Fate

[Eejit]

I see it everywhere and all of the time and and I think it can be traced back through time to even the origins of the universe itself; the massive scale of events, with complexity that we can't comprehend, that ricocheted off each other in such a manor that led to the formation of our sun, our solar system., and later on Earth itself, appearing in a spiral galaxy way outside in the spiral arms, away from the dangerous center, the perfect distance from a sun, and a perfect 23 degrees rotational axis caused by a meteorite hitting it which was then caught in its orbit, which happened to be essential for when the planet formed oceans, and thus essential for life to form itself.

Excuse me, have you ever heard of the weak anthropic principle? You might want to check into that.

 

[CptStern]

is their a 'fate' like am i meant to be here now?, a microsecond and i was out, i didn't apprehend what was happening at all, i was out the door before my brain could render what was going on, so why did i run, did i have hidden plan in my life, am i needed why couldn't i have a thought then?

no that would imply a maker and that would just be silly

 

[Ennui]

You ran because you felt a big earthquake happening and whether or not you stopped to think about it, the natural impulse is generally to take action / get the **** out of there. I've never felt a significant earthquake but I imagine that it's quite alarming to the nervous system.

I believe my life has been predetermined and I am living out that life now, so yes I believe in fate in the general sense. Ever since I was child I have never been able to shake the feeling that certain, very significant, events in my life were meant to happen, pelting it in the direction it is meant to go in. It is a very profound, and very strong feeling that I doubt others on here would understand, but I see it everyday, conditions and variables in people's lives being so finely tuned to cause something else to happen, and if only ONE tiny thing was different it wouldn't have happened, but it did happen for some reason. And because it did happen, that person has been pushed further in the direction he/she was meant to take, achieve their purpose/s in life.

I see it everywhere and all of the time and and I think it can be traced back through time to even the origins of the universe itself; the massive scale of events, with complexity that we can't comprehend, that ricocheted off each other in such a manor that led to the formation of our sun, our solar system., and later on Earth itself, appearing in a spiral galaxy way outside in the spiral arms, away from the dangerous center, the perfect distance from a sun, and a perfect 23 degrees rotational axis caused by a meteorite hitting it which was then caught in its orbit, which happened to be essential for when the planet formed oceans, and thus essential for life to form itself.

I don't believe in fate, in the sense that I don't think that specific events or occurrences in the causal chain of the universe should be ascribed personal significance or meaning. There's no higher force or otherworldly power or energy or whatever intentionally manipulating events to make your life go one way or another... shit just happens and people respond to it. There's no personal connection to you.

It's natural to attach significance to key events in your life - we've probably all had those moments in life where you very starkly realize that you could have just as easily died for whatever reason if a specific event had played out slightly differently or whatever. Or very happenstance, random things that affect your life in a powerful way. The natural response is to attach significance to these events, because they are so significant to your own experience that you feel the urge to ascribe the cause of these events some kind of significance as well... but it's just the universe impersonally existing, with you caught up in it. There's no personal significance to you in particular, it doesn't care if you died in that moment or not - you just happened not to. It's natural human behavior to humanize our environment - even the universe itself. That has a lot to do with why religion has been so prevalent throughout history. It's hard to truly believe in a purely rational, scientific, godless universe simply because it requires suppression of natural impulses, since we still tend to judge things based more heavily on our personal experiences rather than completely trusting pure learned knowledge about the way things are.

Mathematically I recognize that determinism makes from a certain viewpoint sense, but I'm not entirely sure it's that simple because from my limited understanding of quantum mechanics there is an intrinsic indeterminism in the behavior of particles at that tiny scale due to things like the uncertainty principle.

I'm partial to the many worlds theory myself - that there are essentially infinite different universes arising from every possible combination of events on a quantum scale (an unimaginably huge infinity). So rather than you living out a single life, you're really just traveling down a series of branching paths in one direction... it's a single experience for you, but at every moment there are different versions of you branching off in their own separate universes, so that every possible thing can happen. It kind of reconciles determinism with indeterminism to an extent because you can believe in a deterministic existence while also justifying the existence of the kind of uncertainty / indeterminism raised in quantum mechanics where there are purely random / unpredictable events (for which there are infinite universes for every possible outcome at every moment).

