Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> Fate
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-07-13 at 17:42:18
QUOTE(Parthx86 @ Jul 13 2005, 03:14 PM)
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....
[right][snapback]261891[/snapback][/right]


While that may be true, you gotta remember that it hasn't happend. While it may be determined that it MIGHT happen, it doesn't mean that it WILL happen. What I'm trying to say is even with perfect calculation, as in, that which God wishes he had, I still don't think you can predict the future. What hasn't happend can't always be predicted.

QUOTE(EzDay281 @ Jul 13,2005, 12:42 AM)
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.


Yes, but like I said above, all we can really do is guess. I don't think any amount of tedious calculation would always, for sure, be able to predict something with 100% accuracy.

Oh, heres another question I'd like to ask. What's the smallest possible unit of measure? If you get my point, please say "I"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-07-13 at 17:47:26
QUOTE
Yes, but like I said above, all we can really do is guess. I don't think any amount of tedious calculation would always, for sure, be able to predict something with 100% accuracy.

If you take absolutely every factor into consideration, and have perfect, unflawed calculations, than how could you get something wrong?
As with my comparison to the expert and newb watching two units fight, that's just a really, really simplified version of this.
Take out the "random" factors(random misses, ai breaks, ai inconsistancies, etc), and you could determine which side of an army would win with how many units left, where they are, how much health they have, and so forth.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-13 at 18:02:54
What about micro? And if you have a lot of units, the speed at which a person might select 12, order them to attack, then have to select the rest and repeat that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-07-13 at 19:00:34
Micro only applies if the players are doing anything more than just watching the armies charge at each other...
>_>
Anyways, that would be a ""random" factor".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-07-13 at 19:14:33
QUOTE(EzDay281 @ Jul 13 2005, 03:47 PM)
If you take absolutely every factor into consideration, and have perfect, unflawed calculations, than how could you get something wrong?
[right][snapback]261923[/snapback][/right]


What about fractions? 1/3 goes on and on forever. Can those be determined perfectly? from what I know, our best workable calculations come from either just using the expression(1/3), or an estimate of the decimel number, but not any exact information.

Also, when I said the smallest measurement possible, I really did mean POSSIBLE. Remember particles, my friend. First, we thought it was the atom that was the smallest. Then, protons, neutrons, electorns. Then, quarks and leptons. Things keep getting smaller and smaller. And then you have to take into consideration, gluons, a form of energy that exists spread over an area, sometimes around certain particles. It has no distinct shape or size, unlike other particles. Then theres heat. Heat's intesisty is measured by thin it's been spread or how much its focused on one spot, creathing the hot and cold effect. And then, you could also go into mathematics. You could measure on a scale of 1 ft, or half a proton. You probably wouldn't be able to do the half a proton thing accurately (without a computer that is), but its still a valid measurement. And then, another thing having to do with mathematics. I've mentioned Chaos theory before, but not this part. In chaos theory, a patern occurs where a certain shape repeats itself, continuosly getting smaller and smaller each time. It always gets longer but it will never get past a certain length, a length which forms a circle around the starting point of the shape. Mathematically, there's no end to this.

Another example is this: Lets say you're trying to buy a hundred dollar graphics card(So we can all relate =P, teh gamers anway). You're saving up for it, but each day, you only get half as much as you got from the day before, the starting amount being 50$. The next day, it would be +25$. Then $12.50.

It would go like this:

50
25
12.5
6.25
3.125
1.5625
0.78125

It keeps adding up, and always gets bigger, but never gets to whate is being aimed for. Eventually, you'll get to the point where the money is too little to even be worth a penny, so you don't get anything at all. That's kinda how it works.

ADDITION:
QUOTE(Parthx86 @ Jul 13 2005, 03:14 PM)
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....
[right][snapback]261891[/snapback][/right]


I'd also just like to add to this that the future doesn't exist because it hasn't happend yet. What you're thinking of is simply the scenario in your head. All you're doing is going over it in your head, to try and guess the outcome. But there hasn't been an outcome yet, and when it happens, it's no longer the future, it's the present. The future doesn't exist in reality, it exists as a concept used to describe a time after the present that you haven't experienced yet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-13 at 20:22:45
The future doesn't EXIST? Ya, it currently does not exist. What does CURRENTLY exist is the present, and only the present. That's why it's called the censored.gif ing present. what WILL exist though, is called the future. And sometimes, we can take a pretty good guess on what the future will have.

