Thread: science proves fate?

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.

It's not completely random, but it is a little random. The number of variables that affect reality are infinite. It is impossible to compute reality because not even a super-computer can compute infinity. The only thing we are capable of determining is probability or influence. However, simply because its a cloud and not a clock that runs the machine of reality, that doesn't mean it's random. It just leaves room open for a little randomness.

This is the basis for Law of Attraction, as well. The belief being that our attitudes can become one of the many influences on reality.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

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."

Implying that highly intelligent people come to realise that the simple view of things is actually the correct one.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This is the basis for Law of Attraction, as well. The belief being that our attitudes can become one of the many influences on reality.

It's a great illusion we're still able to con ourselves with but nothing more. Sorry to break it to you.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's not completely random, but it is a little random. The number of variables that affect reality are infinite. It is impossible to compute reality because not even a super-computer can compute infinity. The only thing we are capable of determining is probability or influence. However, simply because its a cloud and not a clock that runs the machine of reality, that doesn't mean it's random. It just leaves room open for a little randomness.

This is the basis for Law of Attraction, as well. The belief being that our attitudes can become one of the many influences on reality.

Attitude is a big influence, but our attitudes are decided by experiences in life, whether or not and how they are stored in our brains, the way other people behave, the weather, whether we conceive ourselves to have a good life or not, ..., all of which are decided by other things. So attitude is, just like pretty much everything, a variable decided by other variables.

Originally Posted by tempusername

It's a great illusion we're still able to con ourselves with but nothing more. Sorry to break it to you.

Don't believe anything unless it proves beneficial to you.

Originally Posted by Spyguy

Attitude is a big influence, but our attitudes are decided by experiences in life, whether or not and how they are stored in our brains, the way other people behave, the weather, whether we conceive ourselves to have a good life or not, ..., all of which are decided by other things. So attitude is, just like pretty much everything, a variable decided by other variables.

Absolutely, there is a transactional quality to reality.

That's what I mean. Even if you believe it cus it's beneficial to you that doesn't make it a reality. I could believe I have a future with some girl even though she dumped me but that's just not the case. The only reason why believing steps in is because we've got limits. I think there's an objective reality though. We just can't grasp our hands all the way around it since we're in these little human bodies. So we resort to ideas like Law of Attraction even though they're mere musings with basically the same origin as mythological figures, like Thor to explain thunder.

What purpose does objective reality serve if you cannot know it? I prefer believing in a reality that makes me more successful, and makes the world more successful. Using objective reality as an excuse not to take complete responsibility for your life makes you into a mysticist.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What purpose does objective reality serve if you cannot know it? I prefer believing in a reality that makes me more successful, and makes the world more successful. Using objective reality as an excuse not to take complete responsibility for your life makes you into a mysticist.

Couldn't agree more. Because we do not know everything, we can not predict everything, so the world is unpredictable to us. The will of a person has effect on the world surrounding him, therefore believing in an objective truth is no excuse for lazyness.

does it not all boil down to quantum physics? Now, with living beings, we make choices. We can choose between one thing and another. A rock hurtling through space at a zillion MPH cannot. It keeps going until it hits something, predetermined and calculatable. But when it comes to the workings of the brain, are the electronic pulses that add up to our choices really random? Or is there a pattern so obvious that we dont even think about it? thats my take on fate.

Why does random keep coming up as the implied force behind reality? Probability does not mean random. It simply means indeterminate.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What purpose does objective reality serve if you cannot know it? I prefer believing in a reality that makes me more successful, and makes the world more successful. Using objective reality as an excuse not to take complete responsibility for your life makes you into a mysticist.

I see you're implying I cannot know objective reality. I also see you are implying I do not take complete responsibility for my life and how that somehow entails within me a devotion to mysteries. Why are you doing this?

What always bugs me about these sort of topics is when people say we have no free will because things are determined. However, you need things to be predetermined for free will to exist.

If a person is put into a position and all conditions are the same, they should in theory always make the same choices, because the choices are made up by their thought patterns(ie them).

If a person is put into a position and all conditions are the same, and they choose randomly each time then those choices are not made up by their thought patterns, but are made by some random elements. That implies the person doesn't even really exist as a person.

Originally Posted by tempusername

I see you're implying I cannot know objective reality. I also see you are implying I do not take complete responsibility for my life and how that somehow entails within me a devotion to mysteries. Why are you doing this?

I am not implying anything. I am very clearly arguing that if you think you can know objective reality, then you are a mysticist. The moment you say "Sorry but this does not exist" rather than "I do not buy into this belief," you become a mysticist. You are no longer responsible for your beliefs, they are given to you. You are therefore also no longer responsible for the state of your life, it is given to you by objective reality.

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

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I am not implying anything. I am very clearly arguing that if you think you can know objective reality, then you are a mysticist. The moment you say "Sorry but this does not exist" rather than "I do not buy into this belief," you become a mysticist. You are no longer responsible for your beliefs, they are given to you. You are therefore also no longer responsible for the state of your life, it is given to you by objective reality.

