Poll: Do you believe in fate?

[ssgtnelson]

So I'll admit that I'm a Christian and I do believe that God, however He is viewed, knows how things are going to turn out. But I don't believe in fate. I believe each and every person choses for themselves, for good or ill, what will happen to themselves. I guess I always viewed it, from a god's perspective, they they know who will win the next horse race but they haven't done anything to influence the race. The training, horse's dedication, the jockey, etc led to the victory.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

snipity

snip

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of physics and how the universe works does not go beyond a layman's understanding.

However, my admittedly limited knowledge tells me that yes, the coin would flip would always be the same since all the factors governing its result are the same. Same thumb, same strength, same degree of enthusiasm on the part of the coin-flipper, same coin, same weight and dimensions, same material composition right down to the sub-atomic level, same location and atmosphere etc etc.

I'm pretty sure chaos theory does not apply to an exact, perfect and total repeat of conditions. While in the real world it is impractical if not impossible to account for all those complex and unpredictable interactions, in my scenario all those interaction would be perfectly and exactly replicated and occur just as the did the first time around.

Is there some kind of "randomness factor" at play when it comes to the laws of physics, possibly involving the word "quantum"? I do not know. If there is then I do not know of it and would no odubt struggle to understand it if a more knowledgable person attempted to explain it to me.

From what I understand then yes. Basically i think it boils down to quantum effects where everything is represented by probability. You may well have the same exactly the same conditions but it doesn't mean that you get the same results. Here's a quick explanation of the nub of the idea I'm getting at [http://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/]

 

[Vivi22]

No I don't believe in fate because that implies an entity or force that decides on the way things play out which is simply absurd to me.

But I do believe the Universe is most likely deterministic and everything, including the thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. which we have or take are governed by the same laws of physics which govern everything else in the universe. And no, believing that the Universe is pre-determined and likely has been since the moment of the Big Bang does not require the idea of some conscious entity deciding what shape that Universe took. That would easily be decided by whatever physical laws came into existence at the moment of the Universes actual creation (or before, or whenever those physical laws happened to take shape).

You can believe whatever you want, but keep in mind that just because you throw scientific terms like "laws of physics" and "Big Bang" in there doesn't automatically mean it's science. Indeed, much of modern physics would contradict your idea that the universe is "most likely deterministic and everything".


This goes for many of the posts here. As far as we currently understand it, the laws which govern the finest building blocks of the universe are statistical in nature. You can believe the opposite if you want, but remember you're disregarding a mountain of evidence for it.

The only thing I can think of which people frequently believe contradicts a deterministic universe is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but that merely refers to things at the quantum level being unpredictable, not being random in nature. I'm perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong, but since I know of nothing in the world of science which would indicate that I am and you (despite claiming otherwise) have presented me with no actual evidence demonstrating me to be most likely wrong, why should I take your word at face value?

Remember that most of what we know of science and physics, especially when it comes to the building blocks of the universe, is little more than a way for us to model how those things behave and interact. Something being unknowable because the simple act of trying to observe it does not mean that the universe isn't deterministic. It means that even if it is, we will not be able to obtain sufficient perfect information to predict the state of the entire universe with perfect accuracy. Hence why our understanding of things is more statistical. We know that given certain observable circumstances, a range of outcomes are possible. But that does not mean that the universe will literally have a range of outcomes for given inputs, only that we can't understand the inputs to a sufficient degree to narrow down the range of possibilities to a single certainty.

If I actually am wrong then feel free to explain how and provide some sources so I can do some further reading, but if all you are going to say is that we aren't capable of obtaining more than a set of probable outcomes to circumstances then I probably wouldn't bother since I already know quite well that our ability to predict outcomes relies on statistics and probabilities. But to say that imperfect creatures relying on imperfect information resulting in us only being able to predict a range of possible outcomes with our limited knowledge and ability to measure sub-atomic particles accurately is evidence that the Universe isn't deterministic is silly. It's evidence of no such thing.

 

[giles]

I'm perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong, but since I know of nothing in the world of science which would indicate that I am and you (despite claiming otherwise) have presented me with no actual evidence demonstrating me to be most likely wrong, why should I take your word at face value?
[...]
If I actually am wrong then feel free to explain how and provide some sources so I can do some further reading, but if all you are going to say is that we aren't capable of obtaining more than a set of probable outcomes to circumstances then I probably wouldn't bother since I already know quite well that our ability to predict outcomes relies on statistics and probabilities. But to say that imperfect creatures relying on imperfect information resulting in us only being able to predict a range of possible outcomes with our limited knowledge and ability to measure sub-atomic particles accurately is evidence that the Universe isn't deterministic is silly. It's evidence of no such thing.

First off, I'm not your science teacher so I have no obligation to present the evidence you are too lazy to look up. However, I'll humor you because your misunderstanding of QM is so old it dates back to Einstein and can be solved in a single semester introductory course to QM (we actually did derive Bell's inequality in my QM course). I'll point you in the right direction and if you care you can go find further material.

Remember that most of what we know of science and physics, especially when it comes to the building blocks of the universe, is little more than a way for us to model how those things behave and interact. Something being unknowable because the simple act of trying to observe it does not mean that the universe isn't deterministic. It means that even if it is, we will not be able to obtain sufficient perfect information to predict the state of the entire universe with perfect accuracy. Hence why our understanding of things is more statistical. We know that given certain observable circumstances, a range of outcomes are possible. But that does not mean that the universe will literally have a range of outcomes for given inputs, only that we can't understand the inputs to a sufficient degree to narrow down the range of possibilities to a single certainty.

This is a common misunderstanding of QM, but the question has been answered long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
In layman's terms, there is no "unknown theory whose variables we don't know yet" which is formulated similar to a classical theory and reproduces QM. QM is fundamentally different from such a theory. It's not a crutch we have until we find an appropriate classical theory.

 

[happyninja42]

Nope, don't believe in it, though I find it can be a useful trope in storytelling, if done well. Sadly, it's rarely used well in entertainment, so you get really lame examples of it that just prop up a crappy script.

Offhand, the best example of fate I can think of in entertainment was 12 Monkies. There might be others, but I can't think of them at the moment.