Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Predicting the future?

  • 11-03-2003 09:33PM
    #1
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Perhaps not the best place for this, but I figured it suited here the most...

    Ok, some friends and I watched Donnie Darko. Its a really dark and sinister movie, which is filled with lots of tension but in the short run is based loosely around time travel and fate.

    So we got to talking about suppose you could go back in time to the begining of the universe, ala the big bang. Now supposing you went back to this point in creation, that point where physics "comes into being" and you have this massively powerful super computer capable of trillions of calculations per nano-second.

    Now suppose you then analyze the universe as it existed right there and then. You calculate the movement of each single atom moving outwards from the centre of the universe/big bang. You calculate interactions between atoms/molecules on the atomic level. You watch as two atoms spin dangerously close to each other and get got in each others "gravitational field" and spin closer together until eventually a molecule is formed. Now for the first million years or whatever you have your computer sitting there observing each individual atom/molecule's movement. Using your superbly powerful computer you can eventually predict the movement of each of these atoms.

    Now another aspect, is it correct to assume that human decisions are as a result of previous experiences? Is it fair to say that if I grew up in another country, any country, England, America, or even another county? Would I be a different person? Obviously I would have certain traits in common with my current self. I would have black hair, brown eyes (or whatever colour my eyes are) I'd be tall etc. etc. But when you come down to it. Every decision I would have to make would come from my previous experience? If I was rich I might look down on poor people and as a result not give a poor guy some money outside a supermacs. And so on and so forth. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

    Basically what I'm suggesting is, given a spectacularly large enough computer, would it be possible to track and then predict atoms paths, and through a record of human experiences, would i be able to predict random affects in the universe such as collisions of asteroids, weather patterns on planets, even the creation of new stars/planets/black holes. AND by recording and analysing the experiences of humans, could I calculate human decisions.

    Now if I was to lump the two of these together, surely I could predict the future. I could predict weather patterns, tectonic plate movement, an abused child shooting up a school, a car accident, anything?

    Now if it is possible to predict the future? Wouldnt that mean that the future has to be set out, Fate has just been proven?

    We are not in control of our own destiny's? Anything we do, we were going to do anyway, based on movements of atoms, and our own, chemically driven, thought patterns, based on our experiences?

    Does this take all the fun out of our universe, does the knowledge that their is no randomness remove the hope for the future? Or is our lack of knowledge, our inability to predict the future, enough. Does it keep us on our toes? Does our not knowing what we are going to do next, even though it was destined to happen, leave us with some resemblance of "free will"?

    Please help me, I feel like a man who has seen god and realised he has set the Universe on automatic and is gone off to play with his other toys.

    Ivan

    Damned if you do, bored if you dont.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    wow, that one seemingly harmless statement wrecks the entire theory. Did he prove this or is it a theory? How can you prove conclusively that because you know the speed of an atom you can know its exact position and vice versa, that seems illogical. I'm sure there is a fairly straight forward mathematical explanation but I cant find one.


  • #4
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #5
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    I did do a search, but didnt really find anything to conclusively prove this statement.

    I've never done Quatum Mechanics so its a little out of my league, so if you could point me to a proof and/or explain it I would be extremely grateful.

    Ivan


  • #6
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    Taken from
    http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm
    Heisenberg took this one step further: he challenged the notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect. Translated into "classical physics," this had meant that the future motion of a particle could be exactly predicted, or "determined," from a knowledge of its present position and momentum and all of the forces acting upon it. The uncertainty principle denies this, Heisenberg declared, because one cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at a given instant, so its future cannot be determined. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities for the future motion of the particle. (However, the probabilities of each motion, and the distribution of many particles following these motions, could be calculated exactly from Schrödinger's wave equation.)


    Ok so if you cannot predict the movement of an atom but only the possible movements of an atom thats fair enough. Assuming thats true, it then goes on to state that using Schrödinger's wave equation you could calculate "the probabilities of each motion" in effect calculate the "most likely" future movement of the atoms? Isnt that in effect saying, I'm predicting the future but only with a certain element of precision?