 

[Shift]

I do know the principle Eejit, not sure if it has relevance to what I was actually saying though.

And interesting view Ennui, I have friends who have the same ideas as you. I'm not about to get into a debate about it, but I wouldn't relate my experiences to a want or need to find significance for my actions, especially considering I was more or less an materialist a few years back when all these things were taking place and I couldn't describe the feelings of a higher purpose in everything, like I could relate to life on a much higher level, its hard to explain. Also the idea of multiple paralleled universes to me isn't scientific at all, but more like science fiction, and I don't think it should be treated with any creditability in the scientific spectrum, just sayin'.

 

[CptStern]

Also the idea of multiple paralleled universes to me isn't scientific at all, but more like science fiction, and I don't think it should be treated with any creditability in the scientific spectrum, just sayin'.

because you say so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

[Dan]

It's a pointless theory because it has the same result as the alternative. What does it matter if there are other parallel universes? They don't interact with our universe, so by most people's definition, they don't exist. If it helps you wrap your head around quantum theory, I guess that's good for you, but parallel universes make no predictions and has no effect on anything in our universe.

 

[repiV]

When I think about it, I'm not really sure how it's possible for genuine free will to exist. Surely if we're faced with the same exact set of circumstances, at the exact same time in our lives, then we'll react in exactly the same way each time. If that wasn't the case then our reaction would surely just be a random throw of the dice.

And assuming that is the case, then everything we do must surely be pre-determined. We might have choice at the time we do something, but it doesn't make sense to me that we would ever make a different choice in the same situation if the clock was rewound.

 

[Eejit]

I do know the principle Eejit, not sure if it has relevance to what I was actually saying though.

You were marvelling about the crazy happenstance that conditions were ideal for life to arise and thrive in the universe and on our planet. That's observer bias. There's nothing special about it at all, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist". And the conditions aren't 'ideal for life', rather life gradually evolved to be suited to the conditions around us.

Nothing remarkable about it.

 

[Ennui]

It's a pointless theory because it has the same result as the alternative. What does it matter if there are other parallel universes? They don't interact with our universe, so by most people's definition, they don't exist. If it helps you wrap your head around quantum theory, I guess that's good for you, but parallel universes make no predictions and has no effect on anything in our universe.

Yeah it doesn't ultimately make any difference. It just seems reasonable to me. I don't think that the parallel worlds can affect one another, I just think it makes sense as a kind of metaphysical way to reconcile determinism and indeterminism by basically saying things are actually random / non-deterministic but it doesn't matter because in your particular universe everything IS deterministic. I'm more interested in it from a hypothetical / philosophical standpoint, I'm really not knowledgeable about theoretical physics or quantum mechanics at all.

 

[CptStern]

It's a pointless theory because it has the same result as the alternative. What does it matter if there are other parallel universes? They don't interact with our universe, so by most people's definition, they don't exist. If it helps you wrap your head around quantum theory, I guess that's good for you, but parallel universes make no predictions and has no effect on anything in our universe.

that's not the samewthing as saying you dont believe in it and as a result dont think the scientific community should devote any time to it's study

 

[Stylo]

Although I'd love to think of fate as objectively as most of the people in here, all I can think of when I hear that word are angsty teenage girls all over the world who log into Tumblr and repost images of things other people have posted that they got from Google.

<3 ~~ <3 FATE <3 ~~ <3

 

[No Limit]

Also the idea of multiple paralleled universes to me isn't scientific at all, but more like science fiction, and I don't think it should be treated with any creditability in the scientific spectrum, just sayin'.

The people that are an authority on parallel universes have been studying physics their entire life. These are some of the smartest people in the world and they all seem to think that parallel universes are certainly not science fiction but are possible, we are spending some very good money trying to find these universes. It may have never been proven before, but among the scientific community it is well established that they are at the very least possible. Now what qualifications do you have to make the judgement that this is all just science fiction? Which of the explainations that physicists have made for the possibility of these universes do you personally dispute?

To your larger point that it is pretty amazing how everything has worked out just exactly right for us to be here I totally agree with, that is pretty amazing and mind blowing. But if your idea of proof that a God exists is based on this then the same exact logic you used could just as easily be used to prove that infinite universes must also exist. So I would hope you would agree your logic here doesn't make much sense. Unless you know something that today's scientific community doesn't, in which case we're all ears.

It's a pointless theory because it has the same result as the alternative. What does it matter if there are other parallel universes? They don't interact with our universe, so by most people's definition, they don't exist. If it helps you wrap your head around quantum theory, I guess that's good for you, but parallel universes make no predictions and has no effect on anything in our universe.

Isn't one of the experiments of the LHC to see if we can have matter "disapear" in to another parallel universe?

 

[Shift]

You were marvelling about the crazy happenstance that conditions were ideal for life to arise and thrive in the universe and on our planet. That's observer bias. There's nothing special about it at all, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist". And the conditions aren't 'ideal for life', rather life gradually evolved to be suited to the conditions around us.

Nothing remarkable about it.

I guess in the grand scale of the universe, it could be considered observer bias, but life on our planet was allowed to flourish because conditions here are very unique, especially in comparison to other planets we have documented. You also have to take into account the varying galaxy types, with ours being a very rare breed in the universe, and even our particular galaxy class is hostile as it is, we are just fortunate that our solar system is located away from the center in the spiral arms, and also fortunate that it doesn’t loop around with the ability to pass through the center. There are a lot of variables to consider with this argument, and a lot of them go in favor of our situation being unique.

that's not the samewthing as saying you dont believe in it and as a result dont think the scientific community should devote any time to it's study

How can you give anything ANY credibility within the scientific community if you can’t actually scientifically observe it? Its just speculation at the end of the day, if its within the realm of science then it REQUIRES observable evidence to make it credible.

The people that are an authority on parallel universes have been studying physics their entire life. These are some of the smartest people in the world and they all seem to think that parallel universes are certainly not science fiction but are possible, we are spending some very good money trying to find these universes.

That’s ironic; I’ve used the very same argument against you before but in a different context and you never responded to it. Not to mention there are scientists, just as smart as the ones you have in mind, who are against the idea too so its a non-argument at the end of the day.

Now what qualifications do you have to make the judgement that this is all just science fiction? Which of the explainations that physicists have made for the possibility of these universes do you personally dispute?

Because as I said, there is no observable evidence to back it up, you don’t need qualifications to figure that out.

To your larger point that it is pretty amazing how everything has worked out just exactly right for us to be here I totally agree with, that is pretty amazing and mind blowing. But if your idea of proof that a God exists is based on this then the same exact logic you used could just as easily be used to prove that infinite universes must also exist. So I would hope you would agree your logic here doesn't make much sense/

Why have you brought God into this debate all of sudden? Did I even mention that I was presenting evidence for a creator in my original post? No, I was presenting what I thought about ‘fate’, you know, what the topic is about. I’m sure you can keep your massive prejudice against my world views at bay for now because this isn’t a religious debate, and if it even smells like it may turn into one then I'm going straight away.

Unless you know something that today's scientific community doesn't, in which case we're all ears.

We’re all ears? Sorry I didn’t know you were speaking for everyone all of a sudden.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I believe that each universe has been constructed as a simulation for pan-dimensional marketing firms to test out their products on an infinitely diverse selection of customers before deploying them to the one true reality. When you die nothing happens except you're asked to fill out a survey on how much you enjoyed the great taste of Coca Cola.

 

[No Limit]

I That’s ironic; I’ve used the very same argument against you before but in a different context and you never responded to it. Not to mention there are scientists, just as smart as the ones you have in mind, who are against the idea too so its a non-argument at the end of the day.

By all means, please feel free to be specific. What argument are you talking about and which scientists where have called the idea science fiction?

Because as I said, there is no observable evidence to back it up, you don’t need qualifications to figure that out.

