Staredit Network

Thats why you should know a lot about science and stuff before you make a theory, I thought theories are supposed to be supported by a lot of evidence and experiments and stuff.

There's probably a reason to why it's random, I don't study quantum physics so I wouldn't know. But from what I've learned the subatomic world is very different from the larger things.

Jesus, you guys think too hard about this stuff. This is almost like that "is anything really real" crap. Some of you need to invest in some drugs or something

While that's true, I also heard the randimization on that far of a level really has no impact of us.

But still, I still want to know how that is random..

CheeZe, tell me how the universe was created and I will answer all of your questions

But what I think is interesting that is if at the subatomic level everything is chaotic, then as things get big everything is orderly, so does chaos lead to order as things get bigger?

I would too.


Of course. Watch a small scene of a madness map when lots of people are massing each other.
You need to know how the numbers of units, their placements, their ranges, their damages, their splashes, their attack speeds, and so forth combine to create the exact results of the battle- however, if it's unbalanced enough or one player is enough better than the other, or they happen to be using the other player's weakness, then you can tell pretty much who's going to win the battle.

I just thought of something, what if like you said, we were able to predict the outcomes of anything based on the conditions. Well what if we develop something that would be able to tell the future because of the conditions, wouldn't that create some kind of paradox if someone found out about the future and decided to NOT do what it says, therefore changing the conditions?

Just wanted to make a note of this cuz i read this page of the thread.

It's ready!

Now about the whole random/not random accurence thing.
1)Can't prove that the future is set before us or not
2)Can't prove that our will determines our fate
3)These are supported by the fact we can't see the future before it happens. And in theory if we did, we still couldn't prove either #1 or #2.
4)In my opinion this is something that is completely independant personal opinion.
5)Monkeys Rule
6)I can't prove that you can't time travel or know the future. So everything is therefor temporal fact.(not absolute fact, meaning it's not 100% Guarantee'd).

Now that I said that:
*Orders a round of applejuice to go with the popcorn.

Oh boy.... this is a headache makin topic =\.

Anyways, heres are my 2 cents:

To ihatett, Cheeze's theory does not require causes, it requires conditions. Non-existance would be a valid condition, wouldn't it? Which means there would be a valid result. What that result is, we cannot determine, but it does show that his theory might also WORK WITH the beginning of the universe.

Ok, onto other things. CheeZe, have you takin into consideration the possinility of "infinite" possibilities? I believe a friend of mine who has studied quantum theory before says that there exists a seperate dimension/timeline/whatever for each choice taken. Like, lets say you come across a fork in the road, now, you might choose to go left, or you might choose to go right. 2 different worlds would be spawned from those 2 different actions. Now, taking this into consideration, you should also realize that with all these conditions, the results might come in possibilities, otherwise known as chance. theres a 50% chance you might turn right, and a 50% chance you might turn left. This would also mean a person has more then one option. Now, with options come choices, and if one has a choice, his path is not pre-determined, because they can choose to take it whichever way they want. How they choose depends on what conclusion they come up with. 2 people who are exactly the same in every aspect can STILL come up with 2 different conclusions(or more).

Your theory might work, but not in the case of humans as far as I'm concerned. I believe it is only sentient beings with consious thought that might possibly go against this theory.

I'd also like to ask in what perspective this theory works. Is it from a single point of view?(A) Or the grand scheme of things?(B) Because it doesn't work for A, but it MIGHT work for B.

Thats all fer now I guess.

So what you're saying FallenDreamer: because nothing exists, something will come into existence! YES! YES! WE LOVE YOUR WISE AND JUST LOGIC!!!


You don't need to!
BOO YOU STOLE MY EXAMPLE!

This 2nd paragraph like it presupposes it's free will, but I read ahead and understood what you meant.

Yes yes the philosopher's problem. Here i'll put it in a simpler form for all to see:
1) All events have causes.
2) Human actions are only events.
.-. Therefore, free will does not exist.



Now I see much hostility between Cheeze and ihateitt, so let me clarify what's going on.

