This is a little theory that i have been toying with for quite some time in my head. If time is a dimension, like length, width, and height, than wouldn't humans technically have a destiny? Like, everything is supposed to be at a certain place at a certain time, which is, if you think about it, destiny.
The best analogy i can think of is like a movie. Things are going to happen, and have happened, and no matter how many time you rewind or fast forward, it will still be the same. Now, i have no real proof for this, so i am wondering if