Thread: science proves fate?

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).

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.

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

well, I like to take discussions to a new level

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.

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.

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).

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are no such thing as universal laws.

oh really? what's the speed of light then, just something we made up because we felt like it?

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.

because that is the definition of universe, one set of physical laws applies to all of it

Also, you have a poor understanding of cause and effect on the quantum level. Effect can predate cause.

are you refering to quantum tunneling? because as far as i know, there is no possible way to violate causality without traveling faster than the speed of light or giving up general relativity...

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.

despite how much i hate the rest of your quote i think you're on to something i want to discuss here.

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.

you lost me, along with all scientific logic here... yes some things are lost to our knowledge, but from what you're saying are you suggesting a fifth dimension, a time bipass? If you are, that's a nice theory, but it isn't proven.

On to the thing i want to talk about here: you said something about how the birth of the universe itself happened because of some event that will occur at the end of the universe...

This relates loosely to a theory which i saw 3 years ago which explains why the universe is accelerating. It's called the point plane theory of universal acceleration: i won't post it all here because it's damn long but i'll post a link to it.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=171726

anyway, it seems like what the original poster was refering to was the microwave background radiation of the universe, the fact that the universe was not perfectly uniform, and was predetermined from the big bang, yes, it's possible and of course gives more fuel to the deists who imagine just what you're describing.

EDIT: oh yeah, i got my avatar pic from the guy on newgrounds, not the other way around.

well trigotron, I once had a theory similar to that one in your link

in my theory, all matter would eventually be caught into black holes. according to scientifical research, beyond the even horizon of a black hole, there is no turning back nor end. Objects or light in it keep falling forever; to an observer, it would look like the objects slow down the closer they get to the singularity

that, of course, does only have one explanation: matter will only reach the singularity in time ∞
just like: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... will only reach 2 with an infinite number of terms

well, In my opinion, matter that falls in a black hole (which will eventually be all matter on space) would be reset to the beggining of time. The thrust gravity would give it would make it reach the light speed, so making the matter "break" by being in more than one place at the same time.

so, the beggining of the universe, the big bang itself would be the sum of all matter that fell in black holes. Since time is reset, matter would behave the exact same way

but that is just a theory, probably wrong, so no flaming me for it. actually, there is another thing based on it about the universe being symmetric, but that's another thing

(bwt if science proves that the universe is symmetric, then there surely are other humans out there, tinking the exact same thing we are :O

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

Perhaps you are confusing our inability to predict certain actions with the notion that such action are inherently unpredictable (i.e. randomness).

Think about this objectively. We are an amazing species, as far as we know. We are the most advanced and complex species on the planet, and likely in our solar system. Hell, we maybe the most advanced beings in our galaxy! But, and this is a big but...the universe is still so beyond us it’s ridiculous. And sadly, that's just based on what we know we don't know.

Tell me, which do you think we as a species are going to run into first? The very boundaries of the universe, or the boundaries of our means to understand that universe?

To be honest I don't really understand what our understanding of science and all that has to do with the quote...

I mean, I think the concept of 'random' is one we can all understand, so discussing the above aspect of quantum physics isn't going to bring us to the frontiers of human thought.

Regarding the quote itself; no, I don't think it's anything to do with 'our inability'; the whole point of the theory is that it implies that it is indeed completely random. It's not 'random as far as we can tell'; there is actually physically no predictable outcome, even if you knew absolutely everything.

You know the incredibly famous quote, 'God does not play dice'?

That's exactly what this is about. Einstein was disturbed by the notion of a random universe.

well, it's late and I'm pumped full of caffeine, so I feel I'm qualified to respond to this thread

feel free to poke holes in it

1) The act of observing an event and measuring the outcome is an "action"....
all actions have a reaction

so a different outcome will occur if an action is measured
to the outcome if it weren't measured

2) If you observed the beginning of the universe, you have some sort of data to process to determine the universes outcome

Let's process the data
Drat! another action

Ok, let's measure the action of processing the data
Double drat, that's an action too
....
....
....

3) In order to accurately predict the universes outcome, you have to be there from the very start, right the way through to the very end of the universe, patiently observing and processing all actions, as the outcome changes everytime you do anything.

Great, only one more action left to measure, the end of the universe itself
let's observe it

Originally Posted by Xei

I mean, I think the concept of 'random' is one we can all understand, so discussing the above aspect of quantum physics isn't going to bring us to the frontiers of human thought.

