Do you believe in fate?

ecksor

I wasn't even thinking at that sort of level (although I agree with you), I just mean that even if we have physical theories that model with an element of randomness or lack of determinism, they're still good models even if that "isn't how it really is". Of course, what the difference between our perception of reality and our best theoretical models actually is or if that even means anything in real terms is a whole different fight I suppose.

This reminds me of a story I heard the other day. A physics professor contacted the producers of star trek and wanted to know how their heisenberg compensators worked. They replied "Very well, thank you".

Trip

Thordon sound's like you got your belief's from the matrix cause and effect


But in a way if you look at the matrix two it doesn't have the correct answer as i think there will never be a "correct answer" to this question but some very believeable one's . But than again that's just because they touch on what i believe in

Thordon

Thordon sound's like you got your belief's from the matrix cause and effect

Hehe, the concept of causality has been around for a lot longer than the matrix . I was annoyed though that the 'moral' of the movie was that cause and effect didnt apply to choice, to free will, it seemed like the purpose was just to stroke the ego's of people who are too arrogant already.

i think there will never be a "correct answer"

There is a universal truth, we may never know it, but it exists.

Fysh

Originally posted by Thordon
I dont believe in fate, but I do believe that everything is pre-destined. The difference is the meaning. Fate attaches meaning to events that are significant to the person experiencing them. Everything being pre-destined means that there is no randomness in the universe, no force that can change the laws of cause and effect.

There is a universal truth, we may never know it, but it exists.

Just curious....how do you reconcile these two seemingly different statements?

Separately - as simu pointed out, on a quantum level, genuine randomness does occur. Radioactive emission is an example of this. So two identical universes with no link (as you originally postulated) are *not* guaranteed to be identical after any significant period of time, since it only takes one minute change to make them different.

You can't dismiss this random factor on a quantum level with "they could be caused by changes in counterparts of those particles in another universe", because this contradicts your initial premise that the two universes share no connection. If this is not the case, thermodynamically the combination of the two universes would have to be seen as one whole system (the usual term being "multiverse") and considerations of random events on a quantum scale would apply over the multiverse.

...Regarding ecksor's comments about models vs "real world": many physicists are utterly convinced that our models are totally different to how the universe is (the so-called "lies to children" idea). Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the model predicts real-world behaviour totally accurately, it makes no difference whether or not it truly models the actual behaviour - since, if it *doesn't* exactly map the behaviour, you're likely to get anomalous results at some stage (eg Newtonian mechanics can work out classical problems such as projectile physics, but we need Einsteinian physics to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun). Then again, I'm just a great dirty pragmatist

Trip

Well you can have main idea's and sub idea's

I have a tendancie to contradict myself on my belief's sometimes but their your belief's you can't expect an answer when you question someone on their belief's fysh .

Fysh

Originally posted by Trip
Well you can have main idea's and sub idea's

I have a tendancie to contradict myself on my belief's sometimes but their your belief's you can't expect an answer when you question someone on their belief's fysh .

Well, yes, but on the other hand you can't expect someone to take your beliefs seriously in a discussion on a philosophy forum, if those beliefs turn out to be inconsistent.

That doesn't mean you can't carry on believing them, just that they don't stand up to critical analysis; in the same way as I could believe that the universe is in fact made up of subatomic jelly-flavoured donuths - nobody would necessarily try to disabuse me of that belief, but on the other hand I wouldn't get taken very seriously at any serious discussion on the subject.

DadaKopf

I haven't really been following this thread but people have been talking a lot about the realism of scientific models, and even the realism or otherwise of other models of the world.

This is, in fact, something I've been thinking a lot about for my thesis (not a philosophy thesis), and I hope to start a thread discussing a particular point of view in the near future.

Anyway, as regards scientific models, I think it's been a working assumption by many posters here that no matter how "unrealistic" a scientific model of the world may be - including chaos etc. - we're moving towards a more complete understanding of the universe and, hence, the issue of agency.

This assumption reiterates the positivist beliefs about scientific methodology founded on the basis that facts are entirely separate from values. This position may be called realism. The problem is that it's doubtful that this is possible. Therefore our 'objective' scientific models are extensions of intersubjective judgements we make, or wish to make, about the world.

