Do you believe in fate?
Discussion
The future is determined by physical laws.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
I believe in destiny. I also believe it's up to us to get there though, by following whatever it may be that is in your mind. I would agree that the only fate that should befall me is death. It'll happen sooner or later, I'm not sure how, when, why or where but when it happens it happens. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. I would also agree that I'm partially in charge of this. I can lower the chances of death by making good decisions.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
Dee Cee said:
I believe in destiny. I also believe it's up to us to get there though, by following whatever it may be that is in your mind. I would agree that the only fate that should befall me is death. It'll happen sooner or later, I'm not sure how, when, why or where but when it happens it happens. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. I would also agree that I'm partially in charge of this. I can lower the chances of death by making good decisions.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
But you don`t know what the fate is before you make the choice, you can`t alter fate by making a different choice, fate is an unknown quantity unconnected to choice.
I`ll get my coat.
slowly slowly said:
Dee Cee said:
I believe in destiny. I also believe it's up to us to get there though, by following whatever it may be that is in your mind. I would agree that the only fate that should befall me is death. It'll happen sooner or later, I'm not sure how, when, why or where but when it happens it happens. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. I would also agree that I'm partially in charge of this. I can lower the chances of death by making good decisions.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
I can increase the chance of creating destiny by making good desisions. So I think it is choice that determines fate or destiny, not chance.
saying this though and then looking up the word destiny would throw a spanner in my works. I'm not for the predetermined thing either. I think it's us that shape our destiny.
But you don`t know what the fate is before you make the choice, you can`t alter fate by making a different choice, fate is an unknown quantity unconnected to choice.
I`ll get my coat.
I agree. You don't know what the right choice is. The fate you have depends on the choice you make and you certainly don't know the ultimate fate before you make a choice to do anything. So I would alter your statement to read fate is an unknown quantity directly connected to the choice you make.
I was driving through our neighbourhood shortly after getting my first car, looking at my GPS speedo, absent mindedly debating "the responsibility of being a safe driver, and what it means not to speed"
Got lost in my own little world for several seconds (as you do) going a shade under the speed limit. Several seconds later, a jap sports car flew out of (and across!!) a blind junction (doing 60mph as we agreed afterwards) and just missed T-Boning us.
My GF would be dead, if it wasnt for that moment of deliberation whilst going a few miles per hour under the limit before the incident. We were both so shaken, we pulled over afterwards to discuss.
edited... spelling
Got lost in my own little world for several seconds (as you do) going a shade under the speed limit. Several seconds later, a jap sports car flew out of (and across!!) a blind junction (doing 60mph as we agreed afterwards) and just missed T-Boning us.
My GF would be dead, if it wasnt for that moment of deliberation whilst going a few miles per hour under the limit before the incident. We were both so shaken, we pulled over afterwards to discuss.
edited... spelling
Edited by UKBob on Monday 7th August 00:03
grass widow said:
Yes I believe things happen for a reason, but I don't believe things are predetermined. I believe there are 2 paths at any one junction and it depends on your choices as to which path you take.
Yes, but not limited to just two paths. And at the same time I also belive in fate. The exist together, but separately, depending on whether or not you are consciously taking the wheel vs just cruising. Both actions and thoughts (or lack thereof) could be considered "taking the wheel" or not. Depending on the nature of your thoughts and actions. Ive always looked at it this way - responsibility is the ability to respond. And the way in which we respond to life affects upcoming events. And this (paradoxically) need not disrupt fate, which was there all along.
cymtriks said:
The future is determined by physical laws.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
This is nonsense. It is true that macro scale objects have very small uncertainty, hence the orbits of planets are very regular and predictable over large timescales (but still ultimately chaotic). However human decisions, thought, whatever, occurs at the level of molecules (perhaps even at quantum computing levels if Penrose is right).
The uncertainty at that level means that even with measurements down to the limit of theoretical accuracy, the timescale under which you can make reliable predictions is tiny. You can not predict what you will have for breakfast tommorow (or even a few fractions of a second away, you can always change your mind and not eat whats in front of you) let alone a week away.
Our current best understanding of quantum theory tells us that the future is not predetermined.
Therefore 1) & 2) are incorrect and hence so is 3).
I think its more chance than anything.
About a year or so ago I decided to take my mini out for a spin as I had been neglecting it. Coming to the end of my drive in it I approached a T-junction with a set of traffic lights, the lights were infact in my favour and I wished to turn right onto the main road. I was maybe 30 feet from the junction and travelling slightly under the speed limit but I suddendly braked (yes having checked behind to see if anything was there first).
