philosophical thinking time (theory on fate)

[slade]

ok so i thought of this a while ago, and recently was reminded of it. think about a single atom, in a contained space. it always moves at a constant speed and its direction is predictable. it could be predictable where it will move and at what time it will arrive there; there is only one way that things can happen. if you have more atoms together, there are more factors, so it would be much harder to predict what will happen. there are set rules that govern what happens when atoms collide, and thus there is only one way that things can happen; there is no chance at all. So if everything in this world is composed of atoms (and energy, i guess, which is also governed by similar rules, making it predictable), then doesnt this mean that everything that there is only one way in which things can happen? there are so many factors, far too many for the mind to even comprehend, and thus the illusions of "choice" and "chance" are created. there are even an infinitesmially large number of factors in your mind, so again it seems like there is "choice" but really there isnt. everything around you that happens can only happen in one way because the interactions between the atoms are governed by rules, and although they may seem random they are just a composition of so many small factors and predictable interactions that the illusion of them being random is created. and your brain is also just many small electrical impulses, each of which in itself is simple and fairly predictable, but as a whole they creates the illusions of randomness and choice. therefore your brain, although it is very complex, can only operate in one way. it is stimulated by and reacts to external forces, but those forces, as i have said, could only happen in one way; chance was not involved. all the events of this world, although they seem to be random, can only occur in one manner. there is no choice. i would call it fate, but i always think of that as implying that a larger force arranged a series of events.

that wasnt exactly put as eloquently as i would have liked, but i hope you understand what i am trying to say. i dont really want to beleive this (i would prefer everyone is in control of themselves), but it is just the result of a thread of thought that i had, and i cannot find any fault in my logic. is there anything that you can think of that i looked over, or any relevant information that i am missing?

[sabrefanpc]

its called logical fatalism or metaphysical fatalism, same thing.

the most common argument against it is called the idle argument, but the way you possed your question, which means EVERYTHING in fatalism, nicely curts that problem. thing about fatalism is that there is no intrinsic way to prove or disprovethe theory. its not exactly a new problem either, aristotle is one of the first known theorists to discuss fatalism, both your logical and theological, but thats a whole new can of worms.

[slade]

its called logical fatalism or metaphysical fatalism, same thing.

the most common argument against it is called the idle argument, but the way you possed your question, which means EVERYTHING in fatalism, nicely curts that problem. thing about fatalism is that there is no intrinsic way to prove or disprove the theory. its not exactly a new problem either, aristotle is one of the first known theorists to discuss fatalism, both your logical and theological, but thats a whole new can of worms.
never heard of logical or metaphysical fatalism before, thanks for telling me. I assumed SOMEONE had thought of what i had before me, but i did not know if it was a known theory or anything. but, what is the idle argument?

[gimp]

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=717

I found that looking for something else. I was looking for some theory about something in quantum physics where 'parallel universes' are created, but I can't remember the name of the theory. This is gonna bug me.

[trains are bad]

Congratulations, you have descovered determinism all by yourself.

[sabrefanpc]

idle argument is deceptivly.... simple/boring

basically, it says if you are sick and fated to die or not die, anything you do is noneffectuall to the outcome, ie going to the doctor wont help anything. by saying EVERYTHING is determined by predictable interactions at a atomic level, you have skirted this. for your question, whether or not you go to the doctor is simply a preditermined progression.

lemme go find some links, ill edit it with some ones I've used in the past for research papers...

[Lee]

[QUOTE=sabrefanpc]its called logical fatalism or metaphysical fatalism, same thing.QUOTE]


ie: chit happens.

[sabrefanpc]

that boils it down nicely :rofl:

here's the links
http://plato.stanford.edu/
stanford's site, lots of good stuff

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/
decent stuff. easier to read than ^

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/
Washington u in st louis

http://www.epistemelinks.com
be careful with this one, lots of misleading stuff here. tread with caution.