Many philosophers from Max Horkheimer to W. V. O. Quine and Hilary Putnam have criticised what they mostly term 'instrumental rationality'. While none of these thinkers are from the same camp, all are more or less agreed that scientific methodology specifically, and how we make sense of the world in general, operates in a way such that we only ever consider data that are useful to our intentions or goals. Knowledge is, therefore, an instrument to support beliefs about the world. Consequently, factors that are difficult to measure or seem irrelevant because a certain causality has not/cannot be established are ignored because they're not useful to us.

This process isn't unidirectional - it's not linear. The real kick in the teeth is we'll never ever be able to know if we're accumulating knowledge or running around in circles.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Anyway, as regards scientific models, I think it's been a working assumption by many posters here that no matter how "unrealistic" a scientific model of the world may be - including chaos etc. - we're moving towards a more complete understanding of the universe and, hence, the issue of agency.

But isn't the issue of agency outside the scope of empirical enquiry anyway? There is no objective test to determine whether something is acting of its own free will and according to its own desires or whether it's behavior is just the higher level outcome of lower level activity (for example, neurons firing in the brain). We must grant the thing in question agency (or personhood or something along those lines). Then issues like goals and desires and so forth begin to make sense.

DadaKopf

That's a Dennettian position. We ascribe behavioural systems 'intentionality', but a fire alarm would have a much lower order of intentionality than a human being, for example. (Dennett's example.) Dennett's way around determinism is that the human brain, and the way it produces meaning, understanding and intentionality via a relation with the outside world and other mental processes, are so complex, and possibly biological architecture so prone to anomaly, that we can't but ascribe ourselves free will. We adopt an 'intentional stance'.

However, the only way we can know (or rather intuit) this is, I suppose, through behavioural observation, which is ironic since Dennett spent most of his career building on and moving away from his teacher Gilbert Ryle's behaviouralist stance.

In any case, SkepcicOne, that was exactly my point. It's a fallacy of the positivist/empiricist/realist camp to believe that we can ever enquire into the nature of agency just as much as we're probably forever blinded from knowing the 'true' nature of the universe and everything else. Y'know?

Thordon

because this contradicts your initial premise that the two universes share no connection

Sorry if I wasnt clear, but when i mentioned counterparts, I wasnt referring to each universe being linked, the counterparts were another 2 universes, thats just one of many theorys Im sure are floating around to explain quatum physics in a deterministic way.

When I mentioned absolute truth, I meant that there is only one way that things could be and are.

behavior is just the higher level outcome of lower level activity

To me, one of the most convincing arguments for determinism is this, if you look at computers, they can be designed to do intelligent things, things that have up until their creation been limited to organic beings.

There are so many similaritys between computers and percieved systems in humans, its hard to deny the possibility that everything we are could come from low level sources. It seems far more likely, that humans created the concept of free will and sprituality to explain what could not be understood way back before computer. And it is in human nature to believe what you want to believe than what is true.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
In any case, SkepcicOne, that was exactly my point. It's a fallacy of the positivist/empiricist/realist camp to believe that we can ever enquire into the nature of agency just as much as we're probably forever blinded from knowing the 'true' nature of the universe and everything else. Y'know?

Yes. I wonder, however, if scientists today (incl. physicists like Fysh) actually believe they are getting to the 'true nature' of the universe. What they seek is acurate models of of the universe - statements about the universe with predictive power.

I would be interested in scientists opinion of this view.

DadaKopf

Just noticed what Fysh said:
many physicists are utterly convinced that our models are totally different to how the universe is (the so-called "lies to children" idea). Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the model predicts real-world behaviour totally accurately, it makes no difference whether or not it truly models the actual behaviour - since, if it *doesn't* exactly map the behaviour, you're likely to get anomalous results at some stage (eg Newtonian mechanics can work out classical problems such as projectile physics, but we need Einsteinian physics to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun). Then again, I'm just a great dirty pragmatist

I guess that's your answer, SkepticOne!

I'm sure there's a multiplicity of opinion within the scientific community. It's certainly ironic, though, that as scientists, especially physicists, move further and further away from the claim that science can ever reveal the self-identical 'truth' of the universe, the discipline of economics is moving in the opposite direction.

