Fate, Random chance, or Synchronicity?

[Inverse Icarus]

i believe everything is predetermined, you cannot change the future. just because we cannot ascertain sufficient information to accurately predict it (as per the size of the universe, as well as the heisenberg(sp?) uncertainy principle) doesn't mean it's not predetermined.

[Az]

what 20 boxes? Could you please give me a different example? or explain this one?

[Immortal Wombat]

I can see how free will could be only an illusion, since everything we do depends soley on the balance of chemicals in our brain and whatnot, but I find it so very difficult to extend this line of thinking to the point where even before the universe expanded from its cosmic singularity, the existance of a spelling mistake on the front of a mini-cd for MSN 8 which landed on my doormat this morning, is pre-determined to exist and be noticed by me over a bowl of cornflakes so many billion years in advance.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Convergence is pretty much irrelevant here.

OK, let's say with relation to the initial question. Imagine a 5x5 grid where you start in the centre. A number lies on the outside of all 20 boxes on the perimeter. You move about the grid by a 1 in 4 chance of moving up, down, left or right.

By saying that "fate" exists, you are implying that the number you land at would have been landed at no matter which path you took.

The small steps you take obviously affect the bigger picture. If you want, make a larger grid, and a larger grid and so on.

Only when decisions (small steps) are infinitely small, and the outcome reached is infinitely huge is convergence a theoretical issue. This isn't the case in practice.

The small steps you take therefore affect the end-game result. It is illogical to claim you will land at one box regardless of the path taken.

To apply the analogy, imagine for example each move around the grid is a choice to go to the pub, cinema, beach or nothing on a particular day. Each 20 boxes on the perimeter, once reached, will let you meet a particular girl. You are not led fatefully to one particular box.

By this example I have shown fate does not exist, in relationships or any other life challenge...assuming free will.

if you don't assume free will, all outcomes are completely deterministic and actual (not perceived) probabilities are 0 and 1, rather than being 0.25

What are you going on about?

Who said fate was about meeting "one particular girl", or doing a particular thing on a particular date? Fate is what happens when no matter what you do the result will be the same. If making a choice can affect the result it is not fate, it is part of the path.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I can see how free will could be only an illusion, since everything we do depends soley on the balance of chemicals in our brain and whatnot, but I find it so very difficult to extend this line of thinking to the point where even before the universe expanded from its cosmic singularity, the existance of a spelling mistake on the front of a mini-cd for MSN 8 which landed on my doormat this morning, is pre-determined to exist and be noticed by me over a bowl of cornflakes so many billion years in advance.

If you could know x+1t but not x+1^10t you'd just have bad algorythms
If you don't know x+1^10t then you also didn't know x+1t, it's just very similar.
x is current situation t is time.

Did this make any sense?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I can see how free will could be only an illusion, since everything we do depends soley on the balance of chemicals in our brain and whatnot, but I find it so very difficult to extend this line of thinking to the point where even before the universe expanded from its cosmic singularity, the existance of a spelling mistake on the front of a mini-cd for MSN 8 which landed on my doormat this morning, is pre-determined to exist and be noticed by me over a bowl of cornflakes so many billion years in advance.

just because you couldnt measure it or predict it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

say you make an enclosed area, 20x20x20, and you recreate a small universe, or a planet, or whatever, completely irolated from the outside world.

if, at the time of inception, you knew the exact position, direction, and speed of every miniscule particle (quarks should work) in the entire area, you could have a computer simulation run and predict the next "instance" of time, essentially moving all the particles the way they would move. now, you have a new picture of the area, and could fid the next instance, and so on.

if your conputer program could advance through "time" faster than your environment (which is debatable), you could accurately predict the future of the environment, any amout of time in the future.

the problem with the universe is this:

1. the universe is too large to know everything about everywhere
2. even if we did know everything about everywhere, the computational power needed to actually progress faster than time itself would be impossible to ascertain (ie, storing every quark in the universe's information is quite memory intensive, not to mention running through them quickly)

even if we just took a section of space, say our solar system, and preformed this expiriment, it wouldn't work, because that completely ignores outside iteference, ie meteors comming to hit earth, aliens, radiation, whatever.

just because we cant do it doesnt mean it can't be done.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I can see how free will could be only an illusion, since everything we do depends soley on the balance of chemicals in our brain and whatnot, but I find it so very difficult to extend this line of thinking to the point where even before the universe expanded from its cosmic singularity, the existance of a spelling mistake on the front of a mini-cd for MSN 8 which landed on my doormat this morning, is pre-determined to exist and be noticed by me over a bowl of cornflakes so many billion years in advance.

I see a parallel with the tornade in a scrap yard analogy for evolution here...

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
There is no free will.

I choose not to believe you... we've had this argument before.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


just because you couldnt measure it or predict it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

say you make an enclosed area, 20x20x20, and you recreate a small universe, or a planet, or whatever, completely irolated from the outside world.

if, at the time of inception, you knew the exact position, direction, and speed of every miniscule particle (quarks should work) in the entire area, you could have a computer simulation run and predict the next "instance" of time, essentially moving all the particles the way they would move. now, you have a new picture of the area, and could fid the next instance, and so on.

if your conputer program could advance through "time" faster than your environment (which is debatable), you could accurately predict the future of the environment, any amout of time in the future.

the problem with the universe is this:

1. the universe is too large to know everything about everywhere
2. even if we did know everything about everywhere, the computational power needed to actually progress faster than time itself would be impossible to ascertain (ie, storing every quark in the universe's information is quite memory intensive, not to mention running through them quickly)

even if we just took a section of space, say our solar system, and preformed this expiriment, it wouldn't work, because that completely ignores outside iteference, ie meteors comming to hit earth, aliens, radiation, whatever.

just because we cant do it doesnt mean it can't be done.

You also get a paradox when you consider that the simulation will have to have a simulation which will have a simulation..(ad infinitum)..running inside of it.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


You also get a paradox when you consider that the simulation will have to have a simulation which will have a simulation..(ad infinitum)..running inside of it.

howso?

[Dauphin]

If you are making an accurate simulation of the solar system presumably you will have to simulate the Earth, the people on it, your existence, the computer in questions existence, and any programme it is running....

Unless of course you don't want a truly accurate simulation.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
If you are making an accurate simulation of the solar system presumably you will have to simulate the Earth, the people on it, your existence, the computer in questions existence, and any programme it is running....

Unless of course you don't want a truly accurate simulation.

oh, i see your point now, you're talking about my second point. good show BC

[Solly]

Becuase the simulation is inside the system, so you need to assess the simulation's effect on the system. For which you will need another simulation, etc.

[Az]

Ok, then, place the simulation in an isolated enviroment, leaving in the system only the sensors.

[Solly]

How do we take the simulation outside of the universe?