Thread: Randomness

Ofcourse....

But some problems. you can make an equation concerning the future. I think u have some knowledge on causal, memory etc..

A causal system depends on future inputs for the present outputs

eg: Y = (x-1)(x-5)x

A memory system depends on past.

eg: Y = (x+1)(x+4)

Now the problem is that for some equations to be solved, we need constants from future. For that we need some other constants from future aswell as past. This will continue in an infinite cycle.

Dont be confused.

What the present physics can offer is very limited. We dont have any clear defenition for infinity. The latest M theory deals with these kinds facts.

In M theory there is not a single universe. Multiple universes are embedded within each other.

If you want to know more on m theory i can help.

This could fall into the type of thought concerning predeterminism, except we're viewing it from the present moment. To consider all the environmental factors as we go along an example scenario such as the pen falling down, we could predict what would happen, but only if we gathered all the factors, and to assimilate all those into an exact algorithm is intensely difficult, a lot of it will be relative to one's mind. We never know if we'll leave out something.

Yes...it is depressing. Hold on, I'm getting my Zoloft.

Thanks, Now my brain hurts.
Curious how free will would effect this concept.Predetermining the actions of man
would be chaotic at best.
The man who exits his house in the morning in an excellent mood may return in the evening to scream at his family after an unexpected traumatic experience during his
normally bland day.
How ,or rather , could any formula take into account the randomness of actual life ?
R.C.

I used to think the same way, and yes, predeterminism - be it theortical or theological - is a bleak concept. But don't worry, all is not set in stone. Particles have an interesting habbit of changing their beavior when observed. There is indeed a sub-atomic random factor to all intermollecular cavortings. This gets into quantum mechanics, M-Theory, and "spooky action", of course. You can delve into google or wikipedia armed with those terms and hope to come out with some semblance of sanity (which won't happen; anyone who says they understand quantum anything is trying to sell you something), or you could just stick with the ancient adage: Nothing is certain save death and taxes.

Have fun.

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
I used to think the same way, and yes, predeterminism - be it theortical or theological - is a bleak concept. But don't worry, all is not set in stone. Particles have an interesting habbit of changing their beavior when observed. There is indeed a sub-atomic random factor to all intermollecular cavortings. This gets into quantum mechanics, M-Theory, and \"spooky action\", of course. You can delve into google or wikipedia armed with those terms and hope to come out with some semblance of sanity (which won't happen; anyone who says they understand quantum anything is trying to sell you something), or you could just stick with the ancient adage: Nothing is certain save death and taxes.

Have fun. *

The reason they change when observed is because you have to strike them with a photon or an electron in order to observe them and that changes their course. It isn't something mystical.

The reason they change when observed is because you have to strike them with a photon or an electron in order to observe them and that changes their course. It isn't something mystical.[/b]

.... Now this is a real boost for my intellect. Why dont I think like this earlier ? Thanks ... very very thanks...

If you could put every particle and wave (or string ) into a comp that could... oh pants stay with me, i'm typing as i think now.
The computer itself would be part of the universe your trying to predict and as it is made up of 'stuff' and interacts it would need to calculate its own calculations ahead of time it would need enough power to run a simulation of itself, on top of the whole universe...cr*p.



Heres a previous disscussion on the same sorta thing: http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....t=17810&start=0

If everything is going to happen a certain way it isnt depressing because for it to happen any other way we would have to be different people. and if some particle interactions were truly 'random' in there outcomes then some of you choices would be truly random and i find that a littl unsettling. That i have less control over my decisions...

The difference between a falling pen and the universe's future is that you can group the pen's atoms together and simplify what will happen, because they'll all fall regardless of position in relation to the pen's center (for example). So the complexity of the pen is irrelevant, only that all the atoms are going to move towards the desk. The universe has a whole lot more factors that will result in differing effects based on a far less easy to simplify environment. Those events/effects will at some point affect each other, and then do so again and again, making it quite a task to predict what will occur from all those interactions.
Just a single human brain filled with neurons can cause a huge change in history that would be near impossible to have predicted.

Anyway, I guess that last paragraph of mine has no relevance to predeterminism itself.
If you could predict every event and outcome based on a law, including neurons and each atom in existence... well... I suppose that things are already destined.
However if you take into account how many questions we still have on quantum physics and subatomic particles, there may be a whole lot to it that we still need to learn.

Originally posted by KING
If you could put every particle and wave (or string ) into a comp that could... oh pants stay with me, i'm typing as i think now.
The computer itself would be part of the universe your trying to predict and as it is made up of 'stuff' and interacts it would need to calculate its own calculations ahead of time it would need enough power to run a simulation of itself, on top of the whole universe...cr*p.

You refer to the idea of recusion. Here's another example:

i preffed my example... less scary

Originally posted by KING
i preffed my example... less scary

Yeah. I agree. He's messed up my dreams for tonight...

