NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

Makes me think of V For Vendetta.

Erm... elaborate?

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

Sometimes yeah but mostly no. How can we really answer when we don't know the parameters? An example?:D

I'm on allergy medication and neck deep in tax forms, but something tells me I would disagree if I thought about it for 3 minutes.

chaos theory?

also yes the universe is already predestined like an atomic clock etc etc

Yes, indeed that's the way things turn out sometimes. But I don't think it's the norm (and I know you're not implying that).

chaos theory?

also yes the universe is already predestined like an atomic clock etc etc

Umm I don't know there is something about them words, Chaos and Predestined that just don't seem to fit together?

Yes, indeed that's the way things turn out sometimes. But I don't think it's the norm (and I know you're not implying that).

Yea, these kind of things are pretty much isolated. Unless you want to count in the stuff that happens because of something that the person themselves did. However, I'm talking about more of the series of event that happens out of a person's control.

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

The fly in that ointment is, well sticking to the anolgy it could well be a fly, one that wonders around your dominoe track and diverts the fall of one or more dominoes.

Yea, these kind of things are pretty much isolated. Unless you want to count in the stuff that happens because of something that the person themselves did. However, I'm talking about more of the series of event that happens out of a person's control.

In that case, yes. Sometimes it feels like the stars align to place certain situations, to cause certain things. Things we cannot control.

Umm I don't know there is something about them words, Chaos and Predestined that just don't seem to fit together?
In the context used, they fit together perfectly.
The fly in that ointment is, well sticking to the anolgy it could well be a fly, one that wonders around your dominoe track and diverts the fall of one or more dominoes.

Then your series of events has been expanded, this doesn't disproved the determinism of the series.

So you discovered Determinism? hah sweet dreams. things get interesting in that line of philosophy.

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

What if the first one falls in a direction oppposite the line-up?

The trouble is predicting what domino will fall before it falls. Once the first falls you can see the chain of events and yet each must fall on it own.

Free Will vs. determinism.

I vote for Free Will.

Theoretically yes, but to determine the outcome requires knowing all the variables.

For example, using your hypothetical, a string of dominos doesn't have one and only one outcome conceivable, what if a gust of wind came and knocked one out of alignment?

Umm I don't know there is something about them words, Chaos and Predestined that just don't seem to fit together?

in regards to the term "chaos theory", the word doesn't mean what it usually means.

each must fall on it own.

not really they all sorta fall together don't they :confused:

Theoretically yes, but to determine the outcome requires knowing all the variables.

I've always wondered what would happen if I did know all the variables though like could I cause the world to end by clicking my fingers at a certain point in time?

Theoretically yes, but to determine the outcome requires knowing all the variables.

For example, using your hypothetical, a string of dominos doesn't have one and only one outcome conceivable, what if a gust of wind came and knocked one out of alignment?

See, this is one of the issues I have with NSG. Every once in a while I'll get a chance to be serious and to come off looking intelligent with some insightful comment, and then someone goes and says it before me.

I'm sure there's an entire school of philosophy based on that.

Theoretically yes, but to determine the outcome requires knowing all the variables.

For example, using your hypothetical, a string of dominos doesn't have one and only one outcome conceivable, what if a gust of wind came and knocked one out of alignment?

That is true, there is that unexpected variable. Like my grandmother staying with my grandpa even though he's was an abusive alcoholic (strokes, it's a wonderful thing sometimes). My grandmother always talked about leaving him once the last of the six children was out of the house, well when the youngest one left the building, she still stayed with him.

What if the first one falls in a direction oppposite the line-up?

A better question would be, what if the path of the dominoes was diverted from the original path.

in regards to the term "chaos theory", the word doesn't mean what it usually means.

Didn't Nietzsche once say "From Chaos, come order?" Or was that someone else?

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

Go read some David Hume, particularly regarding induction and causation. (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume))

He'll blow your mind.

The other one is the Butterfly Effect. Man, freaky stuff.

The trouble is predicting what domino will fall before it falls. Once the first falls you can see the chain of events and yet each must fall on it own.

Free Will vs. determinism.

I vote for Free Will.

The two are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Go read some David Hume, particularly regarding induction and causation. (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume))

He'll blow your mind.I support this idea.

Umm I don't know there is something about them words, Chaos and Predestined that just don't seem to fit together?