    I.e. I'm 95% (or whatever) sure that this is whats going to happen. Basically you could predict events within reason, and my original premise still stands?

    If you can predict the future (to any extent) doesnt that mean that our actions our predetermined?

    It simple becomes, If you can predict the future (to any extent) doesnt that mean our actions are from a list of predetermined actions?

    Ivan


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Theres a topic just been discussed entitled Free Will which you should read. basically the answers are:

    1. Yes the uncertainty principle is not only provable but demonstrable.

    2. No the world is not deterministic. Even if you could know all the position and speed of the atoms in the universe quantum mechanics has the Schrodingers cat experiment to deal with... quantum uncertainty comes into play.

    Its worth looking at that thread though as it was all covered there. (its quite recent too).

    DeV.


  • #8
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    heisenbergs uncertainty principle is due to flaws in our measurement methods (bouncing waves off particles to calculate their position, etc - it affects the particle)

    it doesnt mean you cant "know" the position and velocity of a particle (despite what some current-day physicists might say), by other means - eg. prediction by computer, etc.
    for example, suppose you bounced a wave off a particle to "see" its position, but you knew EXACTLY how your wave would affect the particle - then you could know the current position and velocity of that particle, breaking heisenbergs uncertainty principle

    its a principle that relies on imperfect observation methods, and goes as far as saying "we will never have a better observation method" - which stupid to say at this time, we dont know whats possible


  • #9
    davej
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭davej


    heisenbergs uncertainty principle is due to flaws in our measurement methods (bouncing waves off particles to calculate their position, etc - it affects the particle)

    But doesn't quantum mechanics also assert that particles have both wave characteristics AND point characteristics ?
    but you knew EXACTLY how your wave would affect the particle

    This is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. How could you measure the exact characteristics of your probing wave ? By using another probing wave ?

    davej


  • #10
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Koopa I used to think that too but the problem is that you need an infinitely small wavelength to measure something at an exact instant (think of it in terms of shutter speed of a camera).

    However energy (in the form of light particles) cannot have arbitrary wave lengths, they fall into the nearest "quanta"... a bit like electrons fall into the nearest "shell". the light wave can have a wavelength of 2 or 3 cm but not 2.5 (obviously this is an example, not actual numbers).

    The higher the wavelength the more energy needed to create it and eventually this limits your ability to observe something any more precisely...


    This except from Hawking explains it pretty well..

    http://ideaplace.org/Chemistry/ChemMisc/HawkingC4.html

    DeV.


  • #11
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    the problem is that you need an infinitely small wavelength to measure something at an exact instant (think of it in terms of shutter speed of a camera).

    yeah i know, but what i was saying was, this is all based on what we currently know about particles/waves/stuff, we currently dont have a method of "predicting" particles or even measuring stuff like that without introducing an error, but that doesnt mean that one doesnt exist (and we might discover it in the future).
    its like we're at the level of cavemen right now, and someone is saying "its NOT POSSIBLE to make light without fire" just because noone has invented a light bulb yet, or seen electricity

    i understand the uncertainty principle, thats why i disagree with it


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Well I'd be a fool to say that it will never be found because throughout science we have made liars of ourselves over time...

    But I seriously doubt it personally... I mean an AWFUL lot of physics would have to be thrown out (along with a fair bit of philosophy) if the Uncertainty Principle is found to be false...


    Care to make a www.longbet.org on it? :)

    DeV.


  • #13
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    davej:]
    But doesn't quantum mechanics also assert that particles have both wave characteristics AND point characteristics ?

    quantum mechanics can assert whatever it wants, it doesnt mean it giving you the full picture.
    its just a set of rules that helps us predict some of what happens in the universe with our current knowledge, its by no means a complete explanation of the universe

    you can think of a ripple in a pond caused by a stone being dropped into it, you can visualise it in three dimensions, but for something which could only observe the pond from one viewpoint directly above, you could write a set of equations that would hold true for the movement of each ripple that it sees (in the 2 dimensions it sees it in), it would still leave huge gaps in the 3d model of the ripples though, and thus definitely not be a complete description of the ripple (even in mathematical terms)


