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

[matt87_50]

Hisonburg uncertainty principle,

its impossible to know speed and position at the same time.

even the Ferrari 458 has this problem, you can either show the satnav, or the speedometer. but not both at the same time.

 

[sam42ification]

I was just thinking about fate today and i think i have, unless the entity some call a "soul" or the "spark of life" exists, proven that all our actions are predetermined. Please read my points. And please prove me wrong. I feel kinda crap knowing all my actions are predetermined.

From the second the universe was born, all particals in existance were created and given a speed, a direction and a mass. Now we can predict what two particals will do when they collide. Perfectly, using the laws of physics. Meaning from the second the universe was created every particals movement and collisions, and such ALL subsquent collisions are all 100% predicatable, assuming you had the computing power or brainpower to do this.

In your brain when you make a decisions, everything in your brain functions, each individual cell, because of collisions and electrical impulses. All of these are predictable. If i knew the location and speed of every single atom in your brain, i could predict everything you could think and do. Forever. 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.

Unless people have a soul or an essence or some thing that makes us do truly random things, that can supernaturely divert particals in our brain to do multiple possible actions, everything we do is set in stone. From the second the big bang started. Unless something stops these particals from taking their predetermined paths from the second the big bang gave them some energy, everything in the entire universe can be predicted with 100% accuracy in theory. Nothing is really random. Its a bit depressing to be honest.

Discussion: After reading this do you believe in fate? Im not sure i do. I think ive just proved we have a soul. Either that or fate. Do you believe in free will because of some divine force. As an athiest this makes my head hurt. I think im gonna go do something fun and never think about it again. Im already going to anyway. Its predicted.

EDIT: People seem obsessed with the fact this tiny 10 min thought has somehow dominated my life. It has not. I am calm. This is a tiny musing. Stop telling me to calm down. You just come away looking really really weird... I dont realy mind either way. Its like death being inevitable. I dont really think about it.

EDIT: Ive also been proven wrong a few times by the duel slat test AND the uncertainty theory. Dont bother posting them. I admit i got it wrong. Fun thought though.

This could be true in theory but to know what you are going to do you have to know what other people are going to do. A lot of your life is depermined by other people. Conversations telling you about somthing or some one convincing you to do some thing that will effect your future. To understand what you are going to do you have to know the all the variables otherwise your conclusion is useless. Because other people and other things effect your decissions so much it's almost impossible to calulate what you are going to do. It's a good thought though although the variables are too many and i'm sure the particle physisist and nero chemist could come up with some thing to prove you wrong but it is a good thought.

 

[Sam Warrior]

Cells generate electrical current by... moving atoms. Mostly by moving Na ions over a membrane.

However the brain is a closed system.

but the point of the post is hypothetically if you could track the movement of every single atom in existence you could predict the future/fate/whatever, you cant because of quantum mechanics at least as far as I know. So closed system or not the product of the brain could be determined if you knew the path of every atom which went into making it up. Least thats the way I see it.

 

[hctib_elttil]

this is all very well and good (also sadly plausable)
but the computing power to calculate the whole universe dose not exist
this kind of stuff get touched on alot in Douglas Adam's books
but its a joke
yes everything might be predetermined but we have no way of knowing what the eventual outcome is
so its best to just have fun finding out
also if you have not read "the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy"
and all its sequels then i recommend doing so

 

[Sampler]

I was just thinking about fate today and i think i have, unless the entity some call a "soul" or the "spark of life" exists, proven that all our actions are predetermined. Please read my points. And please prove me wrong. I feel kinda crap knowing all my actions are predetermined.

From the second the universe was born, all particals in existance were created and given a speed, a direction and a mass. Now we can predict what two particals will do when they collide. Perfectly, using the laws of physics. Meaning from the second the universe was created every particals movement and collisions, and such ALL subsquent collisions are all 100% predicatable, assuming you had the computing power or brainpower to do this.

In your brain when you make a decisions, everything in your brain functions, each individual cell, because of collisions and electrical impulses. All of these are predictable. If i knew the location and speed of every single atom in your brain, i could predict everything you could think and do. Forever. 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.

Unless people have a soul or an essence or some thing that makes us do truly random things, that can supernaturely divert particals in our brain to do multiple possible actions, everything we do is set in stone. From the second the big bang started. Unless something stops these particals from taking their predetermined paths from the second the big bang gave them some energy, everything in the entire universe can be predicted with 100% accuracy in theory. Nothing is really random. Its a bit depressing to be honest.

