taylrl Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 If you know everything about events leading up to a future occurance, then surely you can predict its outcome, does this mean that is outcome is predetermined. For example. In the lottery, if you knew the exact weight of the balls, the height they were dropped from, all of the coefficients of friction and all other information, e.g. air resistance etc. then surely you could program it into a computer and find the outcome. This Is already being done, to a certain extent with mapping weather systems in supercomputers. e.g. they predicted the effects of hurricane Katrina to a certain extent. If you had a powerful enough computer, and could program in sufficient information, also an in depth knowledge of chaos would need to be known, but we should be able to predict all future outcomes from a single event, even me pressing this fullstop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddad Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Oh, boy! Classic runs into quantum mechanics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylrl Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 sorry waht do you mean by classic runs into quantum mechanics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebov Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 There are some things that are inherently unknowable. One very important instance of this is the position of an electron. One can never know the exact position of an electron, only a probability that an electron exists in a certain area. Sure, if you knew everything about everything (and I mean EVERYTHING), then there is no reason you would not be able to plug numbers (a lot of them) into formulae (very complex formulae) to figure out future events. However, this would require knowing everything, which is quite a task to undertake. (Imagine trying to understand the simple task of enumerating every charge source in existence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylrl Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Are things which are inherently knowable, theoretically measurable, or is it just that they become unmeasurable through observation? If, for example an electron does actually have a specific location at any given point (its just that we cant measure it) Then surely that implies that all events are predetermined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 That's what I've always wondered. We can only measure the probability of an electron being in a specific place, but the limits of what is physically measureable should not have any effect on the "truth" of where the electron really is without outside interference. Imagine being able to "know" where the electron is without needing to physically measure it (sort of like Quantumn ESP) - what would this mean to science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 if you knew the wavefunctions of every particle in the universe, couldn't you theoretically set up an equation that is all possible timelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebov Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I think perhaps the real question behind all of this is, is there a unique universal outcome for each interaction within the Universe; or, are there interactions in the universe that have multiple possible outcomes given the exact universal parameters. If the former is true, then if all parameters are known about any point in time, then there would only be one possible path for every interaction in the future ("predetermined"). If the latter is true, then there would be no way to determine precisely any future event, even if all parameters are known about the present (or past) (not "predetermined"). The matter may be rather a moot point though, being that it is not possible to know all the parameters of any point in time (as far as I know of at least); personally, I would like to think that my thoughts are my own and not the result of a mathematical function. I believe I am starting to digress, so I'm going to stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Even if it is true, wouldn't conciousness throw randomise things a little, as people would have free will of how they interact with the rest of the Universe, and therefore you can't predict the flow of energy from one object to another. Of course, when you think about planet Earth and the Ecosystem as a whole, I don't think it's really going to matter if you catch a ball or let it bounce off your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylrl Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 I suppose your opinion on that will be determined by how you feel about quntum mind theory. Is conciousness itself a result of quantum interactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 If, for example an electron does actually have a specific location at any given point (its just that we cant measure it) Then surely that implies that all events are predetermined. But that is the point. It doesn't. This was the whole point of the double slit experiment with electrons. It genuinely does go through both slits because it does not actually have a specific location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylrl Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 if it dosent have a specific location, does that mea that it dosent exist within our conventional 3 dimensions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaotic1 Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Read about Edward Lorenz's work. He dealt with the weather, he was a meteorologist. He had modelled (rather over-simplified), the weather system as a set of simple differential equations. He had set out to achieve complete predictability, if not for the real weather, at least for the computer model. But surprisingly, he found that the computer model itself was unpredictable. He found Sensitivity to Initial Conditions (SICness). A situation, where even the best of computers cannot really predict the long-term behavior. Yes, by building powerful computers and algorithms, by considering more and more factors, and by doing more and more accurate calculations, we may be able to improve weather prediction from hours to days to probably weeks. But the system as such, in real long term, is unpredictable. I hope I do not sound out of context. Hmm... Maybe I do. I'll stop here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I was reading about experiments with double-slit type experiments where the photons were passed through 4 slits, when you could tell if a photon passed through A or B it would act like a particle, but if you didn't know whether it passed through C or D it would act like a wave! That's spooky, right there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhole123 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Chaos Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Even if it is true' date=' wouldn't conciousness throw randomise things a little, as people would have free will of how they interact with the rest of the Universe, and therefore you can't predict the flow of energy from one object to another. Of course, when you think about planet Earth and the Ecosystem as a whole, I don't think it's really going to matter if you catch a ball or let it bounce off your head.[/quote'] I've never understood why people think consciousness is random like that. I first thought of this back on grade 4, and knowing that the brain worked with electricity (not too accurate I know, but I was in grade 4). I figured that our brain is just a complex machine, and given a certain stimulus, certain neurons would fire, which would cause us to think something. If you could turn back time and view that event again and again, I saw no reason why a person wouldn't react the same way every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Chaos Theory Uh...... ok...... is that supposed to mean something to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhole123 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 chaos theory states that predicting the future IS possible if you know the extact initial conditions. the problem is that even if you are off by the smallest bit that it will have a huge effect on the outcome. kind of like the butterfly effect. so it is possible in theory but you would have to have an infinite amount of numbers which right now is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 '']I've never understood why people think consciousness is random like that. I first thought of this back on grade 4, and knowing that the brain worked with electricity (not too accurate I know, but I was in grade 4). I figured that our brain is just a complex machine, and given a certain stimulus, certain neurons would fire, which would cause us to think something. If you could turn back time and view that event again and again, I saw no reason why a person wouldn't react the same way every time. So you don't believe in free will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 if it dosent have a specific location, does that mea that it dosent exist within our conventional 3 dimensions No it just means it's a wave not a particle (I know someone is going to shout at me for this but it's very early morning and feel like making sensationalist statements) Chaos theory is a valid point to raise here. If we knew the wave forms of everything in the universe then we could make a statistical guess at the most probable outcome of the future but it wouldn't be 100% accurate, as is the way of probability wave functions describing things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templar Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 if you knew the wavefunctions of every particle in the universe, couldn't you theoretically set up an equation that is all possible timelines? No. The wavefunction constains a collection of eigenstates and probability amplitudes for them. With wavefunction, you can at most say somethime like this: after a measurement of momentum, chances you get 9 is %32, 15 %60, etc. You can predict the possibilities of measurement outcomes, in theory. In real life, add the experimental errosr and the fact that you usually don't know the wavefunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 No it just means it's a wave not a particle (I know someone is going to shout at me for this but it's very early morning and feel like making sensationalist statements) Is it at all possible that light particles are in everything, but can only be observed when they move, i.e. lightwaves? making light a particle, but also a wave in a sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimefan599 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Chaos Theory It's actually a wave particle duality if you are talking about how a photon acts like a wave or a particle in certain contextes. Or if you are talking about the OP then I will shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrang604 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 The problem with all these arguments about electrons being particles or waves is the fact that they are neither. There is nothing in classical physics that can descibe them. The ideas of wave or particle are simplifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I wonder how possible Asimov's psychohistory is (read the foundation series). In those books, they are able to reduce the future to statistical probabilities because, let's face it, human behavior is predictable on large levels. (mob psychology) Just think about how many things in history repeat themselves. Political analysts try to predict the outcomes of policy, but if you were able to quantify this in some way, perhaps it wouldn't be too far fetched, despite the many variables that go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now