So I was thinking, is the future set in stone, or set on randomness?

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
All the rules that govern the basic newtonian mechanics are very straightforward, and yet its still impossible to predict them with accuracy if there are a large amount of pieces involved. Each little inacuracy build up and destroys the model. So, you might be able to predict how one ping pong ball would react falling down a hill, but add 500 balls and it gets exponentially more difficult. A slight misprediction might mean you thing 2 balls will barely avoid each other but really they hit, then the 2 balls courses are altered and they hit other balls, and the chain reacton rapidly destroys your model. Obviously it is easy to see that with the unimaginably large number of particles involved in the universe predicting something very far in the future is d@mn near impossible. The best you can come up with is some pretty accurate guesses based on probablility. But the actions themsleves do nto work on probability, they are deterministic, it is just our inability to account for all variables that requires us to use probability to try and make a best guess at the result.

Yeah, well, that and the fact Newton was wrong.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Gibsons

As of now the precise interactions of these particles cannot be measured or calculated, but is it correct to assume that there are exact results to these interactions, completely devoid of true randomness?

I don't think it's correct to assume that.

For instance, if you have two identical atoms of a radioactive isotope, there's no way to predict which one will emit first. If you get a very large pile of these atoms, you can calculate how many will emit over a given time period with some precision, but not which particular atoms.

The reason you can't predict which will decay first is due to the fact you can't know the precise position and velocity of subatomic particles at any givin instant. The reason you can predict the average is a statistical calculation.

IF there is a currently unknown law of nature which governs the interaction of all types of particles and subatomic particles, the so-called theory of everything, then EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED. If this law exists and we eventually somehow obtained it and also know the instantaneous position and velocity of everything in the universe then yes, we could predict the future. But then we get ourselves into a difficult situation . . . we could use the equation to change the future and invalidate the equation. Due to this situation, I think that it is a physical impossibility to ever discover the equation.

exactly, even if we found one, another equation who tell of us findng that one, so yes but we could never discover it...ever

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Science describes things we tangibly observe, i.e. empirical things. One should not take it in any other sense; one should not mix it with "existential" thinking which will convert it all into mumbo-jumbo.

No. You are exactly incorrect. Science makes predictions about the what we can tangibly measure.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
No. You are exactly incorrect. Science makes predictions about the what we can tangibly measure.

The what distinction are you trying to make?

 

[BucsMAN3K]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3KBut I tend to think of it as, you know the event had a 100% chance of happening, AFTER it happens. But before it happens its a random outcome. Doesn't make sense logically, but to me its the only way to work when you just think practically.

It does make sense logically that you know something happened afterwards but not before.

Lol, at 5am in the morning my tangent thoughts never seem logical....

Anywho, I still think the future is set in stone depending on your perspective.

An example I can think of is dramatic irony.

If you are reading a book, you know there is only one set of outcomes, and thus the characters future is set in stone.

However if you are that character, every next step is dependant amongst several variables and you are actively controlling them.

Another example I can think of is comparing time to an annoying friend.

Time tells you, "I can tell you whether you are going to take the red pill or the blue pill"...

And when you take the red pill time says, "See, I knew you would pick that, its set in stone"

But if you ask time before you choose he says, "I have no clue, you need to pick first"...