Do you believe in fate?

Post Reply New Topic

Whether you do or do not know what's coming has nothing to do with whether it is preset.

I don't want to confuse those: My point is that we can make very exact predictions regarding a future state with systems which contain a high number of objects and clearly defined parameters - e.g. a gas in a cylinder. We are also able to make predictions in situations when only one object exist and we carefully excluded all other influences (e.g. supercooling via lasers by Steven Chu).

In the real world, when we can't do so, the different influences (chaotic systems, Heisenberg's uncertainty, statistical means, etc.) add up to world which we can't predict properly.

i think that the course of the universe is set, but it is impossible for any sentience to predict how it will evolve.

if the energy in the universe was contained in a singularity that burst (the "big bang") into existence, then there is a singular cause for all eternity of realities.

the "effects" of that "cause" are diffused with dispersion. at the same time , the nature of the fundaments of the universe become impossible for any mind to know.

it is like a pool ball that gets shot at a triangle of balls. it's impetus is dispersed, and there are many situational realities (of the final resting spots of the balls in the triangles) founded upon that initial strike.

i think that when the initial release from a singularity, of the entire mass of the universe happened, it's energy was pure, and in an astronomically minute amount of time, it was convoluted into quasi matter. the recursion from impossible expressions of energetic evolution rebound to collide with the onslaught of inevitable energy that is emanating from the instant, and the subtention of that energy into ever more convoluted forms of recursion, creates a solid energy sink called "matter".

and the whole universal time line is definitely already mapped in every dimension.
it is however impossible for a thinking mind to discover. no matter how advanced.

any thinking mind is part of the process, and there for is subordinate to it.

i think i should stop talking now as i do not think my post will be understood.

I do, I do, ... I think! And I totally agree! I actually think that you expressed it brilliantly.

.

Indeed. Well said.

Everything you said is understandable. None of what you said is empirically testable.

ruveyn

Let's try to find a way to verify your idea.

Set the case that your idea is right, we will still see unpredictable results. Set the case that your idea is wrong we will still see unpredictable results.

So your idea is able to verify - quite the opposite (see below).



When this "sink" happened (I do ignore here the slightly metaphysical wording you use) the formation of the first clusters of matter were ruled by the Heisenberg Certainty Relation. A common theory related the non-homogeneous structure in the universe exactly to this Heisenberg Relation. Therefore the exact formation of the galaxies (and in consequence of the earth and everything on it) was ruled by random processes and therefore not set in any way.

very true.
raw ideas come before the framework they create by necessity to prove themselves as facts.

You seem to condradict and confirm me in the same breath. You say these things happen randomly, but at the same time acknowledge an influence causes change. Chaos theory is quite intriguing, although I doubt I have read enough on the subject to seriously discuss it. I was just saying that our inability to know these things may say more about us as humans than it does about atoms and molecules. I know I am coming across as a bit closed minded on the subject, and was thinking you might even throw my words back at me concerning belief in God. It is a shame being closed minded comes with the territory of belief. If there were no such thing as a deterministic physicist, I might be more easily swayed.