    [edit] haha, sure, put it into that longbets website.. doubt anyone will agree with me though [/edit]

    [edit2] to make this post clearer, ill add in this bit:
    im not trying to answer the question "is the universe deterministic from our perspective?" , im trying to answer "is the universe deterministic?", from what i can see the answer to that has to be "yes", even if it may never be possible for us to predict the universe, i dont think it can really be "unpredictable" talking in the absolute sense [/edit2]


  • #14
    Snowball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭Snowball


    Is the problem that Ivan is talking about not solvable by using multiple computers comunicating between each other? Then one could know the composition of the atom and the other could know the trogectory and speed. If they were fast enough could one not predict the future?

    Oh but jst to shoot my self in the ass. Ivan, we were talking last week about decripting some encription algarithum (the prob is I cant remember the name of the encription) and the fact that it would be imposible because th computers needed would need more energy than it is possible to produce?


  • #15
    davej
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭davej


    you can think of a ripple in a pond caused by a stone being dropped into it,


    Yes I agree with you that we may simply be akin to fish swimming around in a garden pond trying to figure out what's going on - but this argument can be used to refute everything! You can't successfully argue against metaphysics. For all we know we are sitting on the back of an infinite number of tortoises, one stacked beneath the other...


    davej


  • #16
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    Originally posted by Koopa
    quantum mechanics can assert whatever it wants, it doesnt mean it giving you the full picture.
    its just a set of rules that helps us predict some of what happens in the universe with our current knowledge, its by no means a complete explanation of the universe

    you can think of a ripple in a pond caused by a stone being dropped into it, you can visualise it in three dimensions, but for something which could only observe the pond from one viewpoint directly above, you could write a set of equations that would hold true for the movement of each ripple that it sees (in the 2 dimensions it sees it in), it would still leave huge gaps in the 3d model of the ripples though, and thus definitely not be a complete description of the ripple (even in mathematical terms)


    [edit] haha, sure, put it into that longbets website.. doubt anyone will agree with me though [/edit]

    Yes, in a nut shell. Just because Heisenberg stated we cannot measure the universe at the moment without disturbing it doesnt mean we may not in the future be able to.

    As was said in Groundhog day, maybe god isnt all powerful he was simply around for a very long time. Maybe "God" isnt a supreme being, but merely someone with extremely advanced scientific methods. As a result of which not only is he able to predict the future, but alter it by altering the universe on the sub-atomic.

    What I'm getting at though, and ye all seem to be missing it is :

    If there is even the slightest chance - I.e even if Heisenberg is correct and you cannot predict a particles movement without altering its velocity/trajectory, ever! Even if the best you can ever hope for is to use Schrödinger's wave equation to calculate the most probable course for the particle to take. Wouldnt this mean, you are, in all terms predicting the future. And as a result, indirectly prove that fate exists?

    Of course all theoretically.

    Excuse my ignorance, but I have never studied quantum mechanics. The closest I've ever gotten, is the composition of light, so excuse me if I seem a little dim...

    Ivan


  • #17
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Ivan
    If there is even the slightest chance - I.e even if Heisenberg is correct and you cannot predict a particles movement without altering its velocity/trajectory, ever! Even if the best you can ever hope for is to use Schrödinger's wave equation to calculate the most probable course for the particle to take. Wouldnt this mean, you are, in all terms predicting the future. And as a result, indirectly prove that fate exists?

    OK...if all these things are true, then you are correct, but are phrasing your question in a very overcomplicated way. What you are effectively asking is :

    "if the universe is actually deterministic, is it theoretically possible to determine it".

    Obviously, the answer is yes.

    However, if Heisenberg is correct, then the implications are weird and wonderful. You can never know the state you start from sufficiently accurately, and therefore cannot accurately model what will happen.