Discussion: After reading this do you believe in fate? Im not sure i do. I think ive just proved we have a soul. Either that or fate. Do you believe in free will because of some divine force. As an athiest this makes my head hurt. I think im gonna go do something fun and never think about it again. Im already going to anyway. Its predicted.

EDIT: People seem obsessed with the fact this tiny 10 min thought has somehow dominated my life. It has not. I am calm. This is a tiny musing. Stop telling me to calm down. You just come away looking really really weird... I dont realy mind either way. Its like death being inevitable. I dont really think about it.

EDIT: Ive also been proven wrong a few times by the duel slat test AND the uncertainty theory. Dont bother posting them. I admit i got it wrong. Fun thought though.

Uncertainty theory is just an excuse for bad science that's not yet understood.

Just try to look surprised, works for me..

 

[Thaluikhain]

The uncertainty principle is irrelevant, in that you don't need anyone to predict it for it to be pre-determined.

Assuming pre-determinism, what does that say about time, though? Becomes almost an irrelevance, if "past", "present" and "future" are just as set in stone.

 

[Raven's Nest]

It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. There was no testing, no basis fvor the conclusion, just conjecture.

I don't know about you but most people I meet are completely uninterested in understanding the world around them. They only care when something immediately affects them (like climate change and the introduction of green taxes). A politician announces that people should get the bus more to reduce their carbon footprint and suddenly most people find out that cars actually produce fumes which damage the environment. Lest they find out that car factories produce tenfold more gasses than a regular car does by comparison mind...

I'm celebrating this guys thirst for knowledge, not his methods or abilities. Its never a bad thing to think...

There is nothing about it that even rudimentarily brushes on the cusp of knowledge seeking. It is mindless assertion.
The guy is under the delusion that he has "conclusively proved fate or a soul exists" based presumptions. No evidence, no supporting data, no logical coherency.
Celebrating that is no different to celebrating a man who claims the world is made out of ice-cream because rock melts.

Perhaps, but the sentiment remains. A inclination to search for knowledge is always commendable. The value of the results of that search however, is up to society to decide.

 

[MonocleClaire]

I don't mind if my actions are pre-determined. It's still my choice.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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

The main thing I don't understand about the uncertainty principle is this: Sure, you can not know the exact speed and position of a particle; but that shouldn't need to mean that the particle in question does not actually have an exact location and speed at any given moment. The way I see it right now, the particle would still have to move in accordance to its position and speed, but we would never be able to predict its movements since we can't know both speed and position.

In short: I don't quite see how the uncertainty principle disproves a predetermined fate.

I don't think there are any physicists around here, so I'll explain it: yes, you are measuring both speed and position of a particle simultaneously, and that is not the problem. The issue arises from the non-commutativity of the position and momentum operators (quick refresher, commutativity: a*b=b*a, just not in quantum mechanics). This then means you can only establish the wavefunction, that is the little function that tells you everything you need to know about the particle for either momentum or position. It's really difficult to put into words, but it is fundamentally impossible to exactly determine any further information from that data that is not exclusive to either position or momentum. Let me give you a real life example: you are reading this on a computer, which were designed with much input from quantum theory. Most specifically from scattering theory. This states that a particle with x energy has a nonzero probability of passing through a barrier of >x energy, which enables the construction of semiconducters. An explanation for this is the uncertainty principle, as the kinetic energy (analogous to momentum) is known, so the position is not.

tl;dr: no, uncertainty is absolute. It cannot be circumvented, and it absolutely disproves predetermination on the quantum scale.

I fail to see how this proves anything but the fact that you cannot know said predetermined fate.

If a ball is flying past me behind my back at the same time as someone tells me its exact speed, the ball will still have a position which will factor in on how it moves from there (if it will crash into a wall etc.). Its position is merely not known to me. I cannot determine the ball's postition, so I can't predict the ball's predetermined path, I fail to see how this proves it doesn't have one.

Is there something I'm not getting here?
Is it that Schrödinger stuff that "since we can't know the ball's position, it doesn't have one"?

That was Heisenberg, but not terribly important.
Well, the fact that you cannot know the position enables the "ball" to appear in places it normally couldn't reach, hence the semiconducter example. Think of measurements as a sort of reset mechanism. That's not entirely correct, it will act as a perturbation, which then messes up the system even more and destroys even any accurate predictability you could have gotten from the momentum. You're right though, this doesn't prove that your little "ball" doesn't have both position and momentum, but it shows that both are based on probability, randomness, and unpredictability. Plus the "ball" never moves in a straight line, its motion is almost entirely random, so a "ball" whizzing past you might just turn around to hit you in the face. The probability bit is important on the macroscopic scale incidentally.
PS: I put "ball" in quotes, because quantum mechanics only applies to objects that can act as waves with relative ease, so small fast moving things like electrons.