Oh, but randomness means so much more than we usually assume it to mean. True randomness (as far as i know, i could be wrong) does not exist in the universe. The definition of "true randomness" is an event or number (i'm going to use number in my example) that if one were to observe that number to be .124349 at a specific time and that observer was to go back in time to the time when the number was randomized, the number would be different. This has EVERYTHING to do with fate. If there is such a thing in the universe (anywhere in the universe) as true randomness, then there is not necessairily fate, because something in the universe is not known and therefore cannot be predicted by anyone, even one knowing the consequence of the event (this is starting to bridge with the point plane theory i quoted), however if no such thing as true randomness exists in the universe, then there can be no such thing as "the absence of fate" (i am reluctant to say "free will" because that is an entirely different concept, but for the sake of arguement here, the two terms are basically the same). One must realize that everything on earth that we can create (as far as i know) is pseudorandom, which means that for our purposes it is random because we can never travel back in time, but because our pseudorandom number generators rely on a function based on an input of the time of day, which means, return to that time of day and one will get the same output.

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest I don't really understand what our understanding of science and all that has to do with the quote...

I mean, I think the concept of 'random' is one we can all understand, so discussing the above aspect of quantum physics isn't going to bring us to the frontiers of human thought.

It’s not the abstract concept of randomness I was talking about; it’s the possibility that perhaps we are mistaking our inability to predict these events with the notion that they are truly random. This is a legitimate possibility, is it not? Simply because we cannot predict such events (now) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are truly random, and surely there is still much to learn about quantum mechanics that could suggest otherwise. The point is that we redefine what we (think) we know everyday, and it’s no different nowadays.

For example, perhaps one day we will discover that, like every other particle we once thought was the smallest, the quantum particle too is made up of even smaller things. And maybe, just maybe the so called “randomness” of quantum particles we see today can be explained because of the nature of the smaller particle that make it up, the one we are currently not aware of. Is that so unreasonable? Because its not impossible, that’s for sure…

Originally Posted by Xei

Regarding the quote itself; no, I don't think it's anything to do with 'our inability'; the whole point of the theory is that it implies that it is indeed completely random. It's not 'random as far as we can tell'; there is actually physically no predictable outcome, even if you knew absolutely everything.

You say it’s not random as far as we can tell, but of course it is. The phrase “as far as we can tell” means the same as “as far as we know”, wouldn’t you agree? And “as far as we know” simply refers to the full extent of our knowledge. But, our understanding of the universe, or anything for that matter, is always going to be limited by the full extent of our knowledge, right? I mean, it’s common sense. The full extent of our knowledge is what determines what we do and do not understand. Thus, given the full extent of our knowledge, or in other words “as far as we can tell”, quantum mechanics is random.

Its just that, compared to the universe as a whole, our “full extent of knowledge” is seriously limited…so much so in fact that we are in no position to conclude that anything is truly random (not yet anyway, and possibly never). Sure, we can theorize about true randomness, we can suggest that true randomness exists, and we can even believe in true randomness…but the truth is that we simply do not know enough to say for certain that there is no possible way these random events are just being misinterpreted because of a lack of information. The only exception is if we somehow come to the point of knowing all there is to know, and such phenomena still cannot be explained...in which case randomness may be proven by process of elimination. But until then, assuming that’s even possible, it’s just foolish to not leave room for the unknown because surely there is more we don’t know than there is that we do know. You just never know what answers are lying in the shadows, and simply assuming that there aren't any is not the job of sceince, thats more the job of religion.

Just always keep in mind that sceince is a living, breathing creature. It grows, it changes, and it evolves ad infinitum. Its in a constant state of flux. Don't ever get too comfortable with its current state because todays science is tomorrows buffoonery.

Originally Posted by trigotron

Oh, but randomness means so much more than we usually assume it to mean. True randomness (as far as i know, i could be wrong) does not exist in the universe. The definition of "true randomness" is an event or number (i'm going to use number in my example) that if one were to observe that number to be .124349 at a specific time and that observer was to go back in time to the time when the number was randomized, the number would be different. This has EVERYTHING to do with fate. If there is such a thing in the universe (anywhere in the universe) as true randomness, then there is not necessairily fate, because something in the universe is not known and therefore cannot be predicted by anyone, even one knowing the consequence of the event (this is starting to bridge with the point plane theory i quoted), however if no such thing as true randomness exists in the universe, then there can be no such thing as "the absence of fate" (i am reluctant to say "free will" because that is an entirely different concept, but for the sake of arguement here, the two terms are basically the same). One must realize that everything on earth that we can create (as far as i know) is pseudorandom, which means that for our purposes it is random because we can never travel back in time, but because our pseudorandom number generators rely on a function based on an input of the time of day, which means, return to that time of day and one will get the same output.

I might as well just repost what I wrote previously to answer this. But anway, you're still only just clutching at what I've been trying to tell you all this time.

What you say above IS what I mean when I talk about random. I do understand what you're trying to convey, and it is what I have been talking about this whole time.

To express it in your terms (which were quite a good way of putting it, I think); if we went back in time, and say, collided an electron with exactly the same trajectory into some other mass with exactly the same attributes, the electron would go a different way to what it had done previously.

Quantum mechanics predicts INHERENTLY RANDOM events.

And, like I said, this is what Einstein did not believe. Again, referring to the quote,

'God does not play dice',

The whole issue here is randomness completely entwined with the workings of the universe. What else can he be referring to in that quote? It's not about our inability to predict such events. Einstein is completely fine with ignorance. What he was not fine with was the concept of an impure system in which determinism did not apply.

It’s not the abstract concept of randomness I was talking about; it’s the possibility that perhaps we are mistaking our inability to predict these events with the notion that they are truly random. This is a legitimate possibility, is it not? Simply because we cannot predict such events (now) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are truly random, and surely there is still much to learn about quantum mechanics that could suggest otherwise. The point is that we redefine what we (think) we know everyday, and it’s no different nowadays.

For example, perhaps one day we will discover that, like every other particle we once thought was the smallest, the quantum particle too is made up of even smaller things. And maybe, just maybe the so called “randomness” of quantum particles we see today can be explained because of the nature of the smaller particle that make it up, the one we are currently not aware of. Is that so unreasonable? Because its not impossible, that’s for sure…

Yes, just because I'm trying to explain to you the concept of total randomness in quantum physics, please don't confuse that with me supporting the concept. As I said earlier in this topic;

'Many scientists seem to think that such randomness is ludicrous, however. Einstein always thought there was some kind of underlying mechanism.'

So there you are. I completely agree with what you're saying and have stated so before.

All I'm trying to do is convey that I am talking about total randomness here; I'm not supporting that theory.

You say it’s not random as far as we can tell, but of course it is. The phrase “as far as we can tell” means the same as “as far as we know”, wouldn’t you agree? And “as far as we know” simply refers to the full extent of our knowledge. But, our understanding of the universe, or anything for that matter, is always going to be limited by the full extent of our knowledge, right? I mean, it’s common sense. The full extent of our knowledge is what determines what we do and do not understand. Thus, given the full extent of our knowledge, or in other words “as far as we can tell”, quantum mechanics is random.

Its just that, compared to the universe as a whole, our “full extent of knowledge” is seriously limited…so much so in fact that we are in no position to conclude that anything is truly random (not yet anyway, and possibly never). Sure, we can theorize about true randomness, we can suggest that true randomness exists, and we can even believe in true randomness…but the truth is that we simply do not know enough to say for certain that there is no possible way these random events are just being misinterpreted because of a lack of information. The only exception is if we somehow come to the point of knowing all there is to know, and such phenomena still cannot be explained...in which case randomness may be proven by process of elimination. But until then, assuming that’s even possible, it’s just foolish to not leave room for the unknown because surely there is more we don’t know than there is that we do know. You just never know what answers are lying in the shadows, and simply assuming that there aren't any is not the job of sceince, thats more the job of religion.

Just always keep in mind that sceince is a living, breathing creature. It grows, it changes, and it evolves ad infinitum. Its in a constant state of flux. Don't ever get too comfortable with its current state because todays science is tomorrows buffoonery.

Again, I'm on your side...

Many people think that some day, we'll be looking back, having discovered the 'underlying mechanism', and think that our notions of randomness were stupid.

However, at the current time there are some mathematical arguments that imply inherent randomness, I think. They're way to complex for any of us here, but they do exist. Perhaps they're a mistake. Perhaps they're not.

I think now I've hopefully conveyed the basics of the whole argument here, and that

-I am actually talking about total randomness here, not 'observed randomness' and so forth
-I don't necessarily believe such a phenomenon to be true.

