Staredit Network

Well then I believe that the fact that there is time totally messes up everything.

How does being random involve time? I'm saying is maybe the condition is a random one which isn't based on previous results of conditions and actions.

Not knowing an outcome is not necesarily a random outcome, only an outcome that is, as far as we can tell, random.
Like if you take a StarCraft master and a StarCraft newb, take two similar-stat units and have them fight, the newb might not know who will win; as far as he can tell, it's random. The master, however, does know. But does that mean that if the master disapears, then the answer will be random? I don't think so.


As I understand it;
It is impossible to know both the velocity and the... something else, I forget what about an atom.

I heard radioactive decay is random.

Ya, that's already been said.
It's also already been said that it's not necesarily random, we might just not know what determines the rate.

ok, listen up all you *ucking faggots and wads who think that they are " al that and a bag of chips"! you all need to get the *uck over yourselfs. yes, ALL of you, even the mods. yes, about the mods, you all think that you can do and say whetever you want, but thats bull shit. just cus your a mod, dont mean your god. chuiu, you warned me for making a general comment, WHAT THE *UCK DID I DO THAT THEY DIDN'T?? they call me all kinds of things and then I get blamed for it? YOU SHOULD ROT IN HELL YOU PEACE OF SHIT!! also, you warned kellimus for what he said.....and how is that not immiture? oh thats right, your a mod. well *uck you and everyone else on the *ucking site. lets move on shal we? all of you ers who never think there wrong, cheeze, alpha, deathknight. you are the reason everyone hates america. your stuck up "know it alls" well guess what, you dont know shit. cheeze, all he dose is hide behind his "burden of proof". well i gave you a way to satisfy that, and you told me to take it up the ass. GO EAT YOU MOTHERS HERPA-GONA-SYPHL-AIDS!!!!! *ucking cocksuckers liek you who dont have a life that make good things like this form, this topic even, turn into a stinky pile-o-shit. to make it worse, we have -nuggets like alpha who cant make there own point, they have to agree with everyone elses posts just so he has something to say! i mean my god, if you dont have enought brain cells to make your own ideaa, then dont en post you en peace of shit!! and dont think i forgot about you, yoshi. your runnign of this site is almost as good as bush runnign this country. you sit on your throne and just let your mods do all the ing work. i have not seen you in a forom once. NOT ONCE! and your supposed to be runnign this site? how can you run a site if your never there? you think that this site is all "professional" and shit....ITS THE LAUGHING STOCK OF B.NET!! this iorn fist thing you have going on, realy, what are you....a commie? your a en commie arnt you? MOTHER LAND BITCH. go home to russia and iorn fist your mom you pathetic mother er! you try to make this site a democracy, it's not.it's a en dictation. what i say goes...exept for my mods...they have different rules....WTF is up with that?if your going to set rules, make it so that EVERYONE fallows them, not just us that arn't mods.

Then how are you sure that the velocity of an atom is random? What makes them different.

Hahahahahahahahahah!



Let me get this straight: You tried to prove me wrong by giving an example, and now you are saying that you knew from the beginning that it was wrong? ROOOOOOFL!!!!

You can't ignore something as major as the beggining of f*cking existance when trying to prove that free will doesn't exist. What the hell!?

Why not? We've been doing it for a while now actually. Just because it doesn't apply to one section of how the world works, doesn't mean we shouldn't apply it to another.

And as for trying to proving you wrong, lemme remind you that the mechanics of the sitiuation WORKED, even if the example didn't. And I was only trying to prove that the mechanics would work towards the desired effect. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to prove him right, and tell you that what you're trying to point out isn't relevant to what his theory is being applied to.

Umm... when did anyone say that the velocity of an atom is random?

That means random.

You are thinking about electrons. You can predict where you think it will be with a %, but you can't be sure.



Correct. My statement is proof that randomness/free will does exist. It is not proof that we have itl. However, the burden of proof is on to prove that we don't., not on us to refute your claim.



How can the mechanics have worked if you were dead-wrong? What the hell are you talking about!? Nothing was right about your statement.

The burden of proof is always on the person who assumes something. By default, it would be the person making the positive claim. I can see some of the burden of proof is on me for proving this theory.

I don't want to prove it, however. I do, however, want someone to prove to me randomness exists on a more macro level. But proving it exists will do fine too.