Why does it necessarily mean "predeterminism" ... It doesn't necessarily mean that things are planning out to be a certain way "in the begning". Things could just be moving a certain way, and that's simply it. The fact that things actions and interactions can only be one way just based on the situation, doesnt necessarily mean that that one way was planned out before hand. "Determinism" might be a better word here... And it truly does make sense. I mean look at some decision someone makes. They're put in a situation, and come up with a "decision". But now lets say we go back in time, or we completely duplicate that whole scenario.... everything that was going on in his head... the conscious and subconscious thoughts that would lead to the next thoughts, temperature, body position, body condition... everything. you get the point as well as with finally "EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE EXACTLY THE SAME" ... now wouldn't it kind of have to play out that same way? ... assuming things DO run by cause and effect... everything's just a big causal chain. I think it would have to come out exactly the same in the end... So where's the free will in that?

Its a good thing I don't go around all day thinking like this

Cooter. See my thread about determinism co-existing with free will.

I think I mentioned this before but I love your turtle avatar.

Good hell u guys talk about boring stuff... who cares about particles :/
honestly
... ok yeah, i know i'm going 2 get slammed so go ahead & slam me (:
i dun' really care what u gits have 2 say anyways

Originally posted by GirFox101
Good hell u guys talk about boring stuff... who cares about particles :/
honestly
... ok yeah, i know i'm going 2 get slammed so go ahead & slam me (:
i dun' really care what u gits have 2 say anyways

That's quite the cry for attention you've got there.

Originally posted by GirFox101
who cares about particles :/
honestly

Intelligent people.

Originally posted by GirFox101
Good hell u guys talk about boring stuff... who cares about particles :/
honestly
... ok yeah, i know i'm going 2 get slammed so go ahead & slam me (:
i dun' really care what u gits have 2 say anyways

You did ask for it.
What you claim as interesting, may be found by others as boring!
What do you find interesting?

That is a very unique way of thinking about this.
Basically what you are saying is a controlled environment. Which is how science tries to answer many questions and disregard any flaws.

But to predict the future in the same manner you would have to have (As R..Carter pointed out) predeterminism. No? Otherwise there would be too many variables.

Intresting theory. And it would have been totally correct. That is if it wasn't for the brain. Actually any organism with some sort of relative choise.

It all comes down to the same question: Is there free will or can we predict everything.

Even then there are 2 sides. Is thought allso part of the avalance of moving particles or is it something on an 'other level'.

No. Fucking. Clue. =) But thats the reason why philosophy exists.

Good hell u guys talk about boring stuff... who cares about particles :/
honestly
... ok yeah, i know i'm going 2 get slammed so go ahead & slam me (:
i dun' really care what u gits have 2 say anyways[/b]

Meanwhile, back in the mystical "On-Topic" realm...

It's impossible to perfectly predict ANYTHING, down to the pen falling and up to the universe's future. At least, so says Chaos Theory. Basically, no matter how long we spend analyzing every last atom, there's always going to be some variable eluding us. Something happens that we don't predict, and it sets off a chain reaction that throws off the entire prediction. No matter how perfect your original analysis was. Even if you had analyzed every last atom, there'd still be something left out. Down at the quantum level, it becomes more unstable. It's difficult to predict things at that level. You never know exactly where a particle is, for example. You can know it's speed, or it's location, but not both, since measuring one effects the other. At this level, it's impossible to measure every variable, because measuring one throws the others off. And even if we figured a way to avoid the Uncertainty Principle, we'd still have to account for subatomic particles tunnelling into existence in the middle of the experiment.

Originally posted by Tsen
Meanwhile, back in the mystical \"On-Topic\" realm...

stuff.

But in theory It would be possible.

No, it wouldn't. Because you can't predict things down to the quantum level.
Once you start dealing with the individual particles, you can't fully know where each and every particle is without ruining your knowledge of where each and every particle is going. You can make very accurate descriptions and predictions of the object as a whole, but you can never describe it all the way down to the actual atoms. And without defining the individual atoms, there's variables left uncovered. And what I said about subatomic particles tunnelling in is still valid as well. You can't predict that precisely enough to include it in your prediction as a whole. Basically you've got more leaks than plugs. You can move the plugs around, but there's still going to be a few leaks somewhere.

Originally posted by Tsen
stuff.

Yeah I am to lazy right now to read all that in such a way that I understand it fully.

But in theory in possible. But it's like the saying: "If we could understand the human brain, we would be so stupid we couldn't understand it".

Or something.

Or I am wrong and you get irritated becouse I didn't read your posts that well <3

But in theory in possible.[/b]

Okay, now you're confusing me. Did you mean, "in theory possible" or "in theory impossible".

Oh well. My answer is still that in theory it's impossible. If you want the reason, read my above posts when you're feeling more up to it.