Definition for the word future:

1. The indefinite time yet to come: will try to do better in the future.
2. Something that will happen in time to come: “The future comes apace” (Shakespeare).
3. A prospective or expected condition, especially one considered with regard to growth, advancement, or development: a business with no future.
4. futures Business. Commodities or stocks bought or sold upon agreement of delivery in time to come.
5. Grammar.
1. The form of a verb used in speaking of action that has not yet occurred or of states not yet in existence.
2. A verb form in the future tense.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-07-13 at 20:26:16
QUOTE
What about fractions? 1/3 goes on and on forever. Can those be determined perfectly? from what I know, our best workable calculations come from either just using the expression(1/3), or an estimate of the decimel number, but not any exact information.

The only reason we can't properly display 1/3 with our numbering system is because of the fact that it's just that, a numbering system.
If we used, say, fractions for everything instead, than we would be able to write 1/3 in what would be standard numbers.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-13 at 22:13:25
QUOTE
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 explain is what caused it. Also, you ignored the second half of my last post, and it's becoming more apperent that you think there was a "nothingness" before the universe began. In fact, there never existed a time before the universe. It's a difficult concept to grasp.

When the universe started (it was the first thing ever to happen) something entirely and 100% spontaneous happened, with absolutely no cause. No "chain of events" can explain it. It's also rediculous to think that something as big as the universe's creation can be spontaneous, but nothing else can.

ADDITION:
Any repeating decimals can be represented in some base system.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-13 at 22:59:45
QUOTE(ihatett @ Jul 13 2005, 09:13 PM)
When the universe started (it was the first thing ever to happen) something entirely and 100% spontaneous happened, with absolutely no cause.  No "chain of events" can explain it.  It's also rediculous to think that something as big as the universe's creation can be spontaneous, but nothing else can.
[right][snapback]262047[/snapback][/right]


The only thing the chain events can't explain, is what sparked the universe. And to be honest with you, it doesn't matter. It doesn't help us at all with anything here today. And if we DO find out, it won't be from our censored.gif selves in this forum. It'll be from genius scientists hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years down the road.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-07-13 at 23:37:34
QUOTE
You can't explain is what caused it. Also, you ignored the second half of my last post, and it's becoming more apperent that you think there was a "nothingness" before the universe began. In fact, there never existed a time before the universe. It's a difficult concept to grasp.

If it's becoming "apparent" that I think that, than you're understanding me wrong or something.
And if I did seem to think that there was nothingness before the universe, than I wouldn't be saying that logic and law don't exist and thus illogical things can happen, because nothingness, as you have been stating, is something, and if there's something than there's law.

QUOTE
When the universe started (it was the first thing ever to happen) something entirely and 100% spontaneous happened, with absolutely no cause. No "chain of events" can explain it. It's also rediculous to think that something as big as the universe's creation can be spontaneous, but nothing else can.

I wasn't trying to use the chain of events to explain it though...
I was trying to explain that, although the universe's beginning has no cause, the universe as it is is a chain.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tdnfthe1 on 2005-07-14 at 01:23:37
QUOTE(FallenDreamer @ Jul 13 2005, 02:05 PM)
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.
[right][snapback]261839[/snapback][/right]

Determining has nothing to do with destiny something that will happen. Determined means that someone or thing decided on something(in this case something decides on the future). As I said we can't see destiny so there's nothing to be determined. Now I understand what you're saying and your choice of vocabulary wasn't the best, basically you're saying that the future doesn't exist until it happens and becomes present, which means it never existed as the future in the first place. Now that idea i agree with. It has not come to be, so there for it does not exist(as to human extent of knowledge). But that still does not mean that will controls the future(the opposite of my statement). It just says that the idea of pre-destiny can't exist because the future technically doesn't exist. In this case both ideals are incorrect because the future can't be formed, the present time would only pass and therefor extend itself. But in my own opinion, future being non-existant can't be proven either so we're basically at a standstill, but I do like what you said it makes plenty sense.

Thinking-back:
Oh wait now, since you did say determiined fate, you're incorrect, because the whole debate we have here is about the question of "what if fate is controlled or not." Because something is destined to happen doesn't mean anything or one had to decide upon it. It can just be as it is, and be that which will be. It could just be fact that you would be here, do this, think like this, and that. Some people say why should we live if everything is written in stone? Simple, we can't read. Why be scared all day of reading your notebook, when in fact that would just be apart of it as well in my opinion. But anyway yeah, with using the word determined your theory can be disaproved, but I really like where you went with it, makes alot of sense to me.
Next Page (5)