    Does this mean that the universe is deterministic? Well, it doesnt actually say that it is or it isnt - and thats where the whole lovely can of worms comes in - because to date we have not found another way of answering that question. We can say that from our perspective the universe is non-deterministic, but that doesnt mean that it is.

    jc


  • #18
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    davej:
    Yes I agree with you that we may simply be akin to fish swimming around in a garden pond trying to figure out what's going on - but this argument can be used to refute everything! You can't successfully argue against metaphysics. For all we know we are sitting on the back of an infinite number of tortoises, one stacked beneath the other...


    i never said we were akin to fish swimming around in a pond blah blah.. what the hell are you talking about? read my post again.

    metaphysics? bleh?


  • #19
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    Originally posted by bonkey
    OK...if all these things are true, then you are correct, but are phrasing your question in a very overcomplicated way. What you are effectively asking is :

    "if the universe is actually deterministic, is it theoretically possible to determine it".

    Obviously, the answer is yes.

    However, if Heisenberg is correct, then the implications are weird and wonderful. You can never know the state you start from sufficiently accurately, and therefore cannot accurately model what will happen.

    Does this mean that the universe is deterministic? Well, it doesnt actually say that it is or it isnt - and thats where the whole lovely can of worms comes in - because to date we have not found another way of answering that question. We can say that from our perspective the universe is non-deterministic, but that doesnt mean that it is.

    jc

    You know I just saw you reply to another post and I was thinking, omg when is bonkey going to reply to my post :(

    And then you do, and then you phrase an answer in such a way I can accept it :)

    And since I linked this thread to the other I might as well do vice versa. unless this is one of those things that is expressly forbidden in the policy and for breaking I could be banned from boards, in which case forget everything I just said.

    Other Thread

    Thank you for your reply Bonkey but what about the second part of Ivans "Stolen Unified Title Theorem"[Tm] assuming that the universe is deterministic wouldnt this lead to the existence of fate? Or what will be will be?

    Suppose I go back in time to kill hitler, then the time line would already have taken this into account by the time the universe existed at the point where hitler was alive and he would have been killed by some computer weirdo from offaly and the timeline would continue on as if nothing was ever change.

    In effect, fate would be proven?


  • #20
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Originally posted by Koopa
    it doesnt mean you cant "know" the position and velocity of a particle (despite what some current-day physicists might say), by other means - eg. prediction by computer, etc.
    for example, suppose you bounced a wave off a particle to "see" its position, but you knew EXACTLY how your wave would affect the particle - then you could know the current position and velocity of that particle, breaking heisenbergs uncertainty principle

    I don't think it works like that.

    You can't bounce the wave off the particle as you would have to know it's position and by knowing it's position you can't determine it's movement.

    Also you wouldn't be able to know exactly how your wave would effect the particle as the particle would also effect the wave as the measuring device would also have to conform to quantum laws.

    Or maybe I'm wrong?


  • #21
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    yes but my point was, how do you know there are no other ways to determine the position/velocity of a particle?
    we cant be at that stage unless we already know everything about the universe, at which point you could say "there is no way to determine the position and velocity accurately"


    [ignore this part of post unless youre bored]
    i dont really want to get into a pedantic argument on what may or may not be possible since we dont have complete knowledge of everything about the universe, but ill start it off anyway.. (because im bored right now)
    technically, if you took your particle to be the "reference point" of the universe, its position would always be "0" and its velocity would always be "0". there you go, you know the position and velocity of that particle with 100% accuracy, thus breaking heisenbergs uncertainty principle (although you wouldnt have a clue about the position and velocity of anything else in the universe)
    [/ignore this part of post unless youre bored]


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    davej
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭davej


    what the hell are you talking about? read my post again.

    Ok reading your post again:
    you can think of a ripple in a pond caused by a stone being dropped into it, you can visualise it in three dimensions, but for something which could only observe the pond from one viewpoint directly above, you could write a set of equations that would hold true for the movement of each ripple that it sees (in the 2 dimensions it sees it in), it would still leave huge gaps in the 3d model of the ripples though, and thus definitely not be a complete description of the ripple (even in mathematical terms)

    Now my analogy was that of a fish (eg carp) which is swimming in a pond in the bottom of a garden. They only see things in two dimensional terms and have no concept of a 3rd dimension. In fact this is a real example used by Professor Michio Kaku. I think it matches what you were describing quite accurately. (Except instead of a pebble disturbing the water, his example uses rain drops)
    metaphysics? bleh?