That's because Chaos Theory is a really bad term for what is technically called nonlinear dynamics. Basically, it's a system that is incredibly sensible to variations in the initial conditions. So while it is technically predetermined and reproducible, in practice it will lead to widely varying results, because of the incredibly slight differences that occur every time you repeat the experiment.

Go read some David Hume, particularly regarding induction and causation. (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume))

He'll blow your mind.

I support this idea.

seconded. for everyone.

Go read some David Hume, particularly regarding induction and causation. (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume))

He'll blow your mind.

I'll have to check that out, thanks. :)

When you have subatomic particals phasing in and out of existance all the time, it's hard for anything to truly be predetermined.

When you have subatomic particals phasing in and out of existance all the time, it's hard for anything to truly be predetermined.

However, the overall rules prohibit large scale causality violations, so it's still quite reasonable to claim true determinism on macroscopic scales.

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?I don't think so, personally. Even though i'm often disappointed in the banality of pursuit and solace of so many other entities i'm aware of, and i mean often, i still know (or am deluded by the prospect) that there's more to it than that, and there's more time.
I'll even go the extent of predicting things fairly accurately, sometimes in subtle and overt understanding of patterns and forms, sometimes in ways that don't make a lot of logical sense at all no matter how much effort i put into the analysis.

Nonetheless, i have this quote from my old boss (that he lifted from some flick) that enters my mind at least once a day to help me out of my own hyper-analytical quandary ... "If it is to be it is up to me".

determinism on macroscopic scales
Scope.
Ayup.

At what distance does one attribute pattern?

The difference is whether something was consciously predetermined.

I tend to approach the issue with this question: At the point a horse wins a race, were its odds not always 1:1?

Since it won, it was always going to win from the very dawn of time, in some sense one could call it predetermined.

Yet that is merely a result of causation, one event leading to another, it does not mean there was some sort of plan involved.

What?

The?

Yet that is merely a result of causation, one event leading to anotherThat's just it, influence.
What is the nature of "event" except the awareness of a causal relationship?

The?Wrong!
It's not a definite article thing as much as an interrogative thing.

Sometimes, though, the dominoes are stacked so one hits two at once, starting parallel chain reactions. That would lead me to believe, based on your logic, that we have parallel universes, slightly divergent from each other because there are several logical outcomes to the one act.

What?What?
http://www.videostatic.com/photos/uncategorized/samwell_butt.jpg

wrong!
It's not a definite article thing as much as an interrogative thing.

what?!

Sometimes, though, the dominoes are stacked so one hits two at once, starting parallel chain reactions. That would lead me to believe, based on your logic, that we have parallel universes, slightly divergent from each other because there are several logical outcomes to the one act.

More! More!
http://classicscifi.com/images/stories/features/sliders1.jpg

what?!
See above.
*nods*

what?
http://www.videostatic.com/photos/uncategorized/samwell_butt.jpg

what?!

what?!C'mon, even South Park covered that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=napyhGiC00A
Now, more to the point:
http://thespaceofreasons.blogspot.com/2007/03/gettierising-nozick.html
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf

What?

The?

I was really hoping SaintB would be able to respond with 'Fuck?' to this sequence, thus segueing beautifully into my theory of event channels.

The idea is that, for much of our lives, we react unconsciously, and even consciously, in ways that are predictable, this mass of predictable behaviour can lead to certain conclusions in general, conclusions that are played out repeatedly.

I need to think of a really good analogy to make this point clearer.

I was really hoping SaintB would be able to respond with 'Fuck?' to this sequence, thus segueing beautifully into my theory of event channels.

The idea is that, for much of our lives, we react unconsciously, and even consciously, in ways that are predictable, this mass of predictable behaviour can lead to certain conclusions in general, conclusions that are played out repeatedly.

I need to think of a really good analogy to make this point clearer.

I never respond in the manner expected.

Thoughts?None.

I never respond in the manner expected.

Heh yet that in itself is an indication of your own predetermination huh!:D

Heh yet that in itself is an indication of your own predetermination huh!:D

Or perhaps I just have multiple personalities that take over when I post.

Or perhaps I just have multiple personalities that take over when I post.

Hah I knew you were going to say that!:D

hah i knew you were going to say that!:d

get out of my head!!!!!!!!!

get out of my head!!!!!!!!!

Nope it's quite cozy in here, say is that a... Yep it is!:D

Nope it's quite cozy in here, say is that a... Yep it is!:D

No its not.