With that the mercedes sitting on the main road (which was obstructed from my vision by a large brick wall and huge tree) stuck his foot down and wheelspan off as fast as he could through the red light, shortly followed by toyota with the wheels locked up and smoke bellowing out. It turns out that the toyota had been travelling at some fair old speed and not concentrating before realising he was about to hit the back of the mercedes, so the mercedes driver saw this and planted his foot down to get away.
I was pretty shaken up about it as if I hadnt randomly braked then the mercedes would have hit me and I would have been in trouble considering I was driving the mini. I got out of the car and vented my frustration and saw just how long these skidmarks were, and told the toyota driver just how wrecklessly he had been driving. The driver of the Mercedes SL was very apoligetic but I dont remember much after that, I just got in the car and carried on with the rest of the journey (which was all of 2 minutes).
May sound like fate to some people, I dont know, I'm pretty open minded about things, But that night was unexplainable as the road is not visible from the road I was travelling down and I did not hear any skidding noises.
About a year or so ago I decided to take my mini out for a spin as I had been neglecting it. Coming to the end of my drive in it I approached a T-junction with a set of traffic lights, the lights were infact in my favour and I wished to turn right onto the main road. I was maybe 30 feet from the junction and travelling slightly under the speed limit but I suddendly braked (yes having checked behind to see if anything was there first
). With that the mercedes sitting on the main road (which was obstructed from my vision by a large brick wall and huge tree) stuck his foot down and wheelspan off as fast as he could through the red light, shortly followed by toyota with the wheels locked up and smoke bellowing out. It turns out that the toyota had been travelling at some fair old speed and not concentrating before realising he was about to hit the back of the mercedes, so the mercedes driver saw this and planted his foot down to get away.
I was pretty shaken up about it as if I hadnt randomly braked then the mercedes would have hit me and I would have been in trouble considering I was driving the mini. I got out of the car and vented my frustration and saw just how long these skidmarks were, and told the toyota driver just how wrecklessly he had been driving. The driver of the Mercedes SL was very apoligetic but I dont remember much after that, I just got in the car and carried on with the rest of the journey (which was all of 2 minutes).
May sound like fate to some people, I dont know, I'm pretty open minded about things, But that night was unexplainable as the road is not visible from the road I was travelling down and I did not hear any skidding noises.
s2art said:
cymtriks said:
The future is determined by physical laws.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
This is nonsense. It is true that macro scale objects have very small uncertainty, hence the orbits of planets are very regular and predictable over large timescales (but still ultimately chaotic). However human decisions, thought, whatever, occurs at the level of molecules (perhaps even at quantum computing levels if Penrose is right).
The uncertainty at that level means that even with measurements down to the limit of theoretical accuracy, the timescale under which you can make reliable predictions is tiny. You can not predict what you will have for breakfast tommorow (or even a few fractions of a second away, you can always change your mind and not eat whats in front of you) let alone a week away.
Our current best understanding of quantum theory tells us that the future is not predetermined.
Therefore 1) & 2) are incorrect and hence so is 3).
Can you demonstrate that the processes that result in you choosing a certain breakfast next week are not macro in nature? While individual discrete thoughts may be subject to quantum uncertainty are collections of thoughts more robust?
Your final paragraph relates to exactly the issues that I clearly stated I was not talking about in my earlier post. Predictions based on available knowledge are always subject to the vaharies of choas. My post relates to perfect knowledge of the present being used to predict the future.
You point out that macro events such as the movements of planets show very small uncertainty even over very long time scales. Can you tell us at what level of our daily lives quantum effects prevent the future from being predicted with reasonable accuracy?
Can you prove that our daily lives are subjected to significant quantum effects that prevent prediction of our futures a day, a week, or a life time hence?
Can you tell us at what point in the future my statement-
Earlier I said:
The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present
breaks down due to quantum effects?
My hunch is that real quantum uncertainty, causing departure from predictions based on perfect (by which I mean theoretically perfect) knowledge of the present will take a long time to build up to anything significant whereas chaotic departure, as in predictions based on imperfect knowledge of the present, would build up very quickly.
Answers please!
If I get up in the morning and think "I fancied weetabix earlier but I feel like cornflakes now", I don't see that as caused by quantum uncertainty. If it was it would surely be more like "I fancied weetabix earlier but I feel like writing a piano concerto now." My change from weetabix to cornflakes may well be the result of a whim but it could also be the result of realising I had weetabix yesterday.
cymtriks said:
My hunch is that real quantum uncertainty, causing departure from predictions based on perfect (by which I mean theoretically perfect ) knowledge of the present will take a long time to build up to anything significant whereas chaotic departure, as in predictions based on imperfect knowledge of the present, would build up very quickly.