    A metaphysical argument is one which can't be disproved: because it is outside of "objective" experience. This also means that whatever someone asserts you can always reject it using metaphysics. No matter what physical laws we uncover about our universe, someone can always claim that we aren't seeing the big picture. Metaphorically speaking we could be living in a pond inside a pond inside a pond..ad infinitum.
    quantum mechanics can assert whatever it wants, it doesnt mean it giving you the full picture.

    I believe you rejected a qm assertion using a metaphysical argument, which is often the easy way out.

    davej


  • #23
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    NGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


    Make the bad men STOPPPPP!!


    Ok, since clearly fnck all of you read my link to THE ANSWER... I'll quote the relevant part here:
    Originally posted by Stephen feckin' Hawking!

    The German scientist Max Planck suggested in 1900 that light, X rays, and other waves could not be emitted at an arbitrary rate, but only in certain packets that he called quanta. Moreover, each quantum had a certain amount of energy that was greater the higher the frequency of the waves, so at a high enough frequency the emission of a single quantum would require more energy than was available. Thus the radiation at high frequencies would be reduced, and so the rate at which the body lost energy would be finite. <-- dead clever bit -- DeVore

    The quantum hypothesis explained the observed rate of emission of radiation from hot bodies very well, but its implications for determinism were not realized until 1926, when another German scientist, Werner Heisenberg, formulated his famous uncertainty principle. In order to predict the future position and velocity of a particle, one has to be able to measure its present position and velocity accurately. The obvious way to do this is to shine light on the particle. Some of the waves of light will be scattered by the particle and this will indicate its position. However, one will not be able to determine the position of the particle more accurately than the distance between the wave crests of light, so one needs to use light of a short wavelength in order to measure the position of the particle precisely. <--- really important bit --DeVore (my emphasis)

    Now, by Planck's quantum hypothesis, one cannot use an arbitrarily small amount of light; one has to use at least one quantum. This quantum will disturb the particle and change its velocity in a way that cannot be predicted. Moreover, the more accurately one measures the position, the shorter the wavelength of the light that one needs and hence the higher the energy of a single quantum. So the velocity of the particle will be disturbed by a larger amount. In other words, the more accurately you try to measure the position of the particle, the less accurately you can measure its speed, and vice versa. Heisenberg showed that the uncertainty in the position of the particle times the uncertainty in its velocity times the mass of the particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known as Planck's constant. Moreover, this limit does not depend on the way in which one tries to measure the position or velocity of the particle, or on the type of particle: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a fundamental, inescapable property of the world. <-- Death knell to Koopa's argument -- DeVore.


    Now, unless Hawking, Heisenberg, Planck and a slew of other eminent physicists, a veritable TON of theories and a googolplex of experimental data can be explained in some other fashion then we have to accept this as truth.

    btw: If you say "but suppose they are wrong" then we might as well all start supposing that everything is wrong and we can all live under the sea.

    DeV.


  • #24
    Ivan
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 4,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ivan


    But their entired theories/explanations are based, as all good physics should be, on current scientific methods.

    To say we may never discover a method is arrogant at best, ignorrant at worst.

    Of course this stinks a whole lot like "How do we know there isnt a god, maybe we'll discover one day.... etc. etc."

    I cant help it, I just feel it must be possible to detect velocity and speed in a particle without altering its velocity and/or speed.

    Call me dumb, but thats how I feel.


  • #25
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    ok, thats your perogative just as long as you dont want it taught in schools under the name of "science" :)

    All maths and science are based on fundamental assumptions (not many but they are clearly identified). If those assumptions are wrong (and they are REALLY basic) then all math/physics is wrong.

    Considering that we are able to model from the super-micro to the super-macro with exact correlation, I'll stick to my science and you stick to your gut heheh...