In this case, I'd say the difference is that economics is much more political than physics. Since when did physics as a discourse ever act as an ideological justification for a particular alignment of social forces?

:dunno:

Kaner

Seems to me that science tells us how things in the physical world work, it does not attempt to answer the 'why' question. So there is really there is no
competition between 'God' and science.

The question of fate is probably a 'God' question, as human beings and the universe we live in is so complex we may never fully understand our relation to it.

So far as I am concerned, we are free to believe in fate or not. I personally do not believe in fate, but I do believe in 'unmanagability', ie., life is bigger than me and I cannot control it, but I trust that the universe is a friendly place.

This part is subjective, but in my opinion far more important that the fate question: I think the quality of my life depends on feelings, if I feel ****ty all the time my life is ****, if I feel good my life is good. Because I will never have the definitive answer to the fate question, or any of the other big questions, my main purpose in life is to have a good time. None of us are going to be here for a long time, so any beliefs or ideas that help me with having a good quality of life are relevant; those that dont help me I have no time for, especially if they encourage hopelessness or morbidity.

It is possible to use ideas such as 'fate' and 'determinism' to explain and support the fact that I feel bad or depressed a lot of the time. To say '**** it' and not take responsibility for the bad feelings. I can always say 'whats the point its all meaningless and stupid, and anyway its fate', when in reality I will never in this lifetime know the answers to these big questions. The only thing I really know is that for some reason I am stuck here on this earth, and that it can either be a heaven or a hell. It all depends on me.

Fysh

Kaner wrote:

Seems to me that science tells us how things in the physical world work, it does not attempt to answer the 'why' question. So there is really there is no
competition between 'God' and science.

I disagree totally. Science, particularly that branch of it studying the origins of the universe, is very much concerned with the question of why things happen; the fact that science does not ascribe an ulterior meaning to the universe's existence (or certain chains of events therein) just means that no convincing evidence in support of such an ulterior meaning has yet been found.


The question of fate is probably a 'God' question, as human beings and the universe we live in is so complex we may never fully understand our relation to it.

Kaner wrote:

So far as I am concerned, we are free to believe in fate or not. I personally do not believe in fate, but I do believe in 'unmanagability', ie., life is bigger than me and I cannot control it, but I trust that the universe is a friendly place.

This part is subjective, but in my opinion far more important that the fate question: I think the quality of my life depends on feelings, if I feel ****ty all the time my life is ****, if I feel good my life is good. Because I will never have the definitive answer to the fate question, or any of the other big questions, my main purpose in life is to have a good time. None of us are going to be here for a long time, so any beliefs or ideas that help me with having a good quality of life are relevant; those that dont help me I have no time for, especially if they encourage hopelessness or morbidity.

It is possible to use ideas such as 'fate' and 'determinism' to explain and support the fact that I feel bad or depressed a lot of the time. To say '**** it' and not take responsibility for the bad feelings. I can always say 'whats the point its all meaningless and stupid, and anyway its fate', when in reality I will never in this lifetime know the answers to these big questions. The only thing I really know is that for some reason I am stuck here on this earth, and that it can either be a heaven or a hell. It all depends on me.

From the above, you appear to think that the universe has an opinion towards you ("it is a friendly place") and that your purpose in life is "to have a good time". What makes you think the universe cares one way or the other? The earth is a hospitable environment for us; as we might expect, given that we evolved within it, suiting our needs to the climate around us. But for a human constitution, the vast majority of space is not "friendly" to us, in the sense of allowing our survival. None of the planets in our solar system could support us; neither could any of the satellites so far examined. In fact, within our solar system (and possibly our entire galaxy) we might well find ourselves very lonely.

Don't get me wrong; I thoroughly agree with your pragmatic approach to life on earth - it is simply your assessment of the universe I disagree with.

elivsvonchiaing

I think it's best to think of the dinosaurs- they had no comprehension that a huge asteroid was coming - this was fate. We however know there will be such an event. We know we can destroy (ok fragment) a 500km wide iron asteroid with a very large lattice of H-Bombs with a core of several thou tonnes of tritium + lithium - yield of 10s, 100s? of Gigagtons. Fired from an orbital "tracking" cannon at 10s 100s Km/Sec.