[Remington]

Who knew Colin could be so philisophical. Cool theory! :clap:

[WicKeD_WaYz]

I dont buy that. Theres a difference between some atoms in a test tube and the world we live in. For one, the atoms in the test tube cant think for themselves. We control everything there is no "one possibility". Your telling me that im going to go dig through my kitchen right now and theres only one option of food I can pick? My brain is telling me im searching through the kitchen and going through different food options but really there is only 1 possible outcome? :rolleyes:

[sabrefanpc]

what is your thought of searching for food? neurons releasing chemicals and electrical discharges? then there is only one way that you can act, the way those discharges compell you to.

that being said, there are some major flaws with that premise. like most aristotelian arguments, you get to the unmoved first mover. in his later works aristotle himself renigs on many of his own arguments and refines others. he was a bull headed son of a too.

[slade]

Who knew Colin could be so philisophical. Cool theory! :clap:
hey now, be nice... ;)

just cause i hang around you and joey doesnt mean i cant be smart :D :p .




I dont buy that. Theres a difference between some atoms in a test tube and the world we live in. For one, the atoms in the test tube cant think for themselves. We control everything there is no "one possibility". Your telling me that im going to go dig through my kitchen right now and theres only one option of food I can pick? My brain is telling me im searching through the kitchen and going through different food options but really there is only 1 possible outcome?
the only difference between "the atoms in the test tube" and this world, is that in this world there are a lot more atoms. and, again there is only the illusion that you control everything. and there is only one food you can pick, because you are not actually picking it. all the atoms that exist in and around you are governed by simple rules, and thus they can only move in one way, the food can only be lying in one way, and your brain, at that exact moment, can only make one choice - because afterall it isnt making a choice. there is only one way in which the atoms can collide and interact, so there is only one series of events that can possibly happen.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

0

the only difference between "the atoms in the test tube" and this world, is that in this world there are a lot more atoms.


Once again, the atoms in the test tube cant think for themselves. We can.

[slade]

Once again, the atoms in the test tube cant think for themselves. We can.
or, maybe there is just the illusion that you are thinking. remember, you ARE just a bunch of atoms.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

or, maybe there is just the illusion that you are thinking. remember, you ARE just a bunch of atoms.

man you had me thinking untill that one. The ILLUSION that im thinking? I dont know, not to bring religion into this, but this theory wouldnt quite fit into religion now so thats mainly why I dont buy it. PLUS I at least like to believe im making my own choices.

[slade]

PLUS I at least like to believe im making my own choices.
i dont beleive what i would like to be true, i beleive what seems to be the most logical answer. i would LIKE to beleive good people go to heaven when they die, but to me the whole religion thing doesnt seem logical or realistic, so its not what i beleive. personally i want to beleive that we each control our fate, but i cant find any flaw in this theory.

a bit of clarification: by "the illusion that you are thinking," i mean the illusion that you can think and decide one way for another; that you are in complete control.

[Sooky]

what is your thought of searching for food? neurons releasing chemicals and electrical discharges? then there is only one way that you can act, the way those discharges compell you to.

You, and Slade too I think, are assuming materialism about the mind where sensations and mental states equal brain states -strict identity. I think its obvious the only thing we do know is that mental states are correlated with brain states, which nevertheless may or may not still allow for you to determine your own actions. If you want to argue otherwise you are getting into problems a philosopher of mind deals with. You will also have to give an account of things like how consciousness can be physical, and qualia or secondary properties can be physical. Good luck with that... :D

[nuclear zombie]

Not with infinite smallness of nature , because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . This line of thinking always leads back to the question: is the universe infinite ? , if it isn't infinite then it is predictable and vice versa.

[Lohman446]

, because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . .

Let me say at base I disagree with fatalistic arguments - because I want to. However, I do not discount the logical argument that arrives at the conclusion of fatalism.