    DeV.


  • #26
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    Moreover, this limit does not depend on the way in which one tries to measure the position or velocity of the particle, or on the type of particle: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a fundamental, inescapable property of the world. <-- Death knell to Koopa's argument -- DeVore.

    alright then. explain a wave (exact explanations only, something like 'what is the medium for a wave of light', not 'a wave is a disturbance in any medium, eg. water' - im looking for what the medium for a wave of light is (the answer i expect is 'we dont know, we havent found it yet, when we find it (and name it) ill let you know')).
    explain a particle, for that matter (particle of what? its all theories here, our CURRENT knowledge doesnt extend much past sub-electronic particles).

    if you dont know for sure exactly what these things are, then you would be wrong to say "there is no way to find out <x> about this particle", because you dont know that there isnt (you only know what you CAN do, not whats possible, in this situation)
    davej - fair enough, i didnt realise the type of argument i was putting forward already had a label, but label or not, its wrong for someone at our level of knowledge right now to say "there is" or "there isnt" any other way to determine those two things about a particle..
    technically, based on the odds of there NOT being any other way to measure the position and velocity of a particle knowing only how much we know about those two things, i would say that the odds vastly favour that "there is" a way to measure those things, just that we havent found them yet


  • #27
    saik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 293 ✭✭saik


    www.dictionary.com/search?q=wave
    AHHAHAHAA.


  • #28
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    well as complex and confusing as the secinctific way of looking at it well all that cne be done it theriose and as they ant prove that is all it looks likey to remain as just theories.

    The whole thread looks like it should be in the science section not humanites :)

    I guess I was expecting arguements about free will vs preordination of events or destinty or fate.
    As in as we all have free will who can predict what we will do from moment to moment . Ok we are creatures of habit but that aside can we plot our own charts knowing that the free will of another make change it all.


  • #29
    Snowball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭Snowball


    I think before answering the question Ivan posed you would have to answer the question of:

    Is there such a thing as a totaly random event?

    If there is not well then maybe with the right technology and the right minds it might be possible but what if there is, what if a totaly random and unpredictable event exists. What if there are some events, that under no curcumstances, are predictable because they have no pattern or disernable way of being predicted no matter what technology or great minds are bihind the attempted prediction.

    So, is there. Is there such a thing as a totaly random event?


  • #30
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    i dont think there are truly random events, of course i could be wrong here - just that i think if there were truly random events happening in the universe, the laws of physics would break down fairly regularly as a side effect - "random" is "inconsistent" by definition, so if there is randomness in the universe (not randomness from people's perspectives, i mean real randomness) then the universe would be inconsistent


    as for the 'free will' part, well from human perspectives we would have free will, just taking the pond analogy again, "if you cant see the whole pond, then events happening outside your field of vision would result in seeming "random" events happening on your side of the pond as well, even though theyre not really random - if you could see the whole pond to begin with, you could have predicted them" - as humans, we have free will the same way a computer playing chess does - to itself, it DOES have free will in every way to do whatever move it decides on, because it is defined by its chess-playing rules. there is only one way it can react to any given situation, but that is "free will" for it, because the rules it uses to decide what move to make are part of the definition of its "decision making capability"

    oh, and "SAIK", is that "FH|SAIK", HMMM? it seems like the cat has been caught by the very person that was trying to catch him..
    some useful links: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=butterfly , http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cup
    and dont forget, when the lion growls, the bear will walk - when the baby eats, the mouse shall sleep, and last but not least, when the rabbit burrows, the hen shall have sex - think about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Koopa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Koopa


    not really related to this, but heres something for you to read if youre bored

    http://www.cosmiverse.com/news/science/0303/science03190301.html
    from article:

    "These findings provide an opportunity to resolve details in an object smaller than a wavelength."
    Devore:
    However, one will not be able to determine the position of the particle more accurately than the distance between the wave crests of light, so one needs to use light of a short wavelength in order to measure the position of the particle precisely. <--- really important bit --DeVore (my emphasis)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement