Thread: science proves fate?

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.

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 )

Nice topic, Kromoh. I'm a great believer of metaphysical determinism. I would echo Moonbeam's post; even with uncertainties, free will still does not exist.

The best way to sum up the topic is that, if free will does or does not exist, either way it's best to act as if it does.

I prefer to take it as non existant. Then I just think to myself "The ability ot be a great man or a moron is only inside me. Has everything I've experienced gotten me smart enough to choose to right path?"

It basically excludes the idea of failure. And that is great, 'cuz I'm a chicken when it comes to making choices

Wouldn't you think that scientists have already proved fate from science?

I mean, this concept isn't really that hard to figure out. Why hasn't anyone considered this, out in the world?

(maybe I just have never heard them say it...)

Originally Posted by really

I mean, this concept isn't really that hard to figure out. Why hasn't anyone considered this, out in the world?

The concepts brought up here are a large part of determinists' arguments against free will, and although many people have thought up the idea by themselves, they were by no means the first to do so.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Very true, I agree with both of you, Pensive Patrick; Xei.

I hope this doesn't look off topic, but what do you think would happen in a hypothetical situation, where many of the best scientists, philosophers, chemists, socialists, skeptics, psychics and biologists (to name the least, even including religious leaders..) were seated in the one room together, to figure something out? It could be chaos, but it might be interesting.


Does anyone know if physicists have found any patterns or relations between many of the 'constants', that many have proposed and proved? I wonder what could happen there, perhaps there could be a constant for the constants!

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

I say it's the other way round.

We are macroscopic beings, and have apparent free will. It doesn't prove right when we examine it further, though.

And even if it was random: it still wouldn't prove free will.

Yep, I do agree that traditional views of free will may well be as flawed as views of say, the Cartesian Theater.

I was just talking about randomness itself, not implications upon free will, which I agree are dubious.

The other day, I found out that the so called ''randomness" can be explained when considering more dimensions, like about 11.

Has anyone heard of the string theory?