Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Thinking thread

profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Its going to be a long read, but it'll make your head hurt.

Every particle in our universe has a history - its been in location X with a speed of Y, and by simple computation, one must agree that if you know both of these facts about a particle, you can predict with utmost certainty where the particle will be in the future. Now, imagine we had this information for every particle in the universe. We know every particles past and present speed and location. In fact, if we had a super-super computer, we could enter all of these values and set up a model that would describe the entire universe, down to every last atom. Of course, such a computer and such information would be nearly impossible to attain, but the point is that this information about every particles past and present does in fact exist.

Everything is predetermined - particles can only interact with particles in one predictable way. Thus, if one were to know all the information about every particle, we could know where every particle will be, at any time in the future. If we took this model and ran it forwards, we could predict the future. We could see what atoms bounce off other atoms, and on the larger scale, what stars and galaxies interact and how. (Remember, super-super computer) In fact, if we concentrated on solely the atoms on Earth, we could predict human behavior, since our behavior is nothing more than a cascade of chemical reactions resulting from outside stimulation. This is indeed a very strange though to behold. The past history and set courses of particles dictate that I get the urge to write this long-winded philosophical inquiry, and that inevitably you are sitting there reading this text.

So we have a problem. If everything is predetermined (be it as it may that we could never possibly get all the information to 'know' and see the future, since the amount of information is truly massive), than should we hold people accountable of their actions? If there is only one future, we really have no choice - choice is an illusion, a comfort, as the inevitable predictable cascade of particle interactions drives our universe forwards.

So... what of murders and rapists? If there really is no choice in the universe, if particle-particle interactions only have one outcome and if the future is predetermined; should we blame them for their actions?
Jun 21 2010 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Snowcase
Posts: 11456 - Karma: 634
I meant because of the picture I posted a minute before.
Jun 21 2010 11:52PM
0 0
profile picture
JahJahBinks
Posts: 3567 - Karma: 461
I do not agree, actions are not already determined.
Jun 21 2010 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Every person may be different, sure, but if one were to know the exquisite construction and pathways in ones body, it would be possible to predict the exact visions and sensations one would experience when on a certain drug. Hell, our thoughts and memories must be stored in nothing but pure chemical reactions when you think about it (unless you subscribe to some immeasurable 'soul', which I will not attempt to bring into this debate due to the imprecise and immeasurable assets of such a thing).

The universe is like a giant clock. If you knew the starting positions and qualities of every particle a mili-second after the big bang and followed a concise set of rules, I think that you would inescapably wind the clock forwards only to find this universe in this state, with stars and galaxies looking like they do and small humans typing on keyboards on a speck of earth. Likewise, there must be only one future for this universe, unless there exists something in nature that is truly random and unpredictable (not just random in the way that it does something we cannot predict given our current understanding, I'm talking about true random spontaneity in nature). I dunno, maybe there is something out there, maybe there isnt.
Jun 22 2010 12:02AM
0 0
profile picture
p-fo
Posts: 9372 - Karma: 6,155
it does exist, but even with the fastest computers, etc., we could never actually ever get it. you left the possibility open that we could, if we had the ability to attain it. im saying that ability can not possibly exist. but im about at the limit of my knowledge here, so im just going to let this part lie from now on. your predetermination idea is certainly true though, and that seems to be the main focus, so lets stick to that.
i always find it interesting that many people can not grasp chaos theory and this idea that is its logical conclusion. its kind of depressing though, and i think that may be why people dont want to deal with it. i know, rationally, that all my decisions were not really, truly mine, but i find it easier to ignore that fact most of the time. i find im happier that way. the question is, is the choice to believe this idea really ours, are we really deciding? this theory would say no.
that train of thought also raises issues of perception. everything that we "know" is only what we perceive it to be, so we can never know with absolute certainty that anything like this that we believe in is true. i guess thats how you can deal with it. by saying yes its likely but we will never know for sure. like the matrix. but thats a whole other issue. i think thats all ive got for now. +k to Rowen for a quality thread and discussion
Jun 22 2010 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
under this mechanistic philosophy, do you think the universe could have a sort of collective consciousness much like our own minds?
Jun 22 2010 12:16AM
0 0
profile picture
yellav
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 1,217
Click for larger image
Jun 22 2010 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
yellav
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 1,217
maybe itll work if i quote it? ill write out my thoughts on this later, but i prefer to take a more buddhist take to dependent arising rather than the science approach it appears this thread is taking. given ive read maybe a full paragraph out of what everyones posted.
Jun 22 2010 12:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Number_9
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
I'm sure you know, but you're explaining a hard deterministic universe. I'd like to bring something else to the table for you (I didn't see it being talked about but I may have missed it). Free will. If you believe we live in a deterministic universe, do we have free will? Does anything have free will?

I keep coming back to it. I want to think that we have no free will, and that we live in a deterministic universe. However, I also keep thinking about quantum mechanics, which eliminates the whole theory of determinism. I guess we've proven that quantum mechanics is fact. But maybe that doesn't matter.
Jun 22 2010 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234
I'm only bumping this thread because the original post was a really good read, but upon crossing it with quantum physics its not possible. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

A particle can exist in an infinite set of coordinates until observed. Thus, an infinite number of options theoretically exist for each particle in the universe, and thus meaning nothing can be predetermined.
Jul 6 2010 7:51AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
I believe our understanding of quantum physics is very incomplete however. Yes, I know there is mind-bending stuff out there that I could never hope to wrap my head around, but quantum physics has some rather large gaps and inconsistencies that I believe we will eventually see straighten out once we get a universal theory of everything done.
Jul 6 2010 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
jibbpeter
Posts: 1613 - Karma: 4,083
threads
Jul 6 2010 1:34PM
0 0
profile picture
ECfreeski3
Posts: 12019 - Karma: 126
hahah where did you get this??
Jul 6 2010 1:48PM
0 0
profile picture
ECB
Posts: 6991 - Karma: 622
Here is something to think about, shooting your cousin the head with a shotgun, then having your way with her body. just think about it. don't do it, just think......
Jul 6 2010 2:22PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
that would probably make a lot of people mad.
Jul 6 2010 11:46PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 639
Must read when I can comprehend.
Jul 6 2010 11:47PM
0 0
profile picture
gus555
Posts: 4170 - Karma: 34
ya i read the first sentence of this post and my mind exploded
Jul 6 2010 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Wow, I are English good, haha.
Jul 6 2010 11:51PM
0 0
profile picture
j.saaaarela
Posts: 1859 - Karma: 856

I think I'm starting to get it. There can only be one future because as we have seen, there has only been one past. And since we live in the 3rd dimension, time flows forward, and we're just going that one direction in time, which means that only one future will happen.

And of course we try to bring probability into the equation. But statistics mean nothing to the individual (or in this case, the continuous flow of time and the events that will happen), because even though, for example (just making up numbers haere), we may have an 80% chance of dying within the next century, has absolutely no influence over our health between now and the year 2100.  There are two options: live; die. And at the end of the century, one of these situations will have occured.  So, saying that this, that, or the other may take place, only ONE of them will happen.

So the possibility of predicting our future may not be solid, but the fact remains that the future has been decided, as only one will happen.

However, I find that the idea of Schrödinger's cat may support the counter-argument (again, quantum mechanics ruining the fun). Basically, it says that all possible outcomes of an event exist. In the experiment, the cat is supposedly both alive and dead until the box is opened. But since the thoery in this thread basically says that the future has already been decided, how can the cat be both alive and dead?

There's my 2 cents.

Jul 7 2010 12:41AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)