Fate

[SyBerWoLff]

Tonight I was doing my homework and one of the questions is "Do you believe that things are fated no matter what, or do you believe your actions can change the course of your life?" and this sparked some thought in me and I figured it would be a good logical discussion here.

This was my answer to the question:
I believe that this is a very hard question to answer. Logically fate is non-existent and the world is shaped by our decisions and actions; But on the other hand destiny could be considered a form of fate which would lead to hopes and possibly influence one's decisions and actions. So logically I believe that everything in life is variable.

[Alice Shade]

There is no such thing as destiny, per ce, as it`s defined in vocabulory.

My own definition of destiny is such - "utter conviction, that person is supposed to commit certain actions or follow certain lifestyle, based on philosophical/religious/mental issues".

Generally, I think that there is no such thing as fate - mainly because when someone says he/she is "fated" to something, I can always do something to prevent that from happening.

[jon_hill987]

I think I heard somewhere that quantum physics disproves destiny, the proof goes something like this.

If you knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe you could theoretically predict their interactions for the rest on time. However Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that when measuring conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle, increasing the accuracy of the measurement of one quantity increases the uncertainty of the simultaneous measurement of the other quantity. The most familiar of these pairs is the position and momentum.

This means you can make no such measurements as the universe is random, so fate is not predetermined.

[Passing pastafarian]

I'll try to explain this as best I can. I'm sorry if I confuse fate and destiny.

There is such a thing as fate, but the fate you will meet may just be one of many possible fates.

e.g. I have a D6 and I roll it. It has a chance of landing on a 1-6. It happens to land on 2.

At this point in time I can say that it HAS landed on a two and that moments ago it was ABOUT TO land on a two. That die HAS ALWAYS BEEN destined to land on a 2. It seems as though the die had a predetermined path or destiny.

But let's rewind. At the point where it has not been thrown, the possibility of it landing on any other number is still there and each number has an equal chance. If the dice happens to land on a 4, we can use the same logic to say that the dice HAS ALWAYS BEEN destined to land on a 4. They can't both be the case, which is where the idea of parrallell universes comes from (on a tangent, these are not universes, but realities, as the universe means everything that is, and I believe that if these parallell realities exist they are part of the universe).

On the other hand there is the view that since the die HAS ALWAYS BEEN destined to land on 2 and there was never any possibility that the die could land on anything else. This is supported by physics, in that it was the environment acting upon the dice that caused it to land on 2, and that nothing can really have a random outcome because the rest of the universe has an effect on it, determining the outcome.

None of these mean we don't have free will, they just mean that either our choices lead to the creation of an alternative reality or that the choices we make are set in stone once we make them and they can't exist alongside other choices.

I don't know the details of the science behind this, it's just what I've worked out myself.

[Erasmus]

I think I heard somewhere that quantum physics disproves destiny, the proof goes something like this.

If you knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe you could theoretically predict their interactions for the rest on time. However Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that when measuring conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle, increasing the accuracy of the measurement of one quantity increases the uncertainty of the simultaneous measurement of the other quantity. The most familiar of these pairs is the position and momentum.

This means you can make no such measurements as the universe is random, so fate is not predetermined.

Actually the proof isn't so much in quantum theory as it is in string theory. Though we move steadily forward in the fourth dimension (time), in the fifth dimension there are a myriad of paths that we could follow, each one created by chance, our choices, and the choices of others. So, according to science, as there are a huge number of alternative paths through time, and as such there is no such thing as fate.

String theory gives me a headache.

EDIT: And this is pretty much the science behind PP's post above.

[Alice Shade]

I don`t think, that dice example is exactly applicable here.

In crudest terms possible, dice is digital - it can only offer one of six predefined digits.
Universe, on other hand, is analog - and it can offer some solutions inbetween dice rolls.

Example: With 6-sided die, it`s 1/3 chance, that e`ll have 2 or 3 (excluding the possibility of die affixing on edge, which would be the prime example of the universe anagolous nature). Universe can just toss us 2.5 to deal with.

There is no fate, because, quite simply, it`s impossible to recreate some event precisely - only with some margin of error. Therefore, it`s impossible to predict any "fate" - margin of cumulative error might just be high enough to result in entirely different outcome.

[Passing pastafarian]

I don`t think, that dice example is exactly applicable here.

Example: With 6-sided die, it`s 1/3 chance, that e`ll have 2 or 3 (excluding the possibility of die affixing on edge, which would be the prime example of the universe anagolous nature). Universe can just toss us 2.5 to deal with.

There is no fate, because, quite simply, it`s impossible to recreate some event precisely - only with some margin of error. Therefore, it`s impossible to predict any "fate" - margin of cumulative error might just be high enough to result in entirely different outcome.

