Staredit Network

READ BEFORE REPLYING
TRY NOT TO GO INTO RELIGION

Theory of mine, inspired by some random guy who told me randomness does not exist.

Consider starcraft's trigger system. All of the actions are executed only after all of the conditions are met.

Now, if we take this account into reality, then actions would be every action we've ever taken. Now we can go backwards and look at the conditions just prior to use taking those actions.

Example:
We eat because we are hungry.
We read because we are interested.

But these are just simple actions. If we try to dive even deeper, then we can see that every event (quite literally) is based off conditions.

Example:
Tree fell down because of strong wind.
Stars imploding due to lack of fuel

Considering all of this, I have concluded that all actions we take are based off conditions. More specifically, "current conditions". The current condition cannot change because change requires time and time is a variable in the conditions .

Using the information from the current condition, actions are taken. These actions change "future conditions". Future conditions are always changing to match the actions we take.

Example:
I put a book on my bed; future condition: book on bed.

Now, if we put these together, we can see that all we're doing is following a road. A road where we follow current conditions to take actions that change future conditions. No matter what we do, it will always be based off those conditions.

Now I can fit this idea with fate. If all the actions we take are simply based off conditions, then if we had the exact same condition (including time), we would also choose the exact same actions.

This is not something I can verify, but using logic, I can easily determine that if the conditions are satisfied, then the actions will always be the same. Thus, I conclude that free will does not exist except as an illusion. Our choices are not determined by us; they are determined by conditions.

It's safe to say that this is already known by more than half the people here. Randomness does not exist.

(In theory, you're able to calculate what will happen in the future or what has happened in the past, but the math involved so ing insane, even god himself would have a hard time doing it)

Urgh, combining starcraft triggers with life = BAD

Triggers are no different than cause and effects, or Ifs and thens. If you say triggers are bad examples for logic on a sc map making site, then you're a dumbass. See? That sentence had an IF and a THEN. Get the connection now?

BTW - Cheeze, I did read before I replied.

Theorizing that 'choose' is supposed to be 'choices,' I'd like to point out that this relates closely to a school of christianity, if you consider 'faith in God' a condition as the pre-dominate condition.

By god, I suppose you mean the 1st atom type thing that ever existed.

Kame: But you see, if the other conditions were unchecked, then they would have no other alternatives.

don't go into religon? wtf? Its true! -.-

and I posted the bit about religon before you changed your first post, for the record.

I'll ignore my beliefs in fate for this post:

He's totally correct, Now im not super-trigger man so I dunno if these are even possible but here goes:

Imagine setting triggers on teaching a computer to win.
Condition: Computer has 0 probes.
Action: Computer builds 5 probes.

Now lets put this situation in a store manager.
Condition: Store Manager has 0 workers.
Action: Store Manager hires 5 workers.



Well, if you think about it, life is alot like starcraft, take into play, Computer had to pay 250 minerals to buy those 5 probes, which made him money.

Store manager had to pay his 5 workers, but having more workers, he processed/made/designed more things, thus allowing him to make more money

I learned how the two are alike by having to explain to my brother what my dad was planning to do with his business. Lets say Store Manager needs more cash, well he's got a spend a little of his for more workers. Same with Computer, he's gotta spend more minerals to get more miners

Wrong, and this comes from an actual programmer.

Answer this: Lets assume, as you are endorsing, that the state of everything at a given moment in time is a direct and 100% result of the state of everything in the moment before it.

If everything has a direct cause, what started it all? You can't say that everything has existed forever, because that is illogical*. Therefore, the only explaination is that something happened without any cause (by definition, because nothing existed before it).



*If everything has existed forever, then at this moment everything has existed for an infinite amount of time. You can't reach infinity, believe it or not.

Or perhaps we've reached infinity so often we don't recognize it?!

Ah, I expected this. See, the thing is, my theory doesn't care about what started it all. The fact is, this pattern is repeating now.

PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BRINGING UP EVOLUTION!!!
Example: Evolution is here. But people wonder where the first organism came from. Evolution doesn't explain that, but explains something else, so it's not required!


Don't mock my thread. I'm expecting some quality posts from people who actually understand it. So far, very few have.

Now all that programmer has left, is to just prove that matter can be created and/or destroyed. He only has half the puzzle. (Maybe not even half at all really)

EDIT - Cheeze pointed out exactly. We're not here to discuss what came first or what ever. Just this system of logic is working right now.

I'm not. I'm being serious, the idea just shocked me. What if we've reached infinity when we do something common place, and that's why we can never figure out why/how we were made for sure, because we don't have a definate beginning or end? Or the conditions don't apply all the time, because they can't attach anywhere in specific?

I don't map though, so I could be completely off par.

Well, it depends on the existance of spirits or whatever, that can choose our actions and have us do things other than what we would have done if not for them.
Assuming they do exist, then you'd need to find a way to theorize about whether their actions are never random or controlled by free will, despite the fact that they exist in a way that we can't comprehend.

But that would simply be an explanation to something you cannot understand. Which, I have shown countless times, is not a logical arguement.

Let's say you do say they are there. You not only have to prove they exist, but also prove they are affecting us and that they are unaffected by my idea (which is absolutely absurd because my idea even applies to inanimate objects).

I am showing that it does not work. You can't say that this theory works if it contradicts basic logic.




Evolution does not contradict basic logic. (I believe) people have said that life started when proteins formed in the ocean.

It doesn't make it an illogical argument, only a pointless and meaningless one like stating that if something is blue then it must be blue.

As for it being absurd, I understand that.
It's like the basic belief that fundamentalists need to believe what they believe- logic, or atleast logic as we understand it, cannot be applied to God these spirits.


It does work. As with evolution, it has absolutely nothing to do with where the originating trigger came from.


Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the proteins in the ocean, only what they did, and that was to start evolution.

I know just about nothing of programming. I don't know how a computer can use a few hundred billion on/off switches to do the marvelous things it does. If I didn't know that that's what happens, I would have a hard time believing that it's possible.
But I wouldn't use the level of complexity required for that to work as an argument as to whether a program that can intelligently guess passwords, instead of just running through a dictionary or all possible combinations of characters, is possible.

If you are asserting that all actions have a direct cause, then the fact that nothing could have ever started contradicts and invalidates your theory.

ADDITION:
It would show that your theory is not true, I don't see what your problem with it is.

Well, it is virtually impossible to counter this argument because if you say, "No, this is wrong, Free will DOES exist!" than it can easily be said that "No it doesen't. The condition that I posted A made you post B."

Whether someone posted under freewill or not has nothing to do with the validity of their argument...

No, that isn't true. Just because I posted it does not mean that I didn't have a choice in the matter. Your arguement is weak.

His arguement is not weak, its just not supported. What you do is never taken into consideration, until you regret it. I read a book of hypnotising people, and it spoke of basic mind control, because if there is no given comand, and just a set condition, the person will usually complete the "hidden" command without resistance. Could instinct also be involved in this? I mean, I know people realize instinct as a fast reaction to what just happened. But isn't that what we're talking about? We're just slowing instinct down. Simply put: You're drinking water. Is that not instinct of being thirsty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't making yellow/black mixed put animals in fear? They ran because they saw a mix of color that meant DANGER, POISONOUS. But fate is a large topic in general, so I'm going to be open minded

Everything in it's own way is like a SC Trigger System.

You sleep with Pamela Anderson, you get Hepatitis, and so on.

Just because we don't know, does that mean it can't be explained? You come to a conclusion too quickly. The beginning of time is not something that can easily be comprehended; also, simply because this "flaw" does exist, does that make all of my arguements to be invalid?

I think not. You're on the wrong point of view; assume we are here now, without even thinking about the past, and take my idea into effect. Tell me where I went wrong.