Jesus, do I really have to point out the irony to you? Because there is absolutely no observable evidance for something it must be science fiction? You are right, there is no observable evidance yet to back up parallel universes. However, from the observable data we have collected we have come up with mathematical evidance that they not only could exist but that it is likely there are some other forms of dimensions that we aren't aware of. You might not like mathematical evidance but mathematical evidance has time and time again predicted things that people said would be impossible only to have it confirmed later by observation.

Why have you brought God into this debate all of sudden? Did I even mention that I was presenting evidence for a creator in my original post? No, I was presenting what I thought about ‘fate’, you know, what the topic is about. I’m sure you can keep your massive prejudice against my world views at bay for now because this isn’t a religious debate, and if it even smells like it may turn into one then I'm going straight away.

You said there must be fate because everything is just so perfectly aligned for us to be here which means there must be a creator that set up a plan. If you were in absoloutely no way talking about God my bad. But the point is that the same logic you are using to come up with evidance for fate could just as easily be used to say that it is evidance for infinite universes. Yet eventhough you could use the exact same logic for both one you called fact and the other you called fiction. You don't see the flaw in your thinking?

We’re all ears? Sorry I didn’t know you were speaking for everyone all of a sudden.

I have a feeling I'm not the only one interested in your amazing theories about how modern physics is all science fiction.

 

[Escaep]

 

[CptStern]

I believe that each universe has been constructed as a simulation for pan-dimensional marketing firms to test out their products on an infinitely diverse selection of customers before deploying them to the one true reality.

that's how the pan galactic gargle blaster became so popular

How can you give anything ANY credibility within the scientific community if you can’t actually scientifically observe it? Its just speculation at the end of the day, if its within the realm of science then it REQUIRES observable evidence to make it credible

^^^ has never heard of dark matter, gravity, religion

 

[No Limit]

I just realized I never spell evidence correctly. I really wish IE had a spell checker built in.

 

[Eejit]

I guess in the grand scale of the universe, it could be considered observer bias, but life on our planet was allowed to flourish because conditions here are very unique, especially in comparison to other planets we have documented. You also have to take into account the varying galaxy types, with ours being a very rare breed in the universe, and even our particular galaxy class is hostile as it is, we are just fortunate that our solar system is located away from the center in the spiral arms, and also fortunate that it doesn’t loop around with the ability to pass through the center. There are a lot of variables to consider with this argument, and a lot of them go in favor of our situation being unique.

Eh, whether our situation is unique or not doesn't matter. The chance of it happening doesn't matter. It isn't remarkable.

I'm not sure you properly understand the anthropic principle. Observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. If we conditions didn't allow us to be present to observe them we wouldn't be here to observe them.

We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.

The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

 

[Dan]

Eh, whether our situation is unique or not doesn't matter. The chance of it happening doesn't matter. It isn't remarkable.

I'm not sure you properly understand the anthropic principle. Observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. If we conditions didn't allow us to be present to observe them we wouldn't be here to observe them.

The exact same thing applies to the individual. Consider the fact that only this very specific exact universe could allow your specific exact self to exist. So therefore you can take credit for the creation of the universe, because only by your observation does the universe exist in all its physical complexity solely to arrange the patterns that make up your identity and sense of self consciousness. Any other universe which did not precisely arrange things to allow your identity did not get observed by you and so therefore did not get to exist as far as you are concerned.

The deeper implication of this is that if you can completely describe yourself, you can also completely describe the universe that leads to your existence. This implies that each individual is as complex in their identity as the universe is.

 

[Eejit]

The exact same thing applies to the individual. Consider the fact that only this very specific exact universe could allow your specific exact self to exist. So therefore you can take credit for the creation of the universe, because only by your observation does the universe exist in all its physical complexity solely to arrange the patterns that make up your identity and sense of self consciousness. Any other universe which did not precisely arrange things to allow your identity did not get observed by you and so therefore did not get to exist as far as you are concerned.

The deeper implication of this is that if you can completely describe yourself, you can also completely describe the universe that leads to your existence. This implies that each individual is as complex in their identity as the universe is.

