|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
First let me get out the way what I mean by predetermined. I do not mean predetermined in the sense that we as humans could ever predict our future with perfect accuracy. I mean that I believe the entire universe and every action that takes place is the function of an initial electromagnetic reaction (the Big Bang), and that we as humans are going to take a potentially predictable course through life. This is not to say that independent thought and the creation of new ideas are not part of this predetermined course, these are the things that I believe result from each of our lives being uniquely predetermined.
Going to school. Waking up. Eating a certain food. Deciding to go somewhere. Deciding to do something. Every action that we take each day is controlled by one or more of these factors: our current cognition (neural network), another person or animal's cognition (neural network), or entropy in nature. Neural networks exist because of entropy in nature, so we can say that all actions are the result of entropy. Now you might think, how can you say life is predetermined if entropy itself is the controlling factor? I would argue that entropy is predetermined, as it is a function of electromagnetic interactions that have the potential to be predictably anticipated. In order to explain what I mean, I'll use a "bottom up" example, rather than a top down explanation from the beginning of the universe. One is walking in a park, they see someone that they know and wave to them as they walk by. As they wave, their hand is blown by the wind and without intention is cut by a tree branch beside them. "One is walking in a park" - the simple fact that they decided to go to a park is a result of their current cognitive state. They may have been exposed to parks as a child, which created neural connections between the idea of 'park' and of 'happiness' or 'enjoyment'. These are connections created by the entropy of nature (the park itself) and by specific sensory experiences previously had in the park. These experiences being the result of their previous cognitive state, or the influence of another cognition, which both have their roots in the entropy of nature. Now I realize that there are many reasons for being in park that may extend well beyond a simple "want" to go to a park, but if you break down these sometimes complicated reasons, they will always originate with base components of external cognitive influence by other cognitions or by nature. Now, you may argue, what if their reason for going to the park was entirely influenced by another person, another cognitive neural network? Well in that case, it is necessary to explore the origin for that person's cognitive state concerning parks, which will always lead you back to a reason rooted in the entropy of nature. In this sense, the origin of all cognitive networks is the entropy of nature. All cognitive networks are different because of different neural connections made at different times; connections between different sensory experiences, or the concrete "nodes" of neural networks. I'll get into the implications of the rest of the example and how this all relates to predetermination at a later time, but right now it's 1am and I'll leave this much open to commentary. I haven't really fleshed out my ideas, but I'd like to respond to some refutation before continuing.
__________________
Last edited by Could_Strife007; 02-17-2007 at 02:50 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
|
Though this is an interesting proposition, I believe in chaos theory, which nullifies everything you said.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
Quote:
The most rational thing to do is to believe that my direct perceptions of my free will are correct. After all, if I cannot trust my perceptions, on what grounds am I to believe anything—including the belief that free will does not exist? And what reason is there to disbelieve the existence of free will anyway? Arguments against free will are often of the sort “in a purely physical world, free will cannot exist.” I think this is true: in a purely physical world, free will could not exist. But why must we believe in a purely physical world? Why cannot we simply apply logic to the existence of free will to conclude that materialism (the belief that only the physical world exists) is mistaken? |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
I don't, however, think that a discussion of this nature is a pointless waste of time. I think that once people realize this "horror" as he puts it, that they will be closer to recognizing the disillusionments of life. This would make for a much more enlightened and peaceful society, working towards practical goals rather than on conflicts based on faith and "the soul" [the idea that we can predetermine our actions] Now I guess my only question now is, does everyone agree?
__________________
Last edited by Could_Strife007; 02-17-2007 at 01:49 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
let it snow~
|
No.
If people just went 'well my life is predetermined so who cares what i do' then nobody would ever do anything, ever. Believing in predetermined life, to me, is like admitting the reason why you failed at life. "I was destined to fail. You can't blame me." Of course, it could also lead to success, but failure is so much easier to talk about since that's generally how these things come about in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
We can prove that everything in the universe is created from physical particles, whose movement is defined by a potentially predictable path of entropy. This proof is based on repeated and expected sensory perception of experimental data and materials. If we were to define 'proof' as a repeated belief in an idea, then we could prove that free will exists. But because we cannot prove anything beyond sensory perception, we must now conclude that free will does not exist and the universe is predetermined.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
This is why we must use this knowledge to attempt to make socially correct choices even when logic would now tell us that any action that is going to take place is going to take place no matter what. This is why accepting that predetermination exists is so important to society. It is the physical neural node that will allow us to link "will" with "what is going to happen". By realizing that all of your thoughts are based on physical connections, you can then use your mind to make the right decisions for yourself and society, even though this in itself would be paradoxical, as "right" decisions do not exist in a purely atomic world. If you could specifically refute why predetermination does not exist maybe I could be a bit more clear.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Falcon Paaaauuuunch!!!!!!
|
I didn't used to think life was predetermined, but now I do. The way I see it, if everything suddenly went back in time, and we did today all over again, with everything just how it was at the beginning of the day, then wouldn't everyone do the exact same things, so it would wind up the exact same way again? To me, this means that there's really only one way things can happen.
Even with believing this, I also think no one should let if affect how they do things. I don't know how to explain this very well, but not doing something the way you really think it should be done just because you think it's predetermined is not the road to success. I know of someone that could be successful, but is failing. You know why? Because he thinks that's his destiny. My mom has tried to tell him how to succeed, but refuses to change his ways, since he just thinks he should follow what he's currently doing, and if he fails, then it was his destiny to fail.
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
Quote:
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
If everything is comprised of physical particles moving in a potentially predictable path, including the particles of the brain and neural networks, then they will behave in the same way if time were reverted to a previous state. This is the definition of a function. I also agree with you that this notion should not affect one's attitude, even though it can now be proven with this theory that "right" and "wrong" opinions do not exist. The article previously linked to has good examples of this.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
Quote:
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
You do bring up an interesting point, this entire predetermination theory is based on another "theory" that the entire universe is only made up of physical particles and that these particles behave in a predictable way. A theory which the scientific community chooses to believe, because it can be proven that physical things exist, and that everything is made up of smaller and smaller physical particles. If we were to find that at a base level everything is made up of some metaphysical anti-matter which can be controlled by will, then this predetermination would be debunked. But at this time, we do not know what is the base particle.
__________________
Last edited by Could_Strife007; 02-17-2007 at 02:44 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
Enter religion.
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Exactly.
But if we do believe in an entirely physical universe, then I think we have come to the conlcusion that this type of predetermination does exist. The article previously linked to presents this conclusion quite well.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
I don't believe you really understood the point of my first post. Physics points to there being no predetermination.
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
And if the 'double slit' experiment produces the same result each time, is that not predictable motion, even if the result is a probability function? I'm not very familiar with quantum physics, is there an acceptance that particle motion can be random? I guess this brings up the issue that this predetermination theory is also based on the idea that all motion is potentially predictable, not that we can actually predict it. I'm still not sure I understand exactly the point you were trying to make.
__________________
Last edited by Could_Strife007; 02-17-2007 at 03:25 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |||
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> Last edited by Kit-; 02-17-2007 at 03:40 AM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | ||||
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
Not to us, though. Quote:
Even if the initial position exists, if we can't measure it, then we can't predict anything. Quote:
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________
![]() Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-17-2007 at 04:15 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|