Fishteacher73 Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 It just seems to be a verbal conundrum of turning science into mysticism to support determinism. While hypothetically yes, if we knew EVERY factor leading up to an action we could predict it. The problem is that we do not even have a a small fraction of the factors understood. It is paramount to combining thousands of butterfly effect events to devine the future. One unthought of variable could alter the whole equation if this is what you believe. Even at that, you could only predict the next event, because all following events would be dependent on the previous outcomes. It seems a little too much like pre-determination of a few of the christian sects for me to really look at this seriously. I do not mean to slight anyones thoughts or opinions, these are just mine.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 It seems a little too much like pre-determination of a few of the christian sects for me to really look at this seriously. That's what I was trying to get away from when I mentioned pre-determinism. Christian predeterminism does not preclude free will (as far as I know), scientific determinism seems to (again, as far as I know).... Its a difficult thing to resolve. Are we ruled by the mechanics of physics? If so, we are nothing more then biochemical machines... I bet that's why so many people have a hard time swallowing all the implications of science, from a philisophical point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 We are machine with a basic program, but we can choose to not follow a lot of it. My body may be hungry and produces an urge to eat. At a base level I would go and get some food, yet I may be getting a bit hefty and decide to go on a diet, and deny the biological urge to eat. If we were truly just biological machines, we would not do detrimental things to our bodies. I think it is a bit absurd to assume that the laws of nature mandate that the homeless guy on the corner be a junkie. Yes genetics provide a framework that each individual must work inside of, but aside from various range limitations we truly have free-will to do as we wish. We cannot live without air, but you can train your body to go extended periods of time holding your breath (such as free divers) beyond what the average human can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 If we were truly just biological machines, we would not do detrimental things to our bodies. I think it is a bit absurd to assume that the laws of nature mandate that the homeless guy on the corner be a junkie. So the laws of nature do not apply? Is that the edge of science? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Are you implying then that the edge of science is stating that the random junkie had no choice and was destined or fated to be so? I thought we had debunked astrology a while ago. Maybe you have a new deck of tarot cards? I am not saying that the laws of nature do not apply, I can see no valid argument that would mean that the laws of nature have pre-deterimined the random events from when my great grandmother met her husband to when my grandson will loose his first tooth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I am not saying that the laws of nature do not apply, I can see no valid argument that would mean that the laws of nature have pre-deterimined the random events from when my great grandmother met her husband to when my grandson will loose his first tooth. Hmm... I'm not being clear... I was refering to the fact that nothing really is random in the physics that governs our daily lives. We know how molocules interact, or at least we believe we will know at some point, and so, given enough computational power, we can predict the state of that in the future (not that it's actually possible, but that its hypothetically possible). Do you think the randomness in QM is enough to influence our macroscopic existance? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 As for the basic physics, absolutly they can be determined if all the factors can be accounted for. The problem in that is that you have living organisms that put random(or nearly random depending on the organism) inputs into the system. Pehaps I misunderstood to what level this concept was being extrapolated to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxian Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 but life is a mechanical process, we just use use chemicals usually. we consume matter to produce energy... everything else is a bonus to that process. all life not able to do this efficiently dies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 As for the basic physics, absolutly they can be determined if all the factors can be accounted for. The problem in that is that you have living organisms that put random(or nearly random depending on the organism) inputs into the system. Pehaps I misunderstood to what level this concept was being extrapolated to. No worries, I probably wasn't super clear either. So... can organisms input randomness? If you could do the physics for every part of every organism, couldn't you predict their behavior (hypothetically of course). Basically, I'm wondering if randomness exists outside of the QM world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I think the question then becomes how much of an action is a biologically driven (extrapolateded up from chemical need, physics of molecules, etc) and how much of the action is self determined. I think something like plant tropisms are completely predictable and uniform. Even many animal actions are driven solely by biology (Food, reproduction, etc). Yet there aspects in some animals (humans for one) that the individual actions have little to do with necessity of the natural world. Even on the microscopic level there could be some debate. DNA normally produces exact copies, but we have mutations, which are aberations of normal molecular function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxian Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 there is a scientific metric, which relates to growth beauty and would expect evolution (as in mutation from one generation to the next) the specific metric was 1 to 1.618 or something, but i think the one you are talking about is similar but the number is different (the second is smaller). http://www.summum.us/philosophy/phi.shtml wouldn't be surprised if our tolemorase tips split off at a rate determined by this metric can organisms input randomness? = mutation, do you mean as per the life experience of that organism not related to virus infection (dna corruption)? i'd like to think so, but again attributing all genetic drift mutation and corruption (usefulness to the organism being the difference) to the microbes, this of course means that they cannot be erradicated, they are the bees that mix our pollen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxian Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 DNA normally produces exact copies under ideal circumstances, the earth has few ideal environments. UV light from the sun and viruses and other forces impact genetics my novel will focus on a planet born to a yellow sun like ours under which life flourishes, then a UV monster of a start takes over bathing life on the planets surface in UV light. under such circumstances most life will fry from without and within, but some larger life forms will survive the heat, the question is if the DNA will mutate too much in life forms that don't reproduce often enough to communicate strong resistant dna (the weak dna will be destroyed, assuming enough of it survives (to make a whole animal) then life goes on, and the surviving animal will be stronger). by the end of the transition the planet will be covered in life forms that will feed directly from the UV light of the new sun. wether or not they will then need to feed on biomass for power (they will for sustinance)(but like plants they will source most of the energy they need like plants using photosysnthesis) and water to make plant like sugars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Do you think the randomness in QM is enough to influence our macroscopic existance? :DNo. There is no evidence or "grand unification theory" that would indicate how quantum events are in any way related to the physical universe. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxian Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 by studying every grain of sand can you understand the beach? no. why would you anyway if you can just study the beach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 No. There is no evidence or "grand unification theory" that would indicate how quantum events are in any way related to the physical universe. :) I was wondering about that. Is there any truely random events in the macroscopic (non-quantum) world? Radioactive decay could be one, but isn't that decay rate based on QM equations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxian Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 i thought a grandmasters moves in chess... or maybe a womans private motives.. if there was any machine men would pay millions for.. but then there is always alcohol.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 I was wondering about that. Is there any truely random events in the macroscopic (non-quantum) world? Not that anyone has been able to identify. Whoever comes up with such evidence will make science history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.