That's just silly. The weak anthropic principle is simply a truism, a tautology relevant only to maintaining perspective. Your implications are ludicrously egocentric.

 

[RidleyRockets]

The exact same thing applies to the individual. Consider the fact that only this very specific exact universe could allow your specific exact self to exist. So therefore you can take credit for the creation of the universe, because only by your observation does the universe exist in all its physical complexity solely to arrange the patterns that make up your identity and sense of self consciousness. Any other universe which did not precisely arrange things to allow your identity did not get observed by you and so therefore did not get to exist as far as you are concerned.

The deeper implication of this is that if you can completely describe yourself, you can also completely describe the universe that leads to your existence. This implies that each individual is as complex in their identity as the universe is.

Hmm. No.

 

[Dan]

That's just silly. The weak anthropic principle is simply a truism, a tautology relevant only to maintaining perspective. Your implications are ludicrously egocentric.

Care to refute any of it?

The anthropic is just saying that a theoretical universe that doesn't give rise to human life will never be observed and so it will never exist. Imagine a theoretical universe that is only slightly different form ours, just enough that you personally don't come to be in that universe. Does that universe exist any more so than the one that doesn't have any human life in it? Existence is relative to the observer, there is no absolute objective reason for existence/non-existence without a reference frame. It would be arbitrary.

So you only observe the universe that let's you personally exist. You don't observe any universes where you don't exist.

That means that there is only a very specific universe that you observe, because you are a very specific individual. And what defines this specific universe that you exist in out of any possible universe? The fact that it gives rise to you. So therefore, your identity is defining the universe. Or in other words, the whole universe is your identity.

A lot of philosophers have come up with the same concept in the past, and it has many different names. Nirvana or enlightenment is the goal of many religions is the concept of losing your self and expanding your sense of identity to include the world.

 

[Eejit]

Care to refute any of it?

Sure

The exact same thing applies to the individual. Consider the fact that only this very specific exact universe could allow your specific exact self to exist. So therefore you can take credit for the creation of the universe, because only by your observation does the universe exist in all its physical complexity solely to arrange the patterns that make up your identity and sense of self consciousness.

You're claiming causation where there is only correlation.

The deeper implication of this is that if you can completely describe yourself, you can also completely describe the universe that leads to your existence. This implies that each individual is as complex in their identity as the universe is.

You may perhaps be able to completely describe the laws of the universe (perhaps this is what you mean?) - though I doubt it, there's no reason to assume all of them are involved with the requirements for life.

 

[Dan]

Sure
You're claiming causation where there is only correlation.

I was just making an entertaining statement, because the common view is that the universe is what creates you, nobody ever thinks about it the other way around. Of course neither exists without the other.

You may perhaps be able to completely describe the laws of the universe (perhaps this is what you mean?) - though I doubt it, there's no reason to assume all of them are involved with the requirements for life.

Every little aspect describing the universe has some relevant impact on you. If there were an aspect of the universe that doesn't effect you, then it is effectively not part of the universe, because you will never know about it directly or indirectly or see it or have any reaction or relation to it or some downstream effect of it. That means that it is not actually part of the universe that you live in.

I'm not saying that you are conscious or could possibly be conscious of all of your interactions with the universe, but it's entire history and all of it's interactions are embedded into your existence and your identity, so your identity is necessarily equal in complexity to the universe.

 

[Eejit]

Your definition of the universe appears to be different from my own. Good day, sir.

 

[Dan]

My definition of the universe is everything that exists. I think it's your definition of existence that differs.

People commonly think of existence as being this objective quality, but to take a truly objective viewpoint, outside of any personal or human frame of reference, there is no such thing as existence. If you were not part of the universe, why does this or any universe exist at all and what does it matter? The definition of existence is not objective at all but purely based on one's reference frame. It's all relative, and without anything to measure against it's meaningless.

 

[Bad^Hat]

So, basically you're a solipsist.

 

[Dan]

not really, just logical

 

[RidleyRockets]

hmm. No.

 

[Eejit]

I don't really see any benefit to viewing things from that perspective Dan.