Ok, we only know it can be done - exactly how, no we don't - but we know it can be done (well I do anyhow

Its just a pity we never got up off our arses to make this happen. Maybe this is fate also?

marvin2k

What really gets me believing in a predetermined exsistence is when i experience really vivid deja vous or however it is spelt .I have lightning fast experiences of a situation , set of circumstances or sense of being and then that same phenomenon is repeated maybe months down the line , I think everyone knows it .My more imaginative self likes to think its a glitch in the system or a foul up in the "grand scheme" which causes this light speed lapse as illustrated in the Matrix with the cat scene .Surely the exsistence of Deja vous is the evidence for fate , but maybe we experience an indefineable amount of these experiences a lot of the time and it is only when one of these is compatible with the path we have made that we experience that wierd deja vous sensation .If ya see what I mean

Thordon

Deja vu is a strange thing, whenever I get it, I try to think back to when I experienced the event the first time and I can never remember, it seems as if the 2nd time it happens actually implants the memory of the first time making it seem like it happened before, when it didnt.

Its important to remember that what we percieve is not always an accurate perception of what is really happening, for example, the human eye can only percieve 200hz (I think, the point is, that there is a limit), wheras the actual universe is constantly changing, with unlimited percievable differences. Another example is optical illusions. The reason I point these out is to show that just because we experience deja vu, does not mean that it is something that is actually happening, or evidence of fate, chances are that deja vu is just some quirk of the human mind.

Billy Kovachy

Nope dont believe in fate,hey tom

Fysh

marvin2k wrote:

Surely the exsistence of Deja vous is the evidence for fate , but maybe we experience an indefineable amount of these experiences a lot of the time and it is only when one of these is compatible with the path we have made that we experience that wierd deja vous sensation .If ya see what I mean

Both you and elivsvonchiaing seem to be ignoring the limitations of the human mind. My point being:

a)Just because the dinosaurs weren't aware of a giant rock hurtling toward the planet, doesn't make their extinction "fate", or at least no more so than any other event determined by the causality which our universe appears to operate on.

b)Given the imperfection of the human brain, it would seem more likely for deja vu to be analogous to short-circuits, creating an artificial sensation of memory, than for it to be an accurate perception of a much larger (presumably universe-wide) "ripple" in spacetime or what have you. Speaking of which, is there any credible evidence for mass deja vu? I ask since I can't think of any case I've heard of in which several people have had the same deja vu, which would seem to lend weight to the "faulty wiring" suggestion.

elivsvonchiaing

Fysh wrote:

b)Given the imperfection of the human brain, it would seem more likely for deja vu to be analogous to short-circuits, creating an artificial sensation of memory, than for it to be an accurate perception of a much larger (presumably universe-wide) "ripple" in spacetime or what have you. Speaking of which, is there any credible evidence for mass deja vu? I ask since I can't think of any case I've heard of in which several people have had the same deja vu, which would seem to lend weight to the "faulty wiring" suggestion.

{Best Eamonn Dunphy voice}What the fcuk do you mean everyone saw Mick McCarthy's resignation before it happened

(Completely irrelevant - was helpless to resist this in fairness)

AngelofFire

This thread really got me thinking. How do we not that WE are the ones who are in control of our actions.We could be just under the subjective illusion that we are, for all we know some force that cannot register on any of our five senses, could be controlling us. We could be puppets on some string. The question is, who is the puppet master?

impr0v

Fysh wrote:

b)Given the imperfection of the human brain, it would seem more likely for deja vu to be analogous to short-circuits, creating an artificial sensation of memory, than for it to be an accurate perception of a much larger (presumably universe-wide) "ripple" in spacetime or what have you. Speaking of which, is there any credible evidence for mass deja vu? I ask since I can't think of any case I've heard of in which several people have had the same deja vu, which would seem to lend weight to the "faulty wiring" suggestion.

I read somewhere recently that our brain has not got the capacity to store all our memories in intricate detail, and instead distills the memory down to its bare minimum for archiving. This record consists of information about the primary actors in the scene, and a chain of events, and the remaining information is sometimes stored, sometimes not, but mostly in a hazy fashion. The article/book stated that deja vu is caused when we experience a scene where a number of factors are similar to a stored scene and the brain is not sure if they are the same or different, due to the hazy information around the main parts of the stored scene.