I think i just conclusively proved fate or a soul exists - just for fun discussion

[KorLeonis]

...put them all into a super computer, apply physics, and let it go...

Apply physics. Seriously? Gross oversimplification much? You think you've just had a revelation here? Our "understanding" of physics changed drastically with Newton, and again with Einstein, odds are good it will change again. Quantum mechanics is in its infancy and to say we understand it yet is a gross overstatement. Do you apply string theory or loop quantum gravity? We are working to gain a fundamental understanding of the laws behind our universe without knowing for sure if it is the only one that exists. And you think that allows us to predict anything?

Sounds like you read a book of Physics for Dummies and think you've made a break through. Spend a few decades as a research scientist then come back and argue for determinism.

 

[manythings]

...
I rarely read nonsense as special as that post. I think the last one to make me giggle that much was the guy claiming that Faster-Than-Light travel would be possible if we had barriers.

In this context what is a barrier?

 

[thelastgentleman]

Hmm lets have a try...I can prove everything in existence in one Word/Theory ARE YOU READY????


EXISTENTIALISM

got it? ok.

GAME

SET

MATCH...good day to you sirs

 

[ArkanaXII]

Also, aside from the whole quatum mechanics/particle physics aspects of the question you have to consider whether or not thought or consciousness exist. From a materialist standpoint, everything must have a basis in the physical universe (including thought and consciousness). Since they do not have any tangible basis that we have found aside from brain states, it seems entirely possible that consciousness is either an illusion or some sort of projection or simulation.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

...put them all into a super computer, apply physics, and let it go...

Apply physics. Seriously? Gross oversimplification much? You think you've just had a revelation here? Our "understanding" of physics changed drastically with Newton, and again with Einstein, odds are good it will change again. Quantum mechanics is in its infancy and to say we understand it yet is a gross overstatement. Do you apply string theory or loop quantum gravity? We are working to gain a fundamental understanding of the laws behind our universe without knowing for sure if it is the only one that exists. And you think that allows us to predict anything?

Sounds like you read a book of Physics for Dummies and think you've made a break through. Spend a few decades as a research scientist then come back and argue for determinism.

I mean all the observable laws of physics and maths. Dude i said, i was bored in class, thought some stuff about the way the universe worked and came here to share it. You know what? You assume everyone is as arrogant as you. Did it EVER occur to you i came here to be proven wrong? To have what i KNOW is an obviously wrong opinion (i know little about physics, of course im off, it was just random thinking) refined by people smarter than i to see if i had anything. It was a little thought experiment. Of couse im not groundbreaking! Im just sharing a little experiment. No need to be all up on your high horse. I wanted to be proven wrong. I wanted to see a more knowlegdable point of view.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Ok lemme get really sciency for you. Particles in your body are from the big bang. The same matter or energy converted to make the form that is you. This journey was from collisions through space to get where it is now. You can predict where it would go right? Its flying in a direction, it gets hit, you can tell where its gonna go if you know what it hits and at what speed. So it made it to your brain. Your thoughts are electrical signals detected by your brain. Electrical signals are predicatable, you can tell where one will jump to, where it will end up, and what it will do from physics. That controls what you think and do. These impulses are made from either light hitting your eyes, or particals being detected in your senses, or in your brain to make more synapses fire. These particals paths can be predicted from where they bounce and what speed they are going. You can tell when the partical will hit the receptor and fire the synapse to make part of a concious thought. Then you can tell where the eneergy from that synapse will go from electrical physics. If i had the power to tell what synapses control what thoughts, i could see what you thought. I could also, with a super computer, tell where all the particals that affect your brain and senses are going and if they will hit a receptor. If they do i can tell a synpase will fire. I can tell what part of your brain will fire, i can tell what you will think. See?

 

[similar.squirrel]

I think you should ring a journal. No. Ring all of the journals.

Physics is rife with uncertainty. Nothing is truly predictable at an atomic or subatomic level.

 

[loc978]

...I was going to make the quantum physics argument, but it's already been made.

An interesting thought occurs, though... if we were able to exactly determine the speed and location of every electron and quark in the universe in any given yoctosecond, plotting acceleration and deceleration cycles and such... would I necessarily have mistyped, backspaced and retyped the letters that I did in posting this?

captcha: Q)c; itrall
...never seen a semicolon in one before... I'm saving that one.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

You know, theoretically you can run through a downpour and not get hit by a drop.

Realistically, you get soaked.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You know, theoretically you can run through a downpour and not get hit by a drop.

Realistically, you get soaked.

Best reply so far. Made me laugh and wonderfully shows how physics can be theoretical and not appliable in the least.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I was just thinking about fate today

So, I applaud your thoughtfulness, but do feel I should point out a few things:

1) Conjecture Proof . A Proof is a process by which you take Known information and combine it into a conclusion. You've got some ideas here, a lot of which are... fairly true, but haven't really taken the steps to move from to another.

2) Science is a process for knowing things that involves testing hypothesis, until a predictable pattern emerges. Its cornerstone is the ability to make a falsifiable hypothesis. That is, a statement that you could test to prove it false. Whether or not existence is predetermined is not falsifiable as we only have one set of data (the one we are in) to go by.

3) Lastly, the laws of physics are actually not able to perfectly predict things, as has been mentioned in the thread. While our ability to predict most events grows, there is always a little gray area based on things we haven't been able to model. No, it doesn't mean there is magic hiding in those spots, it just means that our model while close to correct, may never bee 100% correct. This does NOT invalidate the concept of predetermination, since just because we don't know the rules doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Magikarp]

If i knew the location and speed of every partical when the big bang started i could put them all into a super computer, apply physics, and let it go. And perfectly simulate the universe as we know it, from beggining to end.

Except you can't. Refer to the uncertainty principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
'it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty'

You can know where a particle is, but you can't know how fast it is moving.
You can know how fast a particle is moving, but you can't tell where it is.

QED

Pretty much. So, nothing in the universe is predeterminable. And still, there's no conclusive proof of fate or a soul in the OP, so I don't really get the point of this thread...

I think you may be missing the point of the uncertainty principle. Although it proves that we can't put all the data into a computer, the data is still there. Although we can't work out future events from current data, current data can still fully control future events.

 

[Baneat]

Hey! Guys! I just proved god

God is perfect by definition
in order to be perfect, you'd have to exist
therefore god must exist, as he is, by definition, existant and perfect!

*wait.. people already thought of this a billion times over in the past?*

Fuck!

 

[Zechnophobe]

Hmm lets have a try...I can prove everything in existence in one Word/Theory ARE YOU READY????


EXISTENTIALISM

got it? ok.

GAME

SET

MATCH...good day to you sirs

Yay proof by assertion? Heh.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Thats ok, i actually thought a lot more about it talking to you, fun to do, killed some time And dont worry, you came over sincere. Thanks for staying interested and not getting irate or abusive.

 

[viking97]

good job, welcome to twenty years ago or whenever this was discovered.

of course theres no such thing as a soul

but even if things are predetermined, u still have the illusion of free will, and until time travel is invented, its not like it theres really a difference.

ALSO with your super computer thing, we couldn't use it to tell the future because the instant we watched the future it would change and we would see it change so it would change again over and over again until it's processor explodes.
not really relevant, i just thought that was interesting.