Answers please!
Answers please!
Sorry must take umbrage with this comment - by definition of the uncertainty principle, measurements will always be theoretically imperfect (even with the "hypothetical infinitely precise instrument" ) . Hence predictions based on an imperfect origin position will never hold an accuracy - and will be subject to the "Chaotic" forces endemic within the "imperfect knowledge" of the present as they are one and the same.
Of course freewill and determinism are in the realms of metaphysics and are probably more useful in the context of the original question but to add a slightly different slant to the direction of the debate I wrote the following on the concept of "Fate" a few years ago:
Me awhile ago said:
There is another four letter word which describes perfectly the reason why this occurred - Luck (spawnious gitus). If you treat luck like energy in a system (enthalpy) it would disperse itself randomly so that some-bodies posses large amounts and others very little. Each time two bodies meet an incident occurs but when two bodies of high "luck" meet a coincidence occurs. This would then lead to dramatically high levels of "small world" and other such inane dribblings about fate, destiny etc. where perfectly rational bodies try to explain chance and probability in terms of cause and effect."
Edited by Jinx on Monday 7th August 12:01
cymtriks said:
s2art said:
cymtriks said:
The future is determined by physical laws.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
This is nonsense. It is true that macro scale objects have very small uncertainty, hence the orbits of planets are very regular and predictable over large timescales (but still ultimately chaotic). However human decisions, thought, whatever, occurs at the level of molecules (perhaps even at quantum computing levels if Penrose is right).
The uncertainty at that level means that even with measurements down to the limit of theoretical accuracy, the timescale under which you can make reliable predictions is tiny. You can not predict what you will have for breakfast tommorow (or even a few fractions of a second away, you can always change your mind and not eat whats in front of you) let alone a week away.
Our current best understanding of quantum theory tells us that the future is not predetermined.
Therefore 1) & 2) are incorrect and hence so is 3).
Can you demonstrate that the processes that result in you choosing a certain breakfast next week are not macro in nature? While individual discrete thoughts may be subject to quantum uncertainty are collections of thoughts more robust?
Your final paragraph relates to exactly the issues that I clearly stated I was not talking about in my earlier post. Predictions based on available knowledge are always subject to the vaharies of choas. My post relates to perfect knowledge of the present being used to predict the future.
You point out that macro events such as the movements of planets show very small uncertainty even over very long time scales. Can you tell us at what level of our daily lives quantum effects prevent the future from being predicted with reasonable accuracy?
Can you prove that our daily lives are subjected to significant quantum effects that prevent prediction of our futures a day, a week, or a life time hence?
Can you tell us at what point in the future my statement-
Earlier I said:
The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present
breaks down due to quantum effects?
My hunch is that real quantum uncertainty, causing departure from predictions based on perfect (by which I mean theoretically perfect) knowledge of the present will take a long time to build up to anything significant whereas chaotic departure, as in predictions based on imperfect knowledge of the present, would build up very quickly.
Answers please!
Either you accept that our thoughts are the product of (electro)chemical processes in our brains or you dont. If you do then you are forced to accept that the aggregate of all of the uncertainty in all of the molecules involved in one or more 'thoughts' means that it would be impossible to make reliable long term (long being on the order of seconds, or even tiny fractions of a second, as some of the chemical reactions occuring will have durations of the order of nanoseconds). Various people, Penrose in particular, have made attempts to show that thoughts in the mind may be function of an extended quantum coherence occupying large areas of the brain, in which case there could be a longer period (macro scale), however all that we know about coherence at the temperature of the brain argues against it. See http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psy
You refer to having perfect knowledge to base predictions on. QM tells us the limits of knowledge, we can not have perfect knowledge.
Regarding predicting somones actions. QM has already demonstrated (using the word prove is wrong, this is science not maths)that it would be impossible to do so with any accuracy. Although for some very broad brush general predictions, say an individual will sleep most nights for several hours, of course it is. But I think you meant more than that.
We dont understand the present because it would be impossible to have perfect knowledge. Even more QM tells us that, underlying everything, reality itself is probabalistic not deterministic. Chaos is built into the very fabric of reality. People have looked for theories and evidence to support 'hidden variables' but without success.
s2art said:
cymtriks said:
s2art said:
cymtriks said:
The future is determined by physical laws.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
So the immediate future can be determined from the present. By this I mean any kind of future, from the next solar eclipse to what you'll have for breakfast next week or when your next phone call will come.
