Philosophy

[Slade]

While it may sound like it, the theory presented above is that of a more rudimentary type of determinism. The focus is centered around the outcome; and that every process, action, or change is directed towards that final outcome. It relies on the fact that because there can only be one final answer, that answer was always going to be the final answer. Referring back to my first post, because you can only walk one path, that one path was always the path you were going to walk, regardless of all the different paths you could have taken.

That's the theory in a nutshell.

If you were a god and set up two perfectly accurate simulations of our universe at the same point in time and just let them run side by side, their futures would diverge as indeterministic processes inevitably resolve differently in one universe than the other. How can there be only one true future if it's dependent at some level on these random predicates?

 

[IAdoreBunnies]

THESE ARE ALL INTERESTING COUNTERPOINTS, BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE SOLID SUPPORT FOR RANDOM EVENTS. US NOT BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF EVENTS IS ONLY PROOF OF OUR INABILITY TO PREDICT. THIS CAN'T BE USED TO ARGUE THAT SUCH EVENTS ARE ACTUALLY RANDOM BECAUSE OF IT. THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T UNHEARD OF, THOUGH. IT'S A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, TOO. IT'S DEEPLY FLAWED.

 

[GranmasGotGame]

If you were a god and set up two perfectly accurate simulations of our universe at the same point in time and just let them run side by side, their futures would diverge as indeterministic processes inevitably resolve differently in one universe than the other. How can there be only one true future if it's dependent at some level on these random predicates?

Looking back I did not quite clarify what I meant by one true future. When I said one true future, I meant from the perspective of a single worldly being. I did not mean that all future's in all worlds will have the same outcome. I was going more for the fact that because a single worldly being can only experience one timeline, that timeline that said being experiences is set in stone for that being. That there is only one true future (for that being) that the being will experience. Thus meaning that the future of said being does not change but in fact stays the same.

THESE ARE ALL INTERESTING COUNTERPOINTS, BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE SOLID SUPPORT FOR RANDOM EVENTS. US NOT BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF EVENTS IS ONLY PROOF OF OUR INABILITY TO PREDICT. THIS CAN'T BE USED TO ARGUE THAT SUCH EVENTS ARE ACTUALLY RANDOM BECAUSE OF IT. THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T UNHEARD OF, THOUGH. IT'S A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, TOO. IT'S DEEPLY FLAWED.

I understand your position, however, the theory does not revolve around random events. In fact, if my future was set in stone from before I was even born, then all of the events in my life can not be considered random. In the analogy used above, I merely used random events as a means to convey a message. The message was that the random rock was not actually so random at all; but a means for the ball to reach point C and thus making it an event that was always going to happen. Not due to randomness, but due to the fact that the ball was always going to hit the rock in the first place. It would be as if my life was a schedule. At this point in time I go to high school. At this point in time I go to college. At this point in time I find a job etc. Every action that I take goes according to that schedule; thus said actions are not deemed random.

 

[Slade]

snip

I'm sure theoretical physicists will be deeply grateful when you publish your paper clearing up this issue once and for all, since they're clearly too dumb to have figured this out for themselves. Who would've thought IAB would be the one to debunk quantum incompleteness?

snip

That's just semantic hodgepodge, though. If indeterminacy exists in the present and the future is just the present that hasn't happened yet, what is your justification for the future being predetermined?

 

[GranmasGotGame]

snip

The reason that indeterminancy exists in the present is simply due to our lack of knowledge about future events. We can only experience the present, and thus said indeterminancy (or uncertainty) exists because we can not know what any event beyond the present will bring. Following the same lines of reason though, there is little to no uncertainty about the past; and the future is also just the past that hasn't happened yet. I believe my original claim back in high school was that because we can't change the past, and the future is technically the past that hasn't happened yet, we can't change the future. I think I always have that in the back of my mind so that's probably my justification for claiming that the future does not change.