So if I could perhaps rule of a line here and get back to the original debate about determinism, I think I want to restate some lines of thought.
__________________________________________________

Okay, so everyone here, like Einstein, seems pretty appauled by the notion of randomness.

But, couldn't we argue that that's because we are macroscopic beings?

We live in a reality in which we never observe quantum effects.

Therefore, our logic describes the world around us. The world around us is entirely predictable; therefore, in our logic system, every event is certain if the correct conditions apply.

But, isn't it possible that randomness is in fact not absurd, but logical and natural, and that the only reason we find it to be absurd, is that we are creatures who have never build a 'quantum logic system', because we never see the quantum world?

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, so everyone here, like Einstein, seems pretty appauled by the notion of randomness.

But, couldn't we argue that that's because we are macroscopic beings?

We live in a reality in which we never observe quantum effects.

Therefore, our logic describes the world around us. The world around us is entirely predictable; therefore, in our logic system, every event is certain if the correct conditions apply.

But, isn't it possible that randomness is in fact not absurd, but logical and natural, and that the only reason we find it to be absurd, is that we are creatures who have never build a 'quantum logic system', because we never see the quantum world?

Just a thought.

Most definitely. I’m sure there are things in the universe we just can't wrap our mind around. We are only human. In fact, off the top of my head I can think of a few possible candidates; true randomness of course, true spontaneity, oblivion, infinity, and maybe some upper/alternate dimensions of reality. But I’m betting some of the weirdest ones are the those we aren't even aware of, or simply are unable to be aware of.

I'd put conciousness at the top of that list.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, so everyone here, like Einstein, seems pretty appauled by the notion of randomness.

But, couldn't we argue that that's because we are macroscopic beings?

We live in a reality in which we never observe quantum effects.

Therefore, our logic describes the world around us. The world around us is entirely predictable; therefore, in our logic system, every event is certain if the correct conditions apply.

But, isn't it possible that randomness is in fact not absurd, but logical and natural, and that the only reason we find it to be absurd, is that we are creatures who have never build a 'quantum logic system', because we never see the quantum world?

Just a thought.

I say it's the other way round. When we didn't know the very basic rules of physics, we would think it all was random. But bah, that was not true.

The theory of the underlying mechanism is simple: if a machine (allusion only) isn't programmed to work exactly as we'd like, it simply wouldn't work. Back to the topic, the universe without logical rules would be far too random to ever exist (at least for such a long while).

Just a last thing: mathematics do not prove anything about th universe. Simple because (so far) there is no 4-dimensional mathematics, at least not concerning this topic.

If an action doesn't come out of a pre-existing action or rule, then it comes out of nowhere. Well, don't we all know nothing comes out of nowhere? Energy and matter cannot be created from nowhere, that's mostly agreed by the majority of scientists.

Determinism kind of says that every action is actually a reaction.

@Ynot:
A full computer (or other apparatus) working to find the outcome of the universe would necessarily include itself. Which means that the action of attempting to do so wouldn't really matter, as long as it is computed.

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make...

There is an element of randomness, but that does not mean that there are no 'logical rules'. It is not randomness in that sense.

The randomness itself follows strict mathematical patterns. For example, electron orbitals:



The probability of an electron being in an area is there represented by the brightness of that area.

We cannot predict where an individual electron will be, but we can predict where the majority of them will tend to be over time.

Hence, there are very rigid mathematical rules determining quantum laws, but randomness forms part of those rules.

Mathematics itself can in fact be used to prove aspects of nature. The Theory of Relativity was a mathematical model, and it made quantitative predictions about observed phenomenon. These phenomena were later proven to occur, and hence the mathematical theory was proven to be a part of nature. We cannot comprehend the theory in real terms, though, only mathematically.

I'm not sure how the last past fits in... I think most scientists actually take the weird stance that the Big Bang did come from nowhere; or at least, they are agnostic to what came before. This is important in debates about the first cause and such; but I don't see how it relates to supporting or not supporting determinism?

I think the vital thing regarding determinism is whether or not the workings of the universe have randomness present in them. If so, then determinism is flawed.

Personally I think we all object to the idea of a 'random universe'.

But I'm happy to accept that that's the result of a delusion, due to the fact that we're all macroscopic beings, should the evidence show otherwise.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

See above thread to find out why this is not actually true in mainstream science.