The further you go into the future the more likely the prediction is to be wrong due to effects like the uncertainty principal. However you'd need to exptrapolate a very long way before these effects mounted up to anything significant. Don't get confused with stuff like "the butterfly effect" and chaos theory, that assumes that your knowledge is incomplete. With total knowledge of the present you still get quantum uncertainty over future events but this takes a long time to build up to anything significant.
To summarise-
1)The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present. This statement could be taken as a scientific hypothesis or as a spiritual or philosophical point.
2)Our future is predestined but the further into the future you look the more uncertainty exists.
3)this uncertainty gives us the illusions of luck and of being in control of our futures.
This is nonsense. It is true that macro scale objects have very small uncertainty, hence the orbits of planets are very regular and predictable over large timescales (but still ultimately chaotic). However human decisions, thought, whatever, occurs at the level of molecules (perhaps even at quantum computing levels if Penrose is right).
The uncertainty at that level means that even with measurements down to the limit of theoretical accuracy, the timescale under which you can make reliable predictions is tiny. You can not predict what you will have for breakfast tommorow (or even a few fractions of a second away, you can always change your mind and not eat whats in front of you) let alone a week away.
Our current best understanding of quantum theory tells us that the future is not predetermined.
Therefore 1) & 2) are incorrect and hence so is 3).
Can you demonstrate that the processes that result in you choosing a certain breakfast next week are not macro in nature? While individual discrete thoughts may be subject to quantum uncertainty are collections of thoughts more robust?
Your final paragraph relates to exactly the issues that I clearly stated I was not talking about in my earlier post. Predictions based on available knowledge are always subject to the vaharies of choas. My post relates to perfect knowledge of the present being used to predict the future.
You point out that macro events such as the movements of planets show very small uncertainty even over very long time scales. Can you tell us at what level of our daily lives quantum effects prevent the future from being predicted with reasonable accuracy?
Can you prove that our daily lives are subjected to significant quantum effects that prevent prediction of our futures a day, a week, or a life time hence?
Can you tell us at what point in the future my statement-
Earlier I said:
The only reason we think the future is not yet determined is because we don't understand the present
breaks down due to quantum effects?
My hunch is that real quantum uncertainty, causing departure from predictions based on perfect (by which I mean theoretically perfect) knowledge of the present will take a long time to build up to anything significant whereas chaotic departure, as in predictions based on imperfect knowledge of the present, would build up very quickly.
Answers please!
Either you accept that our thoughts are the product of (electro)chemical processes in our brains or you dont. If you do then you are forced to accept that the aggregate of all of the uncertainty in all of the molecules involved in one or more 'thoughts' means that it would be impossible to make reliable long term (long being on the order of seconds, or even tiny fractions of a second, as some of the chemical reactions occuring will have durations of the order of nanoseconds). Various people, Penrose in particular, have made attempts to show that thoughts in the mind may be function of an extended quantum coherence occupying large areas of the brain, in which case there could be a longer period (macro scale), however all that we know about coherence at the temperature of the brain argues against it. See http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psy
You refer to having perfect knowledge to base predictions on. QM tells us the limits of knowledge, we can not have perfect knowledge.
Regarding predicting somones actions. QM has already demonstrated (using the word prove is wrong, this is science not maths)that it would be impossible to do so with any accuracy. Although for some very broad brush general predictions, say an individual will sleep most nights for several hours, of course it is. But I think you meant more than that.
We dont understand the present because it would be impossible to have perfect knowledge. Even more QM tells us that, underlying everything, reality itself is probabalistic not deterministic. Chaos is built into the very fabric of reality. People have looked for theories and evidence to support 'hidden variables' but without success.
That's a well based argument. You seems to know more about the subject than me so I couldn't respond to it's substance. However, I have a problem with the amount of times the word impossible is used. Before airbourne devices were invented people considered flying to be impossible. People thought it was impossible you travel at 200 mph before that. Marconi was locked up because they thought he was a raving nutter when he explained he could make messages travel through the air without the aid of cables. They thought it was impossible. I would hazzard a guess that most of what we take for granted today was considered impossible at one point. In another 100 years, things which are impossible now will probably be common place. So I think my point is nothing is really impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet. Or the human mind hasn't expanded that far yet or evolution has a way to go before it becomes possible.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff