Thread: science proves fate?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers to our knowledge, I don't think it defines the probabilistic nature of matter.

It's a result of the probabilistic nature of matter. It's not about knowledge or measuring, the effect occurs in interactions which aren't being measured. The common interpretation is that it just doesn't make sense to specify momentum and position to a greater precision than the inequality allows, because the particles just don't 'have' that accuracy. It's just how reality works.

Molecules up to 70 atoms have been observed to have probabilistic wave nature. Do you think the influence of molecules of that size couldn't effect our everyday experience of the universe, our brain chemistry and behavior for example?

I'm totally on the fence about that. You were talking about GR, though, I don't see the relevance of this.

Originally Posted by Spyguy

If the smallest of particles move in a way that is indeed random, then I stand corrected. It is quite likely that there is a logic behind it that we are not seeing (yet) though. But truth to be told, I am not far enough in my education to know much about these particles, so I could obviously be wrong. I suppose this is a nice example of my own statement that we can't always tell because we do not know everything.

The evidence seems to suggest that there is no 'reality' behind it. It is possible to prove for instance that for some qualities of particles (which can take various values), the qualities literally do not exist until they are observed, at which point they attain a value. And on the face of it, the double slit experiment really seems impossible to explain without referring to a wave of probability, because it even works when you fire single particles through; they still somehow scatter with an interference pattern. I think there are some abstruse theoretical ways of still having 'hidden variables', but you have to chuck out a bunch of even more fundamental, intuitive stuff for it to work (like locality). I'm not a physicist though. PhilosopherStoned will be able to explain more about this.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm totally on the fence about that. You were talking about GR, though, I don't see the relevance of this.

Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules - physicsworld.com

I guess I should have added classical EM theory and the nuclear forces too: the point was to express the predictable description of nature we thought existed before quantum observation virtually antiquated determinism. The question is how far does this reach our natural macroscopic experience?

Originally Posted by Xei

The evidence seems to suggest that there is no 'reality' behind it. It is possible to prove for instance that for some qualities of particles (which can take various values), the qualities literally do not exist until they are observed, at which point they attain a value. And on the face of it, the double slit experiment really seems impossible to explain without referring to a wave of probability, because it even works when you fire single particles through; they still somehow scatter with an interference pattern. I think there are some abstruse theoretical ways of still having 'hidden variables', but you have to chuck out a bunch of even more fundamental, intuitive stuff for it to work (like locality). I'm not a physicist though. PhilosopherStoned will be able to explain more about this.

Hm yeah, though entanglement seems to make necessary locality bit of a shaky concept too.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules - physicsworld.com

I guess I should have added classical EM theory and the nuclear forces too: the point was to express the predictable description of nature we thought existed before quantum observation virtually antiquated determinism. The question is how far does this reach our natural macroscopic experience?

Well, you can simply tell by observation; not very far for emergent things, like the motions of solid objects, which act in a deterministic fashion.

Not so clear for chaotic systems.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I guess I should have added classical EM theory and the nuclear forces too: the point was to express the predictable description of nature we thought existed before quantum observation virtually antiquated determinism. The question is how far does this reach our natural macroscopic experience?

Wait... determinism has been disproved?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

We are experiencing one possible structure, not the structure.

Why not jump off a skyscraper now? What's stopping you?

Originally Posted by tempusername

Why not jump off a skyscraper now? What's stopping you?

Probably for the same reason we do not: we don't want to die. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see the relevance between what you said and the quote of what he said?

Originally Posted by Spyguy

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see the relevance between what you said and the quote of what he said?

Sorry about that. I didn't have time to write out the full response.

we don't want to die.

Exactly.

In the same way, George W was not assassinated. Our mortality is a very real thing. There is no other space, no other Earth we're dealing with when we say he's not assassinated. Sure the possibility existed, sure he had potential to be assassinated during his presidency but he was not.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Besides, infinite possibility means he was [assassinated], just not in this particular experiment.

We are experiencing one possible structure, not the structure.

The phrases you're using are worrisome
It is healthy and advantageous to extend our musings into uncharted territories the mind hesitates to fathom, into contradictions and suspicions in pursuit of truth. But... it's easy to lose sight of your pursuit for truth when you get caught up in the human phenomenon of believing.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I believe what serves me, it's that simple.

You're right that it is simple but my point is that is actually a redundant statement. For who else does a belief serve beside the believer? The problem is how easily we can become lost in our own world when we rely so heavily on believing. For example:

I simply think that to buy into the belief that he was assassinated does not serve me because it's not congruent with what my perception has led me to.

Should you ever have to "buy into beliefs" if you're capable of knowing the truth?

If the big bang is real and if the universe has one outcome (im assuming if one action has one definite reaction then all other actions do too) then everything in the middle wouldnt matter because regardless of what happpens there the end is still the same because it follows one law. I guess it'd be about if YOU thought it. If you are thinking this right now an action has cause you too and your thoughts were always meant to be that. Unless your thoughts aren't important (or even relevant) because this theory is just an unimportant middle thought on your way to the final reaction. If this theory's existance is insignificant because it's only a middle thought (because of another reaction that unintentionally would make this thought a middle action, Just like every end thought would over lap other end reactions) then it's irrelevant if it's true or not but it would only become untrue if your theory is correct so you've created a paradox theory. I find this interesting but I believe that if this universal law exists then so do others just as powerful and if one law is Action #1 will always lead to Reaction #4 then another would be Action #1 will change Reaction#4 then the two laws clash with eacother and something like us never existing ends up being the go to end thought.