Randomness/freewill exists because the existance began.

Now, you are always going around telling people to prove things (including quantam physics), why don't you prove something for a change?

And it's been said that free will is not required for the existance of something out of nothing to be possible.


One thing that I really hate doing is having to repeat myself.
Read the following quote.
(Note that I have modified a couple of small bits of it)

Ya, I know that, it means random.

It's been said that Jews were the cause of Germany's poor economy.

I don't give a shit what "is said" here.

It's clear that if something didn't have a cause, then it didn't have a cause. In other words, it was either random (which doesn't make sense to me) or was caused by free will.

Oh, so you don't "give a shit" about logic? Or what you've been trying to use as proof that CheeZe's theory is incorrect?


A lack of existance is not necesarily a lack of cause.
All you've done recently is repeat the same thing over and over, you haven't given any counter to the argument that if nothing exists, than laws and logic don't exist, and so the universe doesn't have to follow them and the beginning of existance can be created out of nothing.

So, since you seem to refuse to point out what's wrong with that, I'll try something else:
Explain how free will is capable of creating the universe.
Unless, of course, free will itself defies logic and would be able to do such a thing, in which case arguing with you wouldn't have any point.

I agree with you on that, Just let me add in one more point to it. If everything is already predeterminded, then what's the point of living? If you kill yourself, then you are just simply following your fate.

I'm repeating because you're being incredibly dense (no one I have ever seen in person or anywhere else has taken the rediculous position you are taking).

Here we go:

There was nothing. Nothing at all. Zip. Not empty space, not blackness. There was nothing.

In fact, you can't even say there "was" that, because it never happened (nothing existed). All you can say is that at the first instant of existance, there was absolutely nothing before it, nothing to cause it. It just was there.

There was no cause and effect. It simply became.

Just because I was "fated" to think that coffee tastes good doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy it.


I'm being "dense" because I'm not agreeing with you when you haven't pointed out what's wrong with an argument against your position? I'm sure.

How about this...
The universe is a giant, giant chain reaction.
It appeared out of nowhere. Something existing meant that something happened. This thing happening caused a giant chain reaction, in which everything is as it is now now. This chain cannot be broken because everything in it, from the first link, has a link(previous event, and cause) attached to its ass end.

You can't prove that because it's only theory. But then again isn't everything we're talking about here theory? So there's no way to actually know than to theorize correct? I just wanted to point out to you all that no matter what you come up with, you can't prove it's the truth, it's more of an excuse.

But as to take some sort of an opinion in this theory, I think fate is pre-determined. I say this because if we so say have "free will" we would be able to change what is destined to happen, but the fact is we don't know things that WILL happen. If you see a rock falling you do not know it will hit the floor, a gunman could shoot it in mid-air. Therefor since free will is something thatr allows you to choose and change your fate, it doesn't make since to be that way because we can't control "future/Fate". If there's no way to change your future how can your destined future be your choice?

Also: the idea of something like if you ran over a kid, and you tried to go back in time and stop it. You guys say no matter what you would hit the kid based on determined fate. But that makes no sense because if you were destined to run over that child at that exact moment and it happened at a different time or place, it would not be a regular feat of fate. You were destined therefor to go back in time, and try to stop urself from running the child over. That's what I think.

P.S. My example for the kid thing was kinda corny, hope you guys can understand it cuz it seems kinda dumb to me

Ya, I understand it. Better than I would expect myself to.

Good point, Tdnfthe1.

But theres one thing that I'd like for you to take in into consideration. The future doesn't exist. Atleast, it hasn't existed yet. And once it has, it won't be the future anymore. So technically, if it hasn't existed, it can't truly be determined. If it can't be determined, wouldn't the theory of a pre-destined fate be false?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I can guess that if a bowl of soup were to appear above my head, I would be surprised and confused as hell, I would be in a large amount of pain, and soup would splash around.
It won't(or atleast, I very heavily doubt it will) happen, but I can guess what would happen if it were to.

But there are certain conditions that can allow you to predict what will happen next, and be right. If there's a starving bear and there's a pile of fish next to it, the future DOES hold that the bear will eat, will it not? There can be certain conditions that could prevent that, like the bear having tried to touch a different pile of fish and getting shocked, but then the future holds that the bear WON'T touch the fish. Future does exist....