 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
Kinetic energy?
Does it matter?
Why does it only have to be 1 of the 3? Maybe they take it in turns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tinyp3nis
There is no free will. |
I choose not to believe you... we've had this argument before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
|
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2003 19:15
|