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

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!

[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?

[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!

hey now, be nice...

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

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.