Interesting to think about.
Say there is a war, and both sides have a prediction machine. Both sides will need to try to do thier best to not do what they have been predicted to do.
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
12Motion wrote:
Interesting to think about.
Say there is a war, and both sides have a prediction machine. Both sides will need to try to do thier best to not do what they have been predicted to do.
Problalby the one which is able to predict the most steps of changes the will be the best. Say, if I predict that you are going to go too a movie and when I tell you my prediction you change your mind. I would then have predicted that you would change your mind if I told you what I had predicted in the first place and I would then be able to choose how I would do BUT since even my behavior is predictable I would be albe to predict what I would do. So if I then try to do what I was predicted not to do even that would be predicted. In the end, all I would be able to do is sitt and predict my next move but as soon as I have the answers the answers will be changed unless the final outcome is predicted. Whatever that would be...
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
I mostly just glanced through the topic, but determinism doesn't really work, thanks to quantam physics. As far as we know, the movement of sub-atomic particles is indeed random. So even if you knew the position of everything in the universe, you could not predict it.
Then, you can apply the same to humans. We're certainly not sub-atomic particles, but we must still obey the laws of physics. Yes, you can reasonably guess how a person will react given a certain situation if you know the person, but you can't be sure.
While humans may not be capable of true randomnes, you should remember that there is a possibility of a divine being, who may themselves be capable of true randomness.
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Itstoearly wrote:
While humans may not be capable of true randomnes, you should remember that there is a possibility of a divine being, who may themselves be capable of true randomness.
Very true, indeed. Then, maybe, they have solved the problem of how to "read" randomness and therefor broken free from it...
... sounds like poetry...
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Boco: The Uncertainty Principle and derminism should not be too confused with each other. While the Uncertainity Principle (and Chaos) prevent us from theoretically predicting the future, this does not mean that the universe is not deterministic. And, if somehow, someone, did have all the values of everything in the universe, without affecting the system, he could predict the future.
The scientific argument against determinism is quantum randomness. The movement of sub-atomic particles appears to be probabalistic, according to our current theories. If the probability of movement is 50/50, then its movement is completely random. The idea of a random universe is contrary to determinism.
Most quantum physicists today believe that the nature of the universe is probabilistic. However, some minorty of them believe in other interpretations of quantum mechanics that are still deterministic.
Even if the world is probabilistic at the sub-atomic level, the world is still deterministic on the macroscopic level. This is how engineers can build stuff, and pool players can play pool. One question may be how order comes out of chaos.
As humans, we're physical, and part of the physical universe. We're subject to the universe's causal laws. Therefore, we lack free will, and have fates. (One may argue that humans have non-physical souls which give us free will. Even if that is the case, you can't deny that your behavior is subject to your psychological state. Imagine having eaten little, and slept little. It's not surprising that you will be cranky. Are you choosing to be cranky, or do you really have no choice in the matter?)
Why don't you believe in determinism?
Joined: 3/2/2005
Posts: 18
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Ramzi wrote:
The scientific argument against determinism is quantum randomness. The movement of sub-atomic particles appears to be probabalistic, according to our current theories. If the probability of movement is 50/50, then its movement is completely random. The idea of a random universe is contrary to determinism.
I have believed in determinism for a long time. Using logic, I constructed a reasoning about why this was the only sane thing to believe in. I don't remember the specifics, but the most important part was that logic can't work in a non-deterministic reality.
However, thinking about a probabilistic reality has made me very uneasy, because maybe I have made an error using induction:
Logic worked yesterday.
Logic worked today.
----------------------------
Logic will work tomorrow.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
torbjrn wrote:
Logic worked yesterday.
Logic worked today.
----------------------------
Logic will work tomorrow.
I don't know if I'd call that an inductive "error" but induction, as opposed to deduction, arrives at a conclusion that is not a certainty. I could easy say:
The sun rose yesterday.
The sun rose today.
------------------------------
The sun will rise tomorrow.
-but we have no way of knowing for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Something could happen to the sun, or to us, and our argument would be proven wrong.
That's not mathematical induction. Mathematical induction relies on proving one example and then proving for n that n+1 works as well.
So with that in mind:
The sun rose yesterday.
For all days the sun rises it will rise the following day.
Therefore the sun rises on all days starting from yesterday at least.
Now the burden of proof lies with the second line. And I'd like to see that proven.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 3/2/2005
Posts: 18
Location: Linköping, Sweden
feitclub wrote:
torbjrn wrote:
Logic worked yesterday.
Logic worked today.
----------------------------
Logic will work tomorrow.
I don't know if I'd call that an inductive "error" but induction, as opposed to deduction, arrives at a conclusion that is not a certainty.
Perhaps I phrased it badly. What I meant was that the conclusion is false even though the observations were correct (which they might be in a probabilistic reality).
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I believe in a soul with free will, but i dont completely invalidate the possibility of determinism.
Determinism and butterfly effect walk hand by hand, and every factor can influence a person's decision:
- previous experiences
- current experiences
- sensorial feelings such as hunger, thirst, temperature etc
- disposition of brain cells, amount of red cells on the blood and their positions when passing through brain cells (may feed the brain cell or not at a certain time)
- small earthquakes
- earth's magnetic field
- a cat that passed by 3 minutes ago
Anyway, you get me, the list is infinite, so, even if determinism exists, its not something anyone could understand (only god, if you believe in one). So, deterministic or not, its ramdom for us.
Joined: 3/2/2005
Posts: 18
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Mazzic wrote:
12Motion wrote:
if predicting what people will do becomes a part of culture then there will be people who will do things against what they are predicted to do...
...and it will then be predicted that they will not do as they are predicted to do. Kinda wierd but that would probably be that way it would work.
It's common for observations to affect the result. For instance: If you try to count the number of animals in a forest by counting the animals visiting a waterhole, your presence alone will scare some of them away, thus making you count less animals than in an unaffected forest.
Perhaps observing the future will unconditionally alter it.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
torbjrn wrote:
Perhaps observing the future will unconditionally alter it.
I've actually wondered something similar. I honestly believe the events of Oedipus Rex and MacBeth would never have happened if they're respective prophecies were never given.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Joined: 3/15/2005
Posts: 30
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Erm, sorry. I kind of got behind on the discussion for a bit.
IB stands for International Baccalaureate, short for the International Baccalaureate Program. It's a highly rigorous, intensive high school program meant to do two things: push high school education to the fullest extent possible, and standardize (to an international level) the material, testing, and grading of the participants.
Unlike AP (Advanced Placement) classes, IB aims for a fully rounded education, requiring one take 7 IB courses: 3 standard level, 3 higher level, and ToK (Theory of Knowledge) which is metaphored as the "hub" which binds the whole thinking process together. It's basically an epistemology class that introduces and briefly covers all your standard philosophy subjects (aesthetics, ethics, parts of linguistics, etc.).
The 6 other classes are your regular HS subjects: Math, Sciences (Phys., Chem., etc.), Primary Language, Secondary Language, Hisory, and an elective (such as Music Theory/Composition or Psychology).
To put the whole thing another, much simpler way, it's the toughest academic program you can take in a public American high school. It's also worth its weight in intellectual gold.