Ihateitt misunderstood the meaning of "events" and "causes". You see, Ihateitt's reasoning is like this: (not mine)
1) Cheeze thinks that all events have causes.
2) It is impossible for anything to reach infinity.
.-. Cheeze's theory is preposterous because it assumes that there is an infinite chain of events and causes.

I see the 2nd premise as incorrect, because I think maybe the universe has always existed; therefore it would not need a cause because it was not an effect/event. But, if I represented Ihateitt's case correctly, he would neither believe my theory nor Cheeze's. (Actually, believing that nothing can reach infinity is a fallacy.)

Ihateitt, tell me if i misrepresented your case so I can correct my error. You too cheeze.

Yes, but how would this work?
What's the difference between a sentient creature and an innanimate object, unless there's such thing as a "soul"?
There is none.
So though the theory requires, so far as I can tell, the existance of an outside force like a soul, a different but similar one that doesn't require souls could be true; at every infinitely small moment, infinitely many universes are spawning from every universe, in which something different happens- for example, in one of them, my keyboard will suddenly turn into a bowl of lava, and I will burn my fingers off and scream in agony and surprise. In another, my keyboard will turn into a bowl of some liquid so caustic that it burns my fingers off just as well as lava, and I will dip my foot in it while sighing in relief because it's getting rid of that pain in some random guy in Japan's carapace-pains.

Yes, the second premise to the philosopher's version of Cheeze's argument would be defied if Human actions were MORE than mere events.


Oh, and your "multiple universes" theory has "multiple" problems.
1) If all the universes start out in indentical ways, then by fate they would all have the same outcomes.
2) This goes out of rationalizing and onto the burden of proof. Where's this nonsense of multiple universes every non-existant second come from? Don't you dare bring religion into this religionless logic thread.

Rediculous. If nothing existed, there could be no rule stating "If nothing exists, make something exist". If at one point that rule came into being, what caused it?

What ever caused something to exist. What do I look like, God? Infact, I don't even think god knows. It might be pondering the same thing.

Also, if nothing existed. Logic wouldn't exist either. So wouldn't it go beyond the rules of logic just once? Because once that atom or w/e, came to be, logic, and everything else, was then born.

Anyways, let me get this straight, cause I might be wrong on what you're saying:

The if and then thing does not work because it didn't start the universe.

Is that what you're saying? I just want to make sure.

As for my stance on the so called multiple universes, I'm gonna quote the great george carlin:
"If there are multiple universes, then what do they call the thing that they're all apart of?"

HOLD ON ONE F***ING SECOND! Man, gimme a second to explain myself, damnit! =\

First off, exactly HOW did I bring religion into this? I did not point to anything like that.



Kirby, I'm not saying I'm right. I think I'm wrong, but what I'm trying to say is that Cheeze's theory does not require an action or an event in order to work, it merely requires conditions, or a situation of some sort. The crappy ass example I provided wasn't really serious. I was just trying to think of something as fast as I could...



Hmm... er....can we go with a more sane version of number 2? =\

To tell you the truth, I don't really know how to defend this case. The best I can say is that chance once again comes into play. I would also like to mention Chaos as a factor... you all should know that, taking chaos into consideration, one cannot possibly state that nothing is random. I'm afriad I haven't studied chaos enough to fully comprehend it, but I believe that the base idea is that at some point in calculations, it becomes impossible to predict something. Assuming that this is true, randomness is probably also true. And also, if you look at the brain as a computer, with a bunch of yes and no switches, you should also understand that it runs off mathematics, and if so, the laws of chaos apply to it aswell. That being so, it is possible for a human to be random aswell, without the use of a "soul." I'm not too sure about this though, I've only checked out Chaos theory for about half an hour.



=\ Your ignorance is amazing, you know that? I'm not trying to point out existance. My example was wrong, and I knew that from the beginning, but thats not I was trying to do. What I was trying to show was that the mechanics of CheeZe's theory can work. In all situations? No. But they WORK. So what if they don't align with the beginning of the universe? We won't use them for that. Besides, if you looked at my example, I did not say, nor did I imply that non existance brings about existance. I said it was a valid condition, therefore, it could have a valid result. I did not say what the result was. I'm not in the position to make that sort of assumption.(This also goes to you Kirby, I never said what you assumed I said.)