Although you are correct, these differences from one to the other, do not change the fatalistic conclusion. They just change how hard it is to predict, and may possibly make it impossible. However, being able to predict "fate" or the inability instead to do so, does not prove or disprove its existence. It proves the shortcomings of the prediction method, as you pointed out our inability (it would seem) to take into consideration each difference in each atom/quark involved. However - it does not disprove fatalism or make an argument for free will.

[deadeye9]

it always moves at a constant speed and its direction is predictable.
I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.

[Lohman446]

I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.

But an inability to measure does not disprove the existence - in this case of a "predetermined" path or position.

[PyRo]

The whole premise boils down to do living creatures have free will. Your opinion on this is based on your religious beliefs or lack theirof. This argument is theirfore pointless.

[Lohman446]

. This argument is theirfore pointless.

The argument is an interesting argument, I find it logical and reasonably compelling. That being said I do not accept its conclusion but it is interesting to consider where I find it to loose track. I can follow it all the way to the conclusion, and agree wtih the logic, further study of the argument would be interesting, because somewhere I accept, despite the logic of it, that it is not true. As such it is not pointless, its an interesting philosophical discussion and exercise if nothing else :D

[deadeye9]

Maybe all philosophical arguments are pointless.
The previous line, being a philosophical argument, is pointless.
This is fun.

I think the argument also boils down to the randomness of the universe.
Randomness makes predetermination impossible.

[Lurker27]

Question of the day.

Ho-kay. If all matter is governed by a few immutable laws of interaction, then given the vectors and masses of each particle at the onset of the big bang...everything would be perfectly predictable.

No free will.

Since, to a very good approximation, we have free will, there has to be something else. I believe it lies in the one truly random element in our universe, electron position and energy. (Granted, String theory predictions similar things for a few other bosons, and perhaps some fermions)

This has to due with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but the gist of it is that electrons are constantly shifting positions and energies along a continuum, and we can think of our perception of an electrons energy as an average of these energies. So, electron energy will influence motion (E=mc^2) and lo, the universe is now random.,..we don't knwo what's necessarily going to happen.

(((Here I think it's prudent to note that in the context of general relativity, this introduces singularities that create what is known as quantum foam, a theoretical impossibility. (String theory gets rid of this by smoothing the spatial fabric of the universe theough the introduction of 6 additional spatial dimesions curled up on smaller than Planck-Length scales in the geometrical construct known as Calabi-Yau space (multidimesional Kahler manifold). It should be noted that an additional theory put forth by Edward Witten needs 7 additional spatial dimensions compacted into a G2 manifold. ) Point is, there are some objections to the ranodm nature of quantum mechanics, notably Einstein's, but it works in all our current theoretical and experimental models.)))

It has been suggested that our brain, and other similar structures, can collapse the Schroedinger wave function in deterministic ways. So...long story short, if we have microtubule structures in our brain capable of picking our movements via neurochemical interactions...what is tellin our brains how to pick our free will? What is truly selecting our destiny?

[deadeye9]

It is my understanding that electron energies do not exist along a continuum,
rather these energies exist in discrete levels.

The rest of that is way beyond me.

[bjjb99]

Question of the day.

Ho-kay. If all matter is governed by a few immutable laws of interaction, then given the vectors and masses of each particle at the onset of the big bang...everything would be perfectly predictable.

No free will.

Since, to a very good approximation, we have free will, there has to be something else.


Um... aren't you glossing over a bit there? Why should I, the reader, simply accept your statement that "we have free will"? Do we have free will? How can one determine whether such a capability is present? When examining a choice, how can one differentiate between free will allowing one to choose any option available and predeterminism allowing one to seemingly choose any option but only truly permitting the foregone conclusion?

Perhaps our concept of free will stems from the fact that we are unable to know our futures. Perhaps free will is just that, a concept in one's mind... an illusion to provide a feeling of having some sort of control over some tiny bit of this most interesting distribution of matter an energy called the universe.


I believe it lies in the one truly random element in our universe, electron position and energy.


