Can we control the future?

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Bender said:

Free will vs determinism is a false choice, since there is no conflict. You are your brain, so if deterministic chemical reactions in your brain cause a decision, it is you making the decision. Moreover, these reactions take your personal preferences into account, so you could say you are determined to choose what you want to choose. Isn't making the choices we want to make free will?

I guess the answer depends on whether quantum effects can still influence that decision, and perhaps even on whether many-worlds or Copenhagen is closer to the truth.

Either way, your actions are either determined or they depend on quantum behaviour over which you have no control. As I stated above, they are your actions, and the interactions in your brain do influence the future.

I think quantum behaviour is far too low-level to affect the macroscopic signal patterns that are our thoughts. What happens in one atom is not likely to affect an ensemble of trillions of molecules transferring an electrochemical signal, of which many of those make up a thought or an action. It's not plausible.

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, koti said:

why should my bag of meat care about QM ?

If the wrong atom of C-14 will decay in the wrong moment, in the wrong direction, in the wrong molecule, like DNA, molecule will be destroyed (and surrounding it molecules as well will be damaged in unpredictable way), cell will turn to cancer and it can kill you in the future..

80 kg human body has ~2900 decays of Carbon-14 and ~10100 decays of Potassium-40 per second.

~250 millions of decays of C-14 per day and ~873 millions of decays of K-40 per day.

 

 

[Bender]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think quantum behaviour is far too low-level to affect the macroscopic signal patterns that are our thoughts. What happens in one atom is not likely to affect an ensemble of trillions of molecules transferring an electrochemical signal, of which many of those make up a thought or an action. It's not plausible.

Perhaps. I do not rule out the possibility that it can (sometimes) affect whether a neuron fires or not and the timing. A single firing neuron again would have some potential influencing our behaviour.

That and Sensei's observation about the decays, which can kill neurons and consequently their future spikes.

[koti]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

If the wrong atom of C-14 will decay in the wrong moment, in the wrong direction, in the wrong molecule, like DNA, molecule will be destroyed (and surrounding it molecules as well will be damaged in unpredictable way), cell will turn to cancer and it can kill you in the future..

80 kg human body has ~2900 decays of Carbon-14 and ~10100 decays of Potassium-40 per second.

~250 millions of decays of C-14 per day and ~873 millions of decays of K-40 per day.

 

 

Sure. But this just renders my decision of not getting cancer useless which is well... obvious  

[Sensei]

On 5/20/2018 at 3:20 AM, koti said:

Sure. But this just renders my decision of not getting cancer useless which is well... obvious  

Rethink that. If you won't eat food which contain Carbon C-14, nor Potassium K-40, they won't be able to become part of your body and won't decay in your body, and you won't get cancer (at least not this way).. So.. you have choice..

To do that plants that people eat (and which are used as fodder for breeding animals) must not take CO₂ from raw air, but it has to be filtered out from radioactive isotopes (e.g. coal from mines is almost C-14 free). Hermetic skyscrapers, with CO₂ without C-14 gas in them, and you will have radioactive free food, either vegetables and meat. They should have hydroponics (to save water usage), adjustable parameters of environment and artificial light (extension of day time).

 

[koti]

On 5/20/2018 at 3:35 AM, Sensei said:

Rethink that. If you won't eat food which contain Carbon C-14, nor Potassium K-40, they won't be able to become part of your body and won't decay in your body, and you won't get cancer (at least not this way).. So.. you have choice..

To do that plants that people eat (and which are used as fodder for breeding animals) must not take CO₂ from raw air, but it has to be filtered out from radioactive isotopes (e.g. coal from mines is almost C-14 free). Hermetic skyscrapers, with CO₂ without C-14 gas in them, and you will have radioactive free food, either vegetables and meat. They should have hydroponics (to save water usage), adjustable parameters of environment and artificial light (extension of day time).

 

I’m rethinking. It looks like drunk driving won’t kill me but cancer will  

[Bender]

The oxigen that we breath is even worse, damaging our DNA about 2000 times per day per cell. No radioactivity required.

Luckily, our cells are extraordinarily good at fixing DNA.

[YaDinghus]

History is full of hidden variables, which is why we can recognize patterns and guess at trends, but the further ahead you want to tell or even control the future, and the grander the scale the more difficult it becomes. This is independent of physical determinism on any scale, though only the quantum scale is disputed, and also independent of free will. The reality of muy being is not dependent on determinism, and the ability of any conscious entity to do anything isn't, either (aside from physical limitations).

One measure of power might be the ability to influence the future, but this can only be done in retrospect and with knowledge of the agent's intentions and how they line up with the events that transpired

[Eise]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:25 PM, dimreepr said:

Discuss... 

Not in an absolute sense. But we have some control, but you must take care about what you exactly mean.

In the first place: the future is per definition what will happen. Said otherwise, practically seen there is only one future. 

In the second place: the word 'control' might be mis-usage: I can control a car (not absolutely again, otherwise there would not be accidents...), the temperature of my pans on the stove, etc. So the category 'controllable entities' exists in things and/or processes. The future is none of both.

On the other hand, what the future will be depends also on us. So my actions are causal factors of how the future will look like. But of course in the huge network of causes and effects, my intentions that lead to my actions, can be completely lost: others do not want what I want (and act accordingly), there are unexpected events that interfere etc etc.

So I can say I can 'control the future' in as far the results of my actions are what I intended. But I must be aware that many things happen that were not really intended by me.

[universaltheory]

On 19/05/2018 at 4:44 PM, Ten oz said:

Considering that we can't agree on the past and have only sporadic control over the present I think the answer is no. Of course context is everything and the OP provides none.  I assume the question is referring to humanity having positive control over its own fate?

We only still have one past; present and future- and that is the universe! The rest is is just either different contextual perspectives or illusions of this universe where the difference in the context or perspectives happen for a reason 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, universaltheory said:

We only still have one past; present and future- and that is the universe! The rest is is just either different contextual perspectives or illusions of this universe where the difference in the context or perspectives happen for a reason 

The thread asks if can can "control" it. Not whether it exists.

[universaltheory]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The thread asks if can can "control" it. Not whether it exists.

The universe only allowed one agent through which it self controls its past ; present and the future- and that contrpller is called physical laws! I doubt that it.needs some one else