Alright, now that I'm done with the responses, I gotta tell ya, I'm gut fresh outta ideas... all I can offer is relating this theory to Chaos Theory. But thats it. -_-'


ADDITION:


Um...the Multiverse? How the F*** should I know? =\ Gimme a break man, I'm tryin my hardest! ><

Could someone clarify the difference between a condition and a cause? Because I think that EVERYTHING that happens could affect anything else that happens.

Like one of CheeZe's examples



Part of the cause of the tree falling down was the strong wind, which is also a condition.
Stars impoloding was in part caused by lack of fuel, which is also a condition.

Hmm!! Actually, I think those are pretty bad examples.

The second one is ok but the first can be taken out of context too easily. The main difference between cause and condition is time.


The strong wind hitting the tree is the cause. But the actual contact (assume time is frozen as it hits) is the condition (for the tree falling).

Oh I see, so therefore it's not really a cause because at that moment there's no action that would cause something, it's just the condition.


I think though for this theory to be tested and have some proof you need to test this with some examples and experiments by gathering simple events and identifitying their conditions to see if it would really lead to the event happening.

Hmm, but I just thought of something, what if at the moment that condition with the tree falling was met, which was at the time it was hit, what if somekind of massive missle came and blew it up, that would change the outcome predicted by the conditions. But you could say as time moves on the conditions change so the missle hitting would be part of the condition in the future, but then isn't that not very useful for prediction the future with conditions that are happening here and now?

I'm not saying you can predict the future. I also said future conditions can be changed but not current conditions.

However, current conditions are what will future events take place. These events change the future conditions until the future conditions become current conditions. Which brings me back to my conclusion, our choices are from conditions, not ourselves.

Meh, but you won't really know the difference because time is constantly passing, so I don't care

I don't think it matters in free will, because say I want to move my arm, and the condition is that electrical impulse that tells my arm to move, when my arm is about to move. I think that just because there's a condition which lets the event happen, it doesn't mean I didn't choose for the condition to be set. I think of it as creating a trigger and choosing the conditions

And also since time is constantly passing and the conditions are changing, then you can't really be like oh I don't have free will because there are conditions that lead to the event happening, because they changing constantly as time passes. Once you realize that, more time has passed and they have changed once again.



That confuses me because, I think that yes there are conditions, but don't the choices also come from ourselves? They are afterall choices that come from us, and without ourselves we won't be able to make those choices, according to the conditions.

Technically, there's only 1 real cause. Cause everything is a chain reaction of it. Finding that cause is what may be may be impossible. And with our current knowledge, I'm pretty sure it is.

Pretty sure something like this was said before.

BTW - Dreamer, that george carlin quote I did, I didn't say it with a mean tone. If it some how sounded like I was pissed off, I apologize for not adding in a smiley face or something like that to it.

Funny, cause you know that is quite possible. Ever heard of Futurists? Check them out, because I think that their way of predicting the future might be a little similiar to your theory here, but in a larger sense, and not focusing on minor details.

I'd also have to agree with devilisk. Though it may not look like were operating off our own free will, it is our choices that perhaps set the conditions needed for us to perform actions. And also, if conditions could also be called reasons, then some things would happen because of a certain reason. Well, have you ever done anything for absolutely no reason at all? If you have, then I think you'd understand...



True, its only because of one thing, but this method could still be used with events after that one cause.

And don't worry bout the quote, Alpha. It was 2:00 AM, I needed sleep, and I tend to get a little grouchy bout things...ya...so just forget about it.

What are you talking about? Of course you could predict the future if studied the "effect"(s) that come any combination of cause(s) (or conditions).

It would be like a line from one event to another.

Oh yay, this is alive!

In theory, yes it's possible; however, I'm pretty sure there are conditions we cannot see nor be able to comprehend, ever. This is simply a possiblity, although I am completely open minded about being able to or not predict the future.

Kirby, I'm curious, how come whenever we actually go chat/debate about it, and then you post here, you are never able to to apply what we talked about into it? Instead, you still rely on ... the mistakes you already made.

Maybe these conditions we can't comprehend are "true randomness" and "free will"

Except.. Conditions don't involve time while free will and true randomness does.