only ever experience the logic of classical mechanics, which is always pure and definite. I think you shouldn't take the attitude of 'sticking to your ideas' here; the physicists who actually radicalised their ideas and adapted with what experiments showed were ultimately able to produce a theory which is incredibly useful. It predicts the colour of a new substance, for example, completely accurately; and this serves as confirmation that the theory is largely correct. About time - I'm aware of such things as the bending of time. Still, if something changes time, in an identical situation, it would behave the same. And I do also actually think that the end of the universe is its beggining. But that is another topic. We still know very little about the number ∞. Just as a teaser, maybe ∞ = -∞. That is something to think about for some time I'm not sure if you can describe time itself as bending... time is always a one dimensional line, 'bending' has no meaning in one dimension. The fabric of spacetime does bend though (which is probably what you were getting at anyway), and yes, determinism still applies on a classical scale regardless of whether or not the objects have different timelines. About infinity; heh, God knows. There are different kinds of infinity actually. For example, there are an infinite number of rational numbers, and an infinite number of real numbers; but actually, the infinite number of rational numbers is smaller than the infinite number of real numbers. ._o

[Kromoh]

lol there's som thought-provoking stuff luv ya well I still do believe there is something that can determine whether the electron moves left or right. For example, how much mass there is to the left and to the right of it. For that reason, even the smallest change in the masses of either sides (which does happen) could change it. (of course this is just an idea, it could be something else). The only way to prove so would be to stop time in order to test two identical electrons at the same place. Still impossible I guess. My problem with quantum physics is that I think it is not possible to determine something in such a sub-atomic level if we are organised in atomic levels. It is just like trying to see your own eyes. it would require detachment from matter itself in order to study it. But bah, scientists are smarter than we suppose, so let's not argue about the accuracy of their research

[Neruo]

Theoretically, an impossibly complext computer might calculate everything that is going to happen. That is, if the universe is only as complex as much as we know certainly now. I mean, there is no telling how more complex the 11-sting theory would make the universe if it was true. Or no telling how maybe objectively random things like dark-matter are. However, being able to theoretically know everything that is going to happen, has nothing to do with 'fate' as most people use it. It isn't written in the stars, or in cards, or in anything for that matter. It even really doesn't matter weather we Can or can Not theoretically know what is going to happen, because I don't think we ever can. And if we could predict stuff, know the future, the 'fate' of the universe, we would act upon it, causing some sort of a paradox I guess.

[Xei]

Theoretically, an impossibly complext computer might calculate everything that is going to happen. That is, if the universe is only as complex as much as we know certainly now. See above thread to find out why this is not actually true in mainstream science.

[Neruo]

See above thread to find out why this is not actually true in mainstream science. Yeahhh I should have read all of the topic. However. I still don't see why there couldn't be some (theoretical) way of knowing what the random-electron-movement would do. The explination Could be in an overlapping dimension or something.. Still, I don't believe in free-will. The randomness in the electrons doesn't 'create' free-will. It is still cause-and-effect on all the levels that matter on the brain. Or maybe someone would make a slightly different choice in the EXACT same setting, because of electron-randomness. That still doesn't 'create' free will.

[Xei]

Hmm... well, our neurons are pretty tiny... And there are some notable scientists who promoted the idea of the quantum brain. I'm reading a book by Roger Penrose at the moment in which he does that. But I think you're right. If you had a complete map of our brain cells, the electrical activity would be completely predictable, I think. Once a neuron fires, there's no randomness about the fact that it's going to reach another neuron. Waves of polarisation don't just disappear due to quantum effects. So free will is probably a delusion, I think... Regarding conciousness though, perhaps quantum mechanics does play a role. I mean, with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for one thing; suddenly, the role of the concious observer becomes an intrinsic part of the workings of physics. I find that to be a very interesting link.

[Kromoh]

Actually I don't. Consciousness is just perception. Or awareness, if you like that word better. A person not conscious of what he/she is doing actually doesn't become aware of the reason he/she's doing it, what happens during it and the probable outcome. Maggot brain is pretty much unconscious. Awareness is like an overlying 6th sense (or 7th if you consider body equilibrium). It's more or less the ability to determine whether your arm is lying by your side or above your head, without using other senses. Awareness kind of rules the other senses, working all the stimuli together to create a one-and-best outcome. For that, consicousness is pretty much a treasure in evolution: a slightly more consicous being has much more chances of survival. Quantum brain is BS in my humble opinion. Brain cells are just like any other cell. Quantum brain theory is just what a guy made up because he didn't liek the idea of not having free will.

[Xaqaria]

Okay, so; the reason why there are no mechanisms to determine which way an electron will go is because it doesn't go anywhere. There is no random choice between right and left, it is already right and left at the same time. This applies to all things; not just electrons. Scientifically speaking, everything is everywhere until someone or something decides where they think it is. As crazy as it may sound, this is scientifically tested and verified theory. Look up Superpositions.

[really]

Well I'm going to start by disagreeing with the idea of 'random'. Random, I don't think, exists. I've thought about it. "God does not play dice." - sure, you know what Einstein means here, but think of it literally: Dice obey the laws of physics. They are not random at all. Even random number generators are not random, they are just so complex and finely programmed that there is always a different number (in some cases). So they are not random: they follow a formula. So how can people/scientists be saying, basically, "Oh I don't get it, it must be random." I don't know what else to say. Obviously there's something we don't know. I can't believe that physicists can be saying that "it must be random". The Particle physics just gets smaller and smaller, we just keep digging deeper. "Oh look, there's more to an electron than I thought!" (pardon the pun ) Now on a completely different slant: If consciousness is an illusion of composed/chemicals with electricity, then might you think that your computer has a consciousness? (That doesn't necessarily mean: it has control, but it has something experienced) Haha, how awesome. Be careful, Bill. This is a great topic.

[Kromoh]

Yeah, if you think about it, I believe we are capable of building a conscious machine someday but first we must find out what consciousness really is (everyone has a different opinion )

[Xei]

Well I'm going to start by disagreeing with the idea of 'random'. Random, I don't think, exists. I've thought about it. "God does not play dice." - sure, you know what Einstein means here, but think of it literally: Dice obey the laws of physics. They are not random at all. Even random number generators are not random, they are just so complex and finely programmed that there is always a different number (in some cases). So they are not random: they follow a formula. That isn't what Einstein was saying; the dice he refers to are completely random. Most scientists believed that events on the quantum scale were inherently unpredictable, but Einstein always maintained that this was absurd. You're right in that there could be an underlying mechanism hidden much deeper, and that's basically what Einstein was saying. But like I say, we are beings with logic determined by the world around us, and the world around us is macroscopic. Perhaps it is no wonder that we cannot stomach the idea of randomness, simply because it bears no relevance to the world which we observe.

[Dreams4free]

Yeah there is just no way that electrons just whiz around arbitrarily. You've got to be an idiot to believe that just because we don't understand know how to model it, its just random. Problem is that we are just so very young in understanding the universe. In just a couple hundred years we have gone from a flat world, to landing on the moon. Its going to be a while before we fully understand the mechanisms that govern an electron, but its bound to happen. You can't expect with our extremely limited understanding of the atom and all its sub atomic constituents that we have shit figured out already. I will bet my life that we will figure out whatever mysterious governing law(s) that currently divide mechanics on the quantum and macro-level. But I will also surmise that when that happens, there will be another pseudo-random law that will we struggle with. I just like coexisting with the reality that we are deterministic beings. Here is the thing though (if anything, I will tl:dr) tl:dr Yes we are deterministic, I'm sure that eventually every action we make will be able to be predicted by 99.9% accuracy, and naturally with that in theory we are bound by the governing laws of our logical brains and how they justify how to respond to external stimuli. For the most part you can already figure out how a person will act by just looking at his core values. But you know what, it would suck dick if we had free will. Free will in the literal sense, that we could actually act external from all stimuli, just arbitrarily and without a cause. My god how the hell would we survive lol.

[Taosaur]

You've got to be an idiot to believe that just because we don't understand know how to model it, its just random. You've got to be within one standard deviation of average intelligence to only be able to conceive of the options of strict determinism and "just random."

[Kromoh]

It even really doesn't matter weather we Can or can Not theoretically know what is going to happen, because I don't think we ever can. And if we could predict stuff, know the future, the 'fate' of the universe, we would act upon it, causing some sort of a paradox I guess. That paradox doesn't prove true if determinism is true. Our "action upon it" would be already determined since the beggining of time. Our predicting the future would be already determined. Would it make things become more the way we wanted it to? Yes. (Just like in some mathematical operations: two variables, one result). The machine would consider our action upon the future when predicting the future. Would the prediction become a paradox? No.

[TheUncanny]

I've tried to explain that paradox before, but it was always so hard for me to articulate why changing the future wouldn't "screw up" determinism's plan. The explanation would always end up being like 5 paragraphs of confusing babble

[Xei]

It's very easy really. It was always determined that you were going to build a machine which extrapolated the future of the universe and act upon what you saw. No paradox.