I was simplifying my ideas when I used a dice roll. I mean any event where there is a definite probability for the outcome.

My idea of fate is not magical or mystical simply that after the event/s have happened, they are certain to have happened and therefore have always been certain to happen.

Fate is retrospective, and it depends on how you define it, whether it exists or not. My opinion is that retrospectively it does, and that you cannot determine what your fate is until after it has happened (excepty that after your complete fate has happened, you are dead).

[Alice Shade]

PP, what I`m trying to tell, that even if you can crudely predict the outcome, basing on game theory, it is impossible to foresee the entire outcome, no matter, who you are - because it can have endless variations.

[Passing pastafarian]

I have never argued with that. My idea of fate is very loose and unforseeable .

[Kokoba]

I always thought of it like a giant paramecium.

Every man is a little cilia on the paramecium, and the paramecium itself is like the collective of humanity in general, our general progress.

The little cilia can choose what to do, which way to move, but overall they end up in a relatively small area and their actions would not have changed much if things had been different, because where they REALLY go is more controlled by the paramecium's movement than their own. But all of their little actions COMBINED influence where the paramecium go.

[ThePhilosopher]

Free will is an illusion: Such so, however, that it is real to us.

Ever since the universe began (however you believe it did), everything that has happened has been subject to cause and effect. Everything is cause by whatever happened previously, and therefore everything that will happen has already been pre-determined. If it was possible to know, understand, and compute everything that was happening and any given moment in time, one would know what was going to happen next, and therefore what was going to happen after that, etc.

However, because we cannot take in or even imagine everything that is going on in the universe, people appear to make decisions that we couldn't predict. This means that althoguht eveything is predetermined, no one will ever be able to know what is going to happen, at least not to a perfect extent. Free will and choices are real to us, and that's all that really matters.

[Alice Shade]

But it`s not pre-determined.

Cause and reason only limit potential choices, but do not eliminate the choice altogether.

Basically, to predict something with certainity, one would have to take in account every single bit of matter/energy in universe.

Now, I`m going to remind, that currently, it was scientifically proven, that it`s impossible to know the position of the particle, if you know it`s velocity, and vice-versa.

Therefore, it`s impossible to account for everything strictly, and as such, every single prediction wil have a margin or error.

[vaskafdt]

Now, I`m going to remind, that currently, it was scientifically proven, that it`s impossible to know the position of the particle, if you know it`s velocity, and vice-versa.

Therefore, it`s impossible to account for everything strictly, and as such, every single prediction will have a margin or error.

impossible is such a harsh word Alice, who can really tell what is possible and what is not. 200 years ago it was impossible to reach the moon.

just because today no scientist had yet to find a method to know the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously it doesn't mean that tomorow some new Einstein or Hawking won't figure it out

you also claim that the world is infinite but what if it's not, what if it is finite (I know many will not agree with me here) we just don't really know. if the world is finite and some brain will realize how to predict particles, then with time and a huge number of super computers it is theoretically possible to make accurate predictions about a very small particle group, on which according to the experiment we will have no effect over (because then we could change the outcome)

to accurately predict our future and destiny it will take a being who is outside of our space time and is not effected by it (and there for has no effect)

[Alice Shade]

Well, here`s a very simple reason, then.


If the world is infinite, we will have no way to account for everything.

Now, if it`s a finite, it means, that it have a border somewhere, right?
In that case, we will need to account for what is behind the border too - which again leads us into infinity of beyondtheborders.

[vaskafdt]

Now, if it`s a finite, it means, that it have a border somewhere, right?
In that case, we will need to account for what is behind the border too

we cannot account for what is behind the border because it is not in our universe it is outside or we are outside of his border same thing) it it does not effect us and we do not effect it (when i say effect I mean that no particle or something even smaller passes between our and their universe and nothing can)

I'm not talking about a 3d border (one that surrounds us from all directions) I'm talking about a 4d border our time line is also separated from their time line

[ThePhilosopher]

Well, here`s a very simple reason, then.


If the world is infinite, we will have no way to account for everything.

Now, if it`s a finite, it means, that it have a border somewhere, right?
In that case, we will need to account for what is behind the border too - which again leads us into infinity of beyondtheborders.

I believe astronomers are pretty certain that the universe isn't infinite. Considering it started as a singularity, and turned into the Big Bang, I don't think it's become infinite since then. It's growing at an increasingly rapid rate, but it's not infinite.