What makes these two items random? Perhaps they are precisely determined, but not measureable?


This has to due with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but the gist of it is that electrons are constantly shifting positions and energies along a continuum, and we can think of our perception of an electrons energy as an average of these energies.


My understanding of Heisenberg is that the act of measuring the state of a system affects the system; in order to perform the measurement one must interact somehow with the system and thus exchange energy. This exchange of energy alters the system. I do not think Heisenberg makes any claims as to the determinism of a system's state, only the measureability of said state.

BJJB

[deadeye9]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.

[Lohman446]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.


Is it not possible because we do not have the ability to do it, or is it not possible because the electron does not follow predictable (and perhaps unkown) laws of physics?

[Lurker27]

Sorry I dropped that in there out of the context of the discussion.

We either are determined to go on one path, by all the laws of physics, OR, WE can choose one path through our choices, OR, there are many paths, continuously branching in parallel universes, and we merely navigate along these.

I am of the opinion that the final case is most correct, since quantum computing effectively determines that there is at least some multiverse-like characteristics to be found.

You understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle correctly, however, I was writing for an audience less educated than yourself in the most part.

The real meat of the issue actually lies squarely with the Schroedinger wave equation. ((Unfortunately, no one, not even Erwin himself, truly knows how his wave functions work, but they're exquisitely accurate when you go to hybridize orbitals and apply the electron enrgies to bonding in general. Remember than when dealing with differential equations, on can sum answers to obtain an equally valid answer. This is at the heart of orbital hybridization.))

Anyway, the SWE is actually a probability equation, with its peak at the most likely energy level (distance from the nucleus). However, the electron can either be thought to be continuously (randomly) oscillating from on energy level to another...The best we can do is guess that it is at the max probability (this is neglecting the node/antinode pattern found in higher energy shells).

This all leads us construe electron behavior as random and erratic (old view) or, more recently, as the manifestation of a multiverse. Electrons are interacting with each other to obscure their true position, almost like wave interference (nicely jiving with the particle wave duality). This suggests that electrons are somewhat mobile between dimensions, or are at least sufficiently entangled.

Either way, free will, since we can, to a very good approximation, choose where we want to go and what we want to do, must be able to somehow make decisions. (most of the brain, on this level, is analogous to amplification circuitry)

That's my take on the whole thing. I'm pretty comfortable with it.

[Lurker27]

Basically, the simplified rule is "measuring something changes it"...As we become aware of electron position, we've changed it's velocity.

A humourous analogy is that of election predictions..."everytime i eat meat on a tuesday, democrats win" As you become aware of this fact, you are altering it's validity. :ninja:

[deadeye9]

It is a fundamental property of nature that position and velocity cannot
be precisely determined, simultaneously. The act of measuring one messes
with the other.

[Lohman446]

It is a fundamental property of nature that position and velocity cannot
be precisely determined, simultaneously. The act of measuring one messes
with the other.

But, our inability to measure, and thus our inability to predict - does not invalidate the predictability, well in this case the fatelistic nature, of something.

[deadeye9]

But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?

[bjjb99]

I would argue that precise determination and measurability are the same thing.
Precise determination of an electron's position and velocity is not possible.

It is true that determination is another word for meauring; however, I don't think that's what I stated. What I was trying to say is that a system may well possess a precise (infinitely precise) state, but that state may not be measured with arbirtary precision because the very act of measuring directly interferes with the system.

The fact that an electron's position and velocity cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision stems from physical limitations in the "ruler" being used. Whether a better "ruler" exists remains to be seen.

BJJB

[deadeye9]

The fact that an electron's position and velocity cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision stems from physical limitations in the "ruler" being used. Whether a better "ruler" exists remains to be seen.

BJJB

It stems from a fundamental property of matter, not any "ruler" limitations.
No matter how good the "ruler", it will never be able to measure both at the same time.

[bjjb99]

But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?

I like to think I exist, but I don't know if I could truly prove so.