 

[Zantos]

From the second the universe was born, all particals in existance were created and given a speed, a direction and a mass. Now we can predict what two particals will do when they collide. Perfectly, using the laws of physics. Meaning from the second the universe was created every particals movement and collisions, and such ALL subsquent collisions are all 100% predicatable, assuming you had the computing power or brainpower to do this.

Boom. You're assuming here a classical model of particles. This, although works within very limited reigimes is not sufficient to explain single particle interactions. Working on this scale you need to use quantum mechanics which is not deterministic but is probabilistic. Then you need to take into account quantum field theory in order to understand the effect that zero point energy has on these probabilities. THEN to backtrack to before the planck epoch you need a quantum gravity type theory because even then quantum field theory breaks down. This is especially difficult since QFT and general reletivity are still refusing to get along so no quantum gravity theory exists. It is the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics that allows you to bypass the whole arguement.

 

[AlexAndRed]

Sorry if this is brief; there are SC2 replays awaiting.

What the OP discusses is the idea of determinism, which was developed under the assumptions made by classical mechanics (no quantum effects). If the universe obeyed a fundamental set of laws (with no uncertainty principle etc.) then we could, [very] theoretically, make calculations based on the state of the universe and those fundamental laws to predict the 'outcome' of the universe - our conception of free will would be an illusion and we could predict the future with absolute certainty, including the activity of all the individual neurones that make up our brain. Unless you believe in magic (read: mind-body dualism/religion/mysticism) or quantum mechanics this is fairly indisputable.

Under quantum mechanics you cannot predict absolute outcomes, only the inherent probabilities of outcomes. Unfortunately this isn't the band-aid for free will you might expect, because it only means events are inherently random (rather than randomness being an illusion emerging from chaos). So do we have free will? Still a no, but:

Determinism doesn't mean we cannot think or feel, it merely means that we do not actively or consciously make decisions in the way we believe we do - or at all (work in neuroscience suggests that our feeling of agency - of consciously causing our own actions - is an illusion; electrical activity in the brain that will lead to an action builds up before people are consciously aware of their own impulse to perform that action). We still have needs, feelings, wants, emotions, and our actions reflect this in that the actions we take are the ones we actually 'subconsciously' want to take anyway (I use the word subconsciously with hesitation because our classical notions of the terms conscious and subconscious are barriers to our understanding of the way our brains work). Adjust this model for impulsiveness and creativity as you will.

This quote, which I believe is from Schopenhauer, may help to elucidate what I mean: "We do what you will, but we cannot will what we will."

Basically, either:
1) Accept we have no free will and live as normal
2) Believe in a soul, mind/body dualism (potentially links to 3)
3) Provide an alternative model to brain function (essentially a neural network) as the basis of consciousness

tl;dr OP is right under classical mechanics, Quantum Mechanics is likely meaningless for free will, consciousness plays no part in making decisions - brain is a causal machine and we have no soul - and society's classical conception of consciousness in the brain is very flawed.

 

[kinggamecat]

I am a believer of infinite possibilities, I'm not 100% with fate but I know a way it could exist without us know, as well as free will.


What if everything we do is not our choice, we only THINK it is, the "choices" we make are ones we would make no-matter what, if you do it so you won't do something else you COULD gave done, you still only made the choice ya did, thus you THINK you changed something but in actuality you were destined to do that anyways... Does anyone see where I'm going with this? ^^

 

[Jonluw]

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

The main thing I don't understand about the uncertainty principle is this: Sure, you can not know the exact speed and position of a particle; but that shouldn't need to mean that the particle in question does not actually have an exact location and speed at any given moment. The way I see it right now, the particle would still have to move in accordance to its position and speed, but we would never be able to predict its movements since we can't know both speed and position.

In short: I don't quite see how the uncertainty principle disproves a predetermined fate.

I don't think there are any physicists around here, so I'll explain it: yes, you are measuring both speed and position of a particle simultaneously, and that is not the problem. The issue arises from the non-commutativity of the position and momentum operators (quick refresher, commutativity: a*b=b*a, just not in quantum mechanics). This then means you can only establish the wavefunction, that is the little function that tells you everything you need to know about the particle for either momentum or position. It's really difficult to put into words, but it is fundamentally impossible to exactly determine any further information from that data that is not exclusive to either position or momentum. Let me give you a real life example: you are reading this on a computer, which were designed with much input from quantum theory. Most specifically from scattering theory. This states that a particle with x energy has a nonzero probability of passing through a barrier of >x energy, which enables the construction of semiconducters. An explanation for this is the uncertainty principle, as the kinetic energy (analogous to momentum) is known, so the position is not.

tl;dr: no, uncertainty is absolute. It cannot be circumvented, and it absolutely disproves predetermination on the quantum scale.

I fail to see how this proves anything but the fact that you cannot know said predetermined fate.

If a ball is flying past me behind my back at the same time as someone tells me its exact speed, the ball will still have a position which will factor in on how it moves from there (if it will crash into a wall etc.). Its position is merely not known to me. I cannot determine the ball's postition, so I can't predict the ball's predetermined path, I fail to see how this proves it doesn't have one.

Is there something I'm not getting here?
Is it that Schrödinger stuff that "since we can't know the ball's position, it doesn't have one"?

That was Heisenberg, but not terribly important.
Well, the fact that you cannot know the position enables the "ball" to appear in places it normally couldn't reach, hence the semiconducter example. Think of measurements as a sort of reset mechanism. That's not entirely correct, it will act as a perturbation, which then messes up the system even more and destroys even any accurate predictability you could have gotten from the momentum. You're right though, this doesn't prove that your little "ball" doesn't have both position and momentum, but it shows that both are based on probability, randomness, and unpredictability. Plus the "ball" never moves in a straight line, its motion is almost entirely random, so a "ball" whizzing past you might just turn around to hit you in the face. The probability bit is important on the macroscopic scale incidentally.
PS: I put "ball" in quotes, because quantum mechanics only applies to objects that can act as waves with relative ease, so small fast moving things like electrons.

I... see.
I'm not entirely sure I get it, but we'll start the chapter on semiconductors in physics class after easter vacation. Perhaps I'll understand more then.

Thanks for clearing it up in any case. I have at least a basic grip of what you're getting at now.

 

[Trolldor]

It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. There was no testing, no basis fvor the conclusion, just conjecture.

I don't know about you but most people I meet are completely uninterested in understanding the world around them. They only care when something immediately affects them (like climate change and the introduction of green taxes). A politician announces that people should get the bus more to reduce their carbon footprint and suddenly most people find out that cars actually produce fumes which damage the environment. Lest they find out that car factories produce tenfold more gasses than a regular car does by comparison mind...

I'm celebrating this guys thirst for knowledge, not his methods or abilities. Its never a bad thing to think...

There is nothing about it that even rudimentarily brushes on the cusp of knowledge seeking. It is mindless assertion.
The guy is under the delusion that he has "conclusively proved fate or a soul exists" based presumptions. No evidence, no supporting data, no logical coherency.
Celebrating that is no different to celebrating a man who claims the world is made out of ice-cream because rock melts.

Perhaps, but the sentiment remains. A inclination to search for knowledge is always commendable. The value of the results of that search however, is up to society to decide.

No knowledge has been sought, nothing has been researched, no testing has been done.
Science is not something so easily accomplished as to be done with empty conjecture.
Unless the OP is like six, there is nothing commendable to be found in that post.
No, bad science is never and will never be commendable.
If the OP hadn't been so quick to use the word "conclusively" and "proved" I wouldn't be so oppositional, but a dogmatic statement such as that backed up by not a single shred of evidence is so far removed from intellectual exploration that it is best served only with dismissal.
If the guy had any interest in knowledge he wouldn't have been so eager to make absolute claims.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

EDIT: Ive also been proven wrong a few times by the duel slat test AND the uncertainty theory. Dont bother posting them. I admit i got it wrong. Fun thought though.

That Statement in bold, it is impossible. You cannot know the Speed AND position of a particle (see Schrödinger's cat and the Uncertainty principle).

You may want to make some changes if you don't want to be quoted again.
And people have had this and many more scientifically accurate thoughts before, but still have not proven the soul.
And putting sciency in your title... please don't.

 

[AlexAndRed]

I am a believer of infinite possibilities, I'm not 100% with fate but I know a way it could exist without us know, as well as free will.


What if everything we do is not our choice, we only THINK it is, the "choices" we make are ones we would make no-matter what, if you do it so you won't do something else you COULD gave done, you still only made the choice ya did, thus you THINK you changed something but in actuality you were destined to do that anyways... Does anyone see where I'm going with this? ^^

The entire thread comes down to this^^

QM just makes things inherently random, it doesn't make our actions meaningful.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

*snip*Meaning from the second the universe was created every particals movement and collisions, and such ALL subsquent collisions are all 100% predicatable, assuming you had the computing power or brainpower to do this.*snip*

Quantum physics. Nothing is 100% predictable because on an atomic level, everything is left to chance. That doesn't mean that all possible outcomes won't resolve themselves somewhere. The many worlds theory states that all possible resolutions do occur in an alternate reality. As there really isn't a way of figuring out exactly which one you're in (computers can't currently contemplate the infinite, and neither can we). Truly, everything is, in a way, predetermined but the choices you make are yours. They are not set and while someone else will make a different one, somewhere else, the choices you made are not theirs and theirs are not yours.