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

Oooh, that last line. That's nice. I like that.

I guess if I must speak on your terms, let's say I "believe" everything serves me. I'm okay with everything. Sure I have preferences, but I'm not complaining about anything.

George W Bush wasn't assassinated, and that's fact. That incident doesn't exist.

As far as responsibility goes, hasn't being a rebel always sort of been subtly revered? What better time to be a personification of irresponsibility than now as I haughtily assert we can know an objective reality. What good is an objective reality if you have to have faith in it anyway? There's no need to imply I'm "no longer responsible for my beliefs" when I hold none.

You are therefore also no longer responsible for the state of your life, it is given to you by objective reality.

Feels good man. I like this mysticist title, though I'll admit I've never really seen anyone write mystic that way. Lel.

Originally Posted by Alric

What always bugs me about these sort of topics is when people say we have no free will because things are determined. However, you need things to be predetermined for free will to exist.

If a person is put into a position and all conditions are the same, they should in theory always make the same choices, because the choices are made up by their thought patterns(ie them).

If a person is put into a position and all conditions are the same, and they choose randomly each time then those choices are not made up by their thought patterns, but are made by some random elements. That implies the person doesn't even really exist as a person.

I agree that free will exists within a fatalistic system, though it's never the case that all conditions are ever "the same." That argument is easily crushable.

Well in this case the conditions wouldn't need to be exactly the same. Since a persons reaction is based on their patterns of thinking(like their experiences and personality) only conditions that directly effect them need to be the same.

As in if the person is in the same state of mind, and perceive to be in the same situation they are always going to make the same choices. The position of electrons around them does not matter, the specific of air particles doesn't matter(assuming its all breathable air of generally the same quality), the density of the walls and stuff likely do not matter.

That is why people have free will. The deciding factors on what you do is largely based on who you are. It isn't random, and you are not controlled by outside forces.

Originally Posted by tempusername

George W Bush wasn't assassinated, and that's fact. That incident doesn't exist.

I disagree. 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. Besides, infinite possibility means he was, just not in this particular experiment. Every single possible equation is contained in the number 0. Thinking of time as a linear construct, 0 is the only eternal thing. Everything else arises from it, is perceived in a linear fashion to make sense of it, and then it ceases. We are experiencing one possible structure, not the structure.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well in this case the conditions wouldn't need to be exactly the same. Since a persons reaction is based on their patterns of thinking(like their experiences and personality) only conditions that directly effect them need to be the same.

As in if the person is in the same state of mind, and perceive to be in the same situation they are always going to make the same choices. The position of electrons around them does not matter, the specific of air particles doesn't matter(assuming its all breathable air of generally the same quality), the density of the walls and stuff likely do not matter.

That is why people have free will. The deciding factors on what you do is largely based on who you are. It isn't random, and you are not controlled by outside forces.

But a person's personality is based on the neurons in the brain and the connections between those neurons. Those are all built depending on outside factors (the first ones are, for example, built based on concentrations of chemicals in the mother's blood and the DNA of the foetus). If you go into it like that, everything is based on (theoretically) measureable factors. So I would not say we are controlled by outside factors or something like that, but our choices and way of thinking etc. are based on outside factors, even though they can not be measured and calculated (due to the limits of our measuring and calculating capacities).
So to put it simply, 'who you are' is also based on outside factors, and therefore it is (like everything else), a variable that can theoretically be calculated with other variables. But, as also has been said before, it is impossible for us to predict everything that happens everywhere. If we could predict it, we would change our behaviour accordingly, and thus changing the future again, making it unreadable. Therefore we do not need to worry about it.

Originally Posted by Spyguy

If you go into it like that, everything is based on (theoretically) measureable factors.

Not widely thought to be correct. The mainstream interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that some things are in principle undetermined.

Originally Posted by Xei

Not widely thought to be correct. The mainstream interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that some things are in principle undetermined.

Do you mean the uncertain and probabilistic nature of superposition collapse?

If the macroscopic world was so virtually influenced by quantum indeterminacy that it matched GR enough for all predicting purposes I would be surprised. Seems kind of impossible if particles really travel in waves of intrinsic probability when they're not "detected" though.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Do you mean the uncertain and probabilistic nature of superposition collapse?

I mean the Heisenberg inequality..? :/

If the macroscopic world was so virtually influenced by quantum indeterminacy that it matched GR enough for all predicting purposes I would be surprised. Seems kind of impossible if particles really travel in waves of intrinsic probability when they're not "detected" though.

Why would you be surprised? Huge numbers of particles can easily show properties not remotely resembling the individual particles. e.g. all of statistical physics.

Originally Posted by Xei

I mean the Heisenberg inequality..? :/

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

Originally Posted by Xei

Why would you be surprised? Huge numbers of particles can easily show properties not remotely resembling the individual particles. e.g. all of statistical physics.

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?