BJJB

[bjjb99]

It stems from a fundamental property of matter, not any "ruler" limitations.
No matter how good the "ruler", it will never be able to measure both at the same time.

What fundamental property of matter are you speaking of?

I don't believe I claimed there ever would be a ruler capable of measuring a system's state to arbitrary precision.

What I am claiming is the inability to know a thing does not necessarily preclude its existence. It is impossible for me to know with absolute certainty whether or not I will have barbecue for dinner tonight, but I do know with absolute certainty that one of those two states will come to pass. It may be absolutely impossible to measure an electron's position and velocity simultaneously with arbitrary precision, but does that necessarily mean that the electron's position and velocity don't both exist simultaneously with arbitrary precision?

Do the concepts of "position" and "velocity" truly have any meaning when discussing quantum-mechanical phenomena?

BJJB

[slade]

Not with infinite smallness of nature , because as much as we like to think it, atoms/quarks (whatever small unit you want to use ) are not all perfectly alike even of the same matter. This causes an exponential unpredictability directly proportional to the amount of small matter you are attempting to predict . This line of thinking always leads back to the question: is the universe infinite ? , if it isn't infinite then it is predictable and vice versa.
im not trying to argue that everything that happens in this world is actually humanly predictable (especially at this point), im saying that, if my train of thought is true, then there is only one way in which events can occur.


I don't think this is accurate. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
one cannot measure the position or velocity of a particle to an arbitrary precision.
That is, nothing is completely predictable.
im not trying to argue that it is humanly predictable, as i stated above i am trying to say that, "chance" is not at all involved.

Pyro - umm, this theory doesnt have anything to do with my religion (or lack thereof). athiests can beleive in free will, they could beleive in this theory, it doesnt matter. im actually somewhat borderline, part of the reason for posting this was that i was hoping one of you could think of something to disprove this theory.

lurker27 - great post... but also somewhat confusing, i havent even heard of half the things you made referance to.
bjjb99 - good response, you summed up most of what i would have said... except for the parts of his post which were completely over my head. maybe ill read it some time when i havent just spent 12 hours at school, only to come home to read on quantum mechanics.


Basically, the simplified rule is "measuring something changes it"...As we become aware of electron position, we've changed it's velocity.
yeah i saw that on a web page i came to when i did a search, but i still dont entirely understand it. how can simply knowing an electron's position physically change its velocity? if you mean what deadeye said, then yes i understand that.


"everytime i eat meat on a tuesday, democrats win"
so go vegetarian :D. sorry, i couldnt resist ;)


But it would invalidate any proof of the fatalistic nature of something.
If you can't prove it, does it still exist?
the existance of something does not rely on your knowledge of its existance.

[bjjb99]

yeah i saw that on a web page i came to when i did a search, but i still dont entirely understand it. how can simply knowing an electron's position physically change its velocity? if you mean what deadeye said, then yes i understand that.


It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing, but rather a matter of how one obtains the knowledge. In order to find out where an electron is, something has to interact with it. That something could be light (photons), subatomic particles (maybe other electrons), etc. All of these "somethings" carry energy with them, and they trade some of that energy with the electron during the interaction. If the electron gains or loses energy, its velocity changes. The very act of finding out where the electron is located changes how much energy the electron possesses, and thus alters its velocity.

Heisenberg postulated that since energy itself is quantized, there must be some minimum nonzero discrete amount of energy that could be exchanged during measurement. That minimum energy exchange is what limits the precision to which an electron's position and velocity (read: energy) can be measured simultaneously. There is a fundamental uncertainty in the measurement results as a result of the measuring process itself. Hence, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- there is a limit to how precisely you can know the state of a system, and that limit is dependent on the smallest nonzero "packet" of energy one can exchange with the system being measured.

As far as I can tell, Heisenberg didn't claim whether or not the state of a system could _exist_ with arbitrary precision, only that said state could not be _measured_ to arbitrary precision.

BJJB