Zygote: He intuited that scientific methods weren't for him

[zygote]

Originally Posted by Meissner

Maybe take a look at the things science does know about pre-determination instead of exploiting the things that it doesn't?

I genuinely mean this in the nicest way possible, apologies if I seem condescending.

No offence taken.

I don't think its up to me to prove or disprove my opinion, its just an opinion. I'm putting it forward, pretty much as a layperson, without a background in physics, math or science, if more knowledgeable people are floating around the forum tank I'm sure they'll pipe up show how this established law or that principle or whatever makes my theory completely bogus

[4lan]

Originally Posted by zygote

I don't think its up to me to prove or disprove my opinion, its just an opinion. I'm putting it forward, pretty much as a layperson, without a background in physics, math or science, if more knowledgeable people are floating around the forum tank I'm sure they'll pipe up show how this established law or that principle or whatever makes my theory completely bogus

Actually it is up to you provide evidence/reasoning.

Originally Posted by The Great Big List

2. Burden of proof lies with you.

• If you make a claim, that claim should have a basis, and we're asking you to show that basis.
• If you have a peer-reviewed academic paper, other publication, or article which supports your claim, please show us your evidence.
• Prior to entering into a discussion, please ensure that you are willing to concede that the source of any claim you make is unreliable if your claim is shown to be incorrect.
• The burden of proof has been accepted as a fundamental part of philosophical debate for thousands of years. We don't care if you can't or won't accept this.

Simply put if you have make an argument are expected to have reasonable understanding of the concepts involved a thus be able to provide support for it with evidence, articles and/or reasons. Expecting someone to check your off handed musings could be considered lazy and kinda rude.

4lan

[zygote]

Originally Posted by 4lan

Actually it is up to you provide evidence/reasoning.



Simply put if you have make an argument are expected to have reasonable understanding of the concepts involved a thus be able to provide support for it with evidence, articles and/or reasons. Expecting someone to check your off handed musings could be considered lazy and kinda rude.

4lan

Nobody knows what existed before the big bang, I can't provide evidence of what existed. My basic understanding of the moments after the big bang are sufficient to explain my reasoning for predetermination (only one big bang, discrete finite elements, mass, velocity, position).

I think that is sufficient for a forum post on the topic - 'why are we here'. A topic which not even the most eminent scientist or philosopher can answer definitively.

[Meissner]

@4lan. burden of proof in this sort of situation is tricky since the default position isn't clear, not like when somebody proposes a god and therefore has made a positive assertion that requires backing up.

I would say that the default position is on the side of non-determination BUT, there is no supernatural element to his version of the pre-determination claim, it doesn't defy physics in any way and it is almost wholly philosophical.

Tricky topic.

[zygote]

Okay I did a bit of research, apparently and predictably I'm not the first to think about this, here is an entire conversation on what I was trying to describe but a lot better explained:

Physics Forum

I'm really skeptical of the Uncertainty Principle. From what I understand it basically goes like this:

A particle travelling at x speed, with y mass and z trajectory cannot have its exact trajectory, mass and speed measured since measuring one after establishing the other would affect the first measurement.

While that's true, to me that doesn't mean that every particle doesn't have a x, y, z and every particles path and interactions is not predetermined. To me it seems like it means I can't read the future, not that there is no future.

[Meissner]

Who is arguing that there is no future? The future is determined by present actions/occurrences but that doesn't make it pre-determined since every action can be altered without any sort of notice.

At the moment of the big-bang, do you think that it was pre-determined that my parents would decide to not have me circumcised?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by zygote

Okay I did a bit of research, apparently and predictably I'm not the first to think about this, here is an entire conversation on what I was trying to describe but a lot better explained:

Physics Forum

I'm really skeptical of the Uncertainty Principle. From what I understand it basically goes like this:

A particle travelling at x speed, with y mass and z trajectory cannot have its exact trajectory, mass and speed measured since measuring one after establishing the other would affect the first measurement.

While that's true, to me that doesn't mean that every particle doesn't have a x, y, z and every particles path and interactions is not predetermined. To me it seems like it means I can't read the future, not that there is no future.

Its not that a particle cannot a specific mass/velocity, but rather the process of detection and measurement changes things. Besides, we are not really sure that particles are particles-they behave more like smears...it depends on what stuff you do to them. This is why science is not about reality, but about getting working models. We think it is more or less like reality, but there is no way to be sure.

[zygote]

Originally Posted by Meissner

Who is arguing that there is no future? The future is determined by present actions/occurrences but that doesn't make it pre-determined since every action can be altered without any sort of notice.

At the moment of the big-bang, do you think that it was pre-determined that my parents would decide to not have me circumcised?

Sorry what I mean to say was I can't measure and know all the variables to predict the future because of the uncertainty principle but that doesn't mean the future is not set, only that it can't be read by me.

I believe that's the case, your non-circumcision was predetermined by the big bang

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Its not that a particle cannot a specific mass/velocity, but rather the process of detection and measurement changes things. Besides, we are not really sure that particles are particles-they behave more like smears...it depends on what stuff you do to them. This is why science is not about reality, but about getting working models. We think it is more or less like reality, but there is no way to be sure.

Yeah I had to take a break from reading that thread, gave me a headache

[Meissner]

Originally Posted by zygote

Sorry what I mean to say was I can't measure and know all the variables to predict the future because of the uncertainty principle but that doesn't mean the future is not set, only that it can't be read by me.

I believe that's the case, your circumcision was predetermined by the big bang

A belief is the result of being convinced, what convinces you that something as trivial and "choice determined" as my lack of circumcision could be pre-determined?

[zygote]

Originally Posted by Meissner

A belief is the result of being convinced, what convinces you that something as trivial and "choice determined" as my lack of circumcision could be pre-determined?

Well I believe it because I have thought about it for a long time, and thought about other possibilities and it seems to be the most likely and simple answer.

I first thought about it when I was a kid, I was watching some movie about a book that could tell the future and allowed the reader to change the future and it struck me as impossible since any possible change you made to the future because of the book wouldn't have been in the book to begin with.

A few years later I was writing a computer program which tried to simulate basic evolution, dots growing legs, eating each other etc and the importance of randomness cannot be understated. Without a random generator you always end up with the exact same creatures if you start with the same soup.

To me it just makes more sense then anything else that without randomness in the universe and the inability to change the future along with set amount of energy and particles (non randomness) that everything is predetermined.