 

[Bad^Hat]

not really, just logical

So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[Remus]

So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If I understand his position correctly, it's more around the lines of, it doesn't matter that it made a sound because there wasn't anyone there to hear it. How we got to this shit from the subject of fate beats me.

 

[Bad^Hat]

If I'm reading him right, he was saying that anything beyond our senses functionally doesn't exist, as existence is dependent on human observation (or just sentient beings in general, I guess). I'm trying to get at whether he thinks the phenomenon itself actually occurs or not, regardless of someone having experienced it.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Sounds like something I thought up when I was 12.

 

[Dan]

You guys are fools if you have never even considered the most basic questions about your own existence. Every child has played the game of asking why? after every answer they get, but it seems like you never actually thought about it past that. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does the Earth exist, why does the universe exist? Is it God, the Big Bang, Spaghetti Monster? Then why do those things exist?? Seriously think about it and maybe come up with an answer before you pooh pooh anything beyond your narrow world view.

 

[Acepilotf14]

We all did. This isn't something just thought up by you.

I came to the conclusion that it's all bullshit and the world is just a seemingly random series of events and it's nothing except what I make of it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

You guys are fools if you have never even considered the most basic questions about your own existence. Every child has played the game of asking why? after every answer they get, but it seems like you never actually thought about it past that. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does the Earth exist, why does the universe exist? Is it God, the Big Bang, Spaghetti Monster? Then why do those things exist?? Seriously think about it and maybe come up with an answer before you pooh pooh anything beyond your narrow world view.

No you're right I never thought about it! Why does stuff exist? It's just like... there, and... whoa. Who put it there? Was it a big man? Maybe he brought it all over in a giant moving truck from the next universe over. Maybe we're part of the man, like on his shin or something, except like, we can't see him because we're so small, like ants!!! Maybe it wasn't a man at all but some kind of albatross. Wow heavy, I need to lie down before I short-circuit my brain!

Man, you've like, opened up my eyes, and stuff.

 

[Dan]

No you're right I never thought about it! Why does stuff exist? It's just like... there, and... whoa. Who put it there? Was it a big man? Maybe he brought it all over in a giant moving truck from the next universe over. Maybe we're part of the man, like on his shin or something, except like, we can't see him because we're so small, like ants!!! Maybe it wasn't a man at all but some kind of albatross. Wow heavy, I need to lie down before I short-circuit my brain!

Man, you've like, opened up my eyes, and stuff.

So what is your answer then? Or are you too funny to have an actualy discussion? Like a child that goes blahblahblah and sticks fingers in their ears. You're being a twat, basically trolling to annoy me. Good work.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Actually, I was really genuinely curious about what your idea of existence entailed. I wasn't trolling until you accused everyone of just "pooh poohing" your idea because they'd never thought for themselves about such deep, existential questions as "why is there stuff instead of no stuff." No offence, but just about literally everyone has their own ideas about this sort of thing. That doesn't mean they're all valid, but given the dearth of solid, empirical evidence to confirm one idea over the other, it's no wonder we still have discussions like this.

As for myself, my idea of reality doesn't differ too radically from your's (as far as I can tell), except that I don't define existence merely as that which is observed. I think rather that human understanding of existence is limited by our perception of it, but that the universe, or universes can still exist without our acknowledgement, or the acknowledgement of any similarly intelligent sentient beings. If there was a universe completely bereft of life, it'd still "be," it would just never be observed to be. A rock is still a rock instead of not a rock, regardless of whether anyone ever judges it to be. In any case, consciousness is fleeting. The world has been observed by countless eyes, all of whom have since gone blind to it and left nothing but accounts for subsequent minds to observe. The universe will be here long after we're gone, and it won't "care," just like it doesn't care about the absolutely negligible influence we have over cosmic events as it is.

That's what I was trying to get at with the tree question - does your idea of existence actually preclude material or physical forces from being part of reality if they're not observed, or are you just defining the word existence by a stricter set of parameters?

Edit: Actually in retrospect I was trolling a bit with the solipsist thing. Sorry. :v