Essentially, the outcome of any event is predetermined, but your choices alone determine which outcome you arrive at. If that makes any sense.

Not entirely true. It's not chance but probability, and the most probable outcomes are the ones we expect to find, but the observation principle means it's possible to manipulate the outcome and even the history of the particle.

Bit of a mindfuck of a thing.

From my perspective, chance and probability mean exactly the same thing, as chance in the purest sense doesn't exist.

The observation principle never allows for 100% accuracy, though, so in the end...

Technicality can fuck itself. Why do I debate this? You corrected me and I simply replied by saying you clarified what I said and that in essence we meant exactly the same thing. There is no longer any purpose to going on with this.

If it's all meaningless, why do I feel the need to do it?

You know, while we're being existential.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Hisonburg uncertainty principle,
its impossible to know speed and position at the same time.

Any good scientist would look at that statement in the way it should be interpreted by the scientific community. The ?impossibility? of the two measurements is due to our current limitations and understanding in how we apply the measurements. In other words, it?s hardly impossible, we just haven?t figured out how to do it yet. As others have already admitted here; our understanding of quantum mechanics tends to change rather quickly from day to day. People thought flying was impossible, and that the world was flat. One day we?ll look back on this principle with fond nostalgia. One man totting that something can?t be done should never prevent others from attempting to prove him wrong.

Taking a very basic approach to speed and position; we?ve got GPS. And our applications of GPS are improving rapidly. You?re telling me that according to a single theoretic principle that I can?t apply the growing technological advancements in a field dedicated to this concept to disproving the theory? If a satellite can find my car?s exact location and speed at any giving time on the entirety of the world?s surface, then I can tell you we?ll eventually disprove the uncertainty principle. Probably won?t be me, and might not even happen in my life time and hopefully the ones screaming ?NNOOO? don?t bomb us back into the stone age because they?re worried the Hadron Collider will swallow the world in a black hole, but we?ll get there.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

I was just thinking about fate today and i think i have, unless the entity some call a "soul" or the "spark of life" exists, proven that all our actions are predetermined. Please read my points. And please prove me wrong. I feel kinda crap knowing all my actions are predetermined.

From the second the universe was born, all particals in existance were created and given a speed, a direction and a mass. Now we can predict what two particals will do when they collide. Perfectly, using the laws of physics. Meaning from the second the universe was created every particals movement and collisions, and such ALL subsquent collisions are all 100% predicatable, assuming you had the computing power or brainpower to do this.

In your brain when you make a decisions, everything in your brain functions, each individual cell, because of collisions and electrical impulses. All of these are predictable. If i knew the location and speed of every single atom in your brain, i could predict everything you could think and do. Forever. 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.

Unless people have a soul or an essence or some thing that makes us do truly random things, that can supernaturely divert particals in our brain to do multiple possible actions, everything we do is set in stone. From the second the big bang started. Unless something stops these particals from taking their predetermined paths from the second the big bang gave them some energy, everything in the entire universe can be predicted with 100% accuracy in theory. Nothing is really random. Its a bit depressing to be honest.

Discussion: After reading this do you believe in fate? Im not sure i do. I think ive just proved we have a soul. Either that or fate. Do you believe in free will because of some divine force. As an athiest this makes my head hurt. I think im gonna go do something fun and never think about it again. Im already going to anyway. Its predicted.

EDIT: People seem obsessed with the fact this tiny 10 min thought has somehow dominated my life. It has not. I am calm. This is a tiny musing. Stop telling me to calm down. You just come away looking really really weird... I dont realy mind either way. Its like death being inevitable. I dont really think about it.

EDIT: Ive also been proven wrong a few times by the duel slat test AND the uncertainty theory. Dont bother posting them. I admit i got it wrong. Fun thought though.

Dude your science is wrong. We can't predict all the actions yadada. There is fate for a diffent reason. On a 4 d timeline everything from the begginging of the universe to the end arleady happened instantly. A 4 d point encompasses all of time as one object. So everything you do or will do or have done including time travel has happened on a 4 dimensional scale. The past the future and the present are all the same in 4d.