When you have subatomic particals phasing in and out of existance all the time, it's hard for anything to truly be predetermined.

Pretty much this. In theory if one could could take a snapshot of the universe and determine the position and momentum and all that for every particle, and one knew all the rules that governed all those particles, and had the time and ability to do a whole lot of maths accurately, one could unfailingly predict the future. In theory. In practice this is probably among the least possible things you could ever conceive of doing, assuming it even is possible.

I was really hoping SaintB would be able to respond with 'Fuck?' to this sequence, thus segueing beautifully into my theory of event channels.
Note the part where i said ... oh how did i put it ...

Wrong!

Belief systems take a hit once again. :(

Didnt we put a stop to that after Vietnam?

Theoretically yes, but to determine the outcome requires knowing all the variables.

For example, using your hypothetical, a string of dominos doesn't have one and only one outcome conceivable, what if a gust of wind came and knocked one out of alignment?
Yeah, but that still doesn't allow for free will, simply random chance. Unpredictability=/=undeterminist. There is no individuality. Purpose does not exist. Life proceeds in absence of you. Et al, et al, et al, et al, edible.
Anyway, I'm a hard determinist. Derk Pereboom is a good source for that sort of thing. Nietzsche too, although it is better not to quote him in public.

Pretty much this. In theory if one could could take a snapshot of the universe and determine the position and momentum and all that for every particle, and one knew all the rules that governed all those particles, and had the time and ability to do a whole lot of maths accurately, one could unfailingly predict the future. In theory. In practice this is probably among the least possible things you could ever conceive of doing, assuming it even is possible.Not bad, not bad. There's this other thing, too ... kind of an extension in principle of something Heisenberg was blathering on about ... mentioned in Star Trek regarding transporter technology ... but, meh.

The trouble is predicting what domino will fall before it falls. Once the first falls you can see the chain of events and yet each must fall on it own.

Free Will vs. determinism.

I vote for Free Will.

I voted for Free Willy.

I voted for Free Willy.http://www.geekologie.com/2008/06/27/wtf-plate.jpg

Nietzsche too, although it is better not to quote him in public.
Awfuckthat. Not only in public, but i tend to scream him in private as well. Very private.

I voted for Free Willy.So many of us posters here frequent this place donned only in an unfastened evening robe.
*le sigh*

A better question would be, what if the path of the dominoes was diverted from the original path.
Ahh, but you're begging a question when you talk of the "original path". You're implying that there was a determined chin of events, which never came to pass due to a new (and presumably undetermined) event.


Go read some David Hume, particularly regarding induction and causation. (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume))

He'll blow your mind.
I can only add my voice to the chorus of agreement.

The Great Infidel's an important one, and, as 18th century philosophical texts go, the Treatise ain't too hard to grasp.

this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgtekdw1eyo

I'm feeling philosophical today, and I have this thought running in my head that sometimes a series of events line up, and when the series of event happen, there can only be one logical outcome of the series. It's like you take some Dominoes, line them up behind one another and then they fall one after another after the first one fall.

Thoughts?

simply not so. we do NOT live in a linearly causal universe, we live in a statistically causal one. nearly every sequence of events, and even more so, isolated event, has a range of outcomes, yet at the same time, that is a range of outcomes that can be ranked by probability.

causality is traceable, don't get me wrong on that one, and we do need to learn to discipline ourselves, but we need to do so in an honest and realistic context of actual probable statistical causalities.

this misunderstanding has brought us to many difficult situations, and along with the frequent prevalence thoughtlessness, throughout the dominant culture, resulting from a variety of motivations, has become on many fronts, a real threat to the future of the very web of life on our planet, and with it, the future, on this planet, of sentience itself.

simply not so. we do NOT live in a linearly causal universe, we live in a statistically causal one. nearly every sequence of events, and even more so, isolated event, has a range of outcomes, yet at the same time, that is a range of outcomes that can be ranked by probability.Well, more correctly - asserting that the universe is linearly causal is an unsupportable assertion, as is saying that it is random. Those statements are just models. The evidence supports both equally, which is to say, there is no evidence (and can be no evidence) for either of them. For on the one hand, you can say the apparent randomness is governed by some more fundamental law; and the only counter is to assert that it is not, or that there is no evidence for such a law (but that, of course, is from a certain limited viewpoint, which means it isn't necessarily true).

One could describe the universe as having probabilities, however, even if one can't assert that it is probabilistic except in the limited sense of our current view of things.