Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

yes and because it could be predetermined with math unless you knew what was going to happen and took action to stop it nothing would change.

I didn't read the topic as I don't have much time. (I did read the OP.)

Even if you went with the argument of two people having differing genes and therefore THAT is the only reason people make differing choices, that is wrong. My brother and I have the EXACT same dna (twins) and we make different choices in the same circumstances all the time.

thats because people make desicions based on their mindset which is base don how they were raised. and noone can raise 2 kids the exact same way....maybe even since even twins have different fingerprints that could change how they think....gradual change, small yet still effective

[Heron TSG]

our fingerprints are 98% similar...?

anyways, we weren't raised the exact same way, true, but I think choices are more based off of environment than chemical reactions and math.

[Ampersand]

The environment is chemical reactions and math, I'm sorry to say. What is the difference between a rock and the experience of a rock fed into your brain by some outside force? To you there isn't one.

But that gets beyond them matter at hand. The universe is not deterministic. There are things, such as the radioactive decay of a single atom, that cannot be predicted to any degree of accuracy.

Also;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

[Micro102]

yes it is...just because we cant predict it now doesnt mean we will not have a reason to.

"For evey reaction, there will be an opposite and equal reaction", eventually radioactive decay will become predictable.

but this is all completly untestable as we will never be able to simulate the universe. like i said this is a thoery thats fun to think about nothing more

[Ampersand]

Do you understand that there exists an entire branch of physics, called Quantum Physics, that deals exclusively with the fact that the universe at the sub-atomic level is entirely probabalistic and non-deterministic? One that is a bit more advanced than the physics Isaac Newton imagined?

[SolarShado]

"For evey reaction, there will be an opposite and equal reaction", eventually radioactive decay will become predictable.

o_0 What does Newton's Second Law Of Motion have to do with radioactive decay?

Micro, I don't mean to be nasty, but you seem to be persuing something that makes no sense, and not doing a very good job of it. To be blunt, you look like an idiot.

As has been said, even if we had all of the information necessary to calculate future events with 100% certanty, simply storing the information would require more space than is available in the entire universe. Therefore predicting future events is, for any practical purpose, impossible. And that's ignoring quantum effects and the possibility of true randomness. The universe is a chaos system.

Your hypothesis is far from testable with modern technology, and personally I doubt it will be testable in the future. Therefore, IMO, it isn't really worth discussing, much less arguing about. However, I must admit that it is an interesting idea.

Here's another one, and a possible way to test your hypothesis: What if we could create a parallel universe, or a "bubble-verse" if you will? We could (ideally) control all input to the universe and (again, ideally) observe without affecting (probably not possible). What better way to simulate a universe than with another universe?

[Mr Tk]

Here's another one, and a possible way to test your hypothesis: What if we could create a parallel universe, or a "bubble-verse" if you will? We could (ideally) control all input to the universe and (again, ideally) observe without affecting (probably not possible). What better way to simulate a universe than with another universe?

OOh like the Science of Discworld?

[Micro102]

*sighs* it has nothing to do with us knowing anything new.....its JUST a theory and its impossible to prove.

[LegoLord]

*sighs* it has nothing to do with us knowing anything new.....its JUST a theory and its impossible to prove.

It is not a theory.  Don't call it such.  It is an untestable hypothesis.

The widespread lack of knowledge of the difference between the two terms is why we still have idiots who think they can disprove evolution, and why we still have issue with idiots trying to get creationism taught in school.

[Mr Tk]

*sighs* it has nothing to do with us knowing anything new.....its JUST a theory and its impossible to prove.

A hypothesis is when you state I'm am going to try to prove something, here is how I'm going to test this hypothesis, this is how I'm going to test my hypothesis, and this is what I think is going to happen.

Idea: I think that everything is pre-determined.
How: I am going to test this hypothesis by recording the actions and reactions of every type of elements, substances and forces on them, then using his information predict events in the future.
Result: I believe that through use of my information that I can predict the future, and because of these prove that everything is predetermined.

However a theory is based off theorems (things which have been proved true, or taken as true) and built up to make deductions.

Your hypothesis cannot be a theory because the theorems which would make it up it unsound and unfounded.


Anyway a theory can be disproved if you find that one of theorems is wrong, and a hypothesis that proves your point can be used as a basis to formulate a theory.

[Micro102]

i dont recall calling it a hypothesis.....its just a theory, with the theorms being that nothing is unsolvable with math based on we have not found anything unsolvable thru math

(dont even go into Quantum physics as it itself is incomplete as we cannot veiw past a quark yet)

[LegoLord]

i dont recall calling it a hypothesis.....its just a theory, with the theorms being that nothing is unsolvable with math based on we have not found anything unsolvable thru math

How do you feel?  Try solving that through math.  Given how different people can have extremely different reactions to things, you can't.  It's a hypothesis, not a theory.

It's like how you can't say there isn't another planet with sentient species simply because we haven't found any, but at the same time you can't say there is another planet with sentient species just because it's likely.

[Micro102]

how can it be a hypothesis is there is no way to test it?

how i feel could be solved thru the flow of elecricity through the brain, because you can also predict how electricity flows......dude,what are you getting at? i know its unsolvable, ITS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

[LegoLord]

how can it be a hypothesis is there is no way to test it?

Because that is what an idea is before it is proven.  A theory is a proven thing.  If you can't test it, you can't prove it, and so it isn't a theory.

[Micro102]

a theory isnt a proven thing, thats a law or fact. a theory is just that, a theory.