As for "borders", that concept doesn't really seem right, does it? Another thing I remember in my astronomy class is that in the finite universe model, it wraps around on itself. If you go far enough in any direction, you will come back to where you were. Now, it's hard to wrap your mind around this concept (yea I know, bad pun), so I have a simple way to understand it: Imagine a stick man who lives on a 2D piece of paper. He lives in a 2D world. Obviously on this piece of paper there are borders. If we were to take this paper and make a sphere out of it, the stick man wouldn't be able to see or understand the third dimension, even though his existance is curved. Now that his piece of paper is a complete sphere, he can move all the way around it and come back to where he was.

[Alice Shade]

Bullshit.

Bullshit, because you try to argue your point, using "not-passable border" - which contradicts scientific research.

Simple newtonian physics - every action has counteraction. This principle was not topped for centuries.

If we will take your theory - it either means, that you single-handedly proved wrong all physicists, starting from architects and ending with nuclear scientists, either it means, that you need a break to think things over, and try more logical explanation.

Just to put "border" theory to bed... Let`s perform mental experiment.

What happens, if I`ll travel to the border, and stick my hand through it?

A) I will succeed, thus stretching the border - which would mean, that I will intrude into whatever is behind the border. Strike-out for theory. I interacted.
B) Border will stop me. In stopping me, there will be a recoil within border, per newtonian physics. This recoil will reach through the border, and interact with whatever is outside the border. Strike-out for theory. I interacted.

To address your 4-dimensional claim....

Simple. If it does not exists in 3D space, then we have unlimited 3D space, filled with unlimited atoms. Since both space and atom quantity are unlimited, prediction is busted again.

[Alice Shade]

Wrapped space is much better concept.

But!

Two-dimensional man can leave on three-dimensional sphere. But if I, three-dimensional creature, will strike two spheres together, I will change their 2-dimensional surfaces too.

[vaskafdt]

Two-dimensional man can leave on three-dimensional sphere. But if I, three-dimensional creature, will strike two spheres together, I will change their 2-dimensional surfaces too.


didn't understand what you mean by that can you try explain it differently



and warped space is all part of what i tryed to explain but iforgot to put it in there are no 3d borders (you can not reach a border by going in either direction X,Y or Z you will just reach your starting point at some moment that is what i meant by no 3d borders) there is a border on a T scale one that is placed at the big bang and another on at "gnab gib" (the end of time) when the world is going to collapse into a singularity and so creating a border between our universe and another


now try to push your head through that border
:wink:

[AaronD]

Well, here`s a very simple reason, then.


If the world is infinite, we will have no way to account for everything.

Now, if it`s a finite, it means, that it have a border somewhere, right?
In that case, we will need to account for what is behind the border too - which again leads us into infinity of beyondtheborders.

I believe astronomers are pretty certain that the universe isn't infinite. Considering it started as a singularity, and turned into the Big Bang, I don't think it's become infinite since then. It's growing at an increasingly rapid rate, but it's not infinite.

As for "borders", that concept doesn't really seem right, does it? Another thing I remember in my astronomy class is that in the finite universe model, it wraps around on itself. If you go far enough in any direction, you will come back to where you were. Now, it's hard to wrap your mind around this concept (yea I know, bad pun), so I have a simple way to understand it: Imagine a stick man who lives on a 2D piece of paper. He lives in a 2D world. Obviously on this piece of paper there are borders. If we were to take this paper and make a sphere out of it, the stick man wouldn't be able to see or understand the third dimension, even though his existence is curved. Now that his piece of paper is a complete sphere, he can move all the way around it and come back to where he was.

But, what makes you think they do not affect each other. It is very possible that there is an infinite number (or a very large, but finite number) of universes, and that whatever happens in one of them affects all of the others. In fact, there are many untestable possibilities, but the reason that you can't know all of the exact particulars of any particle, because the act of measuring one aspect of it changes the other aspects. Do some reading on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Alice Shade]

Ok. My example with spheres.

Take two balloons, and mash them together. Areas, pressed together, will flatten out against each other, and their two-dimensional surfaces will be deformed from original state.

Alternatively, take two wooden balls, and smash them together hard enough. You`ll leave dent on both of them.

Alternatively, take your balls in hand (if you have them), and squeeze them together hard enough. You`ll yowl out in pain, or lose consciousness.

Suggestion with time border does NOT holds up to simple fact. At EVERY taken moment of time, there is unlimited number of atoms in three-dimensional space. So, at any given moment, it`s not possible to account for all the entirety of universe, because there`s always more around.
So the fact, that there`s limited amount of TIME does not somehow limits the amount of available matter at any given moment of time.

[Saramon]

I have nothing to say about the infinity of the universe, it is there, it is a long way away, what does it matter if you will never reach it, not in anyway imaginable way to me. or at least that we will reach in my life time.

I think that "fate" is an interesting topic, personally I do not think that it is an actual concept. How can it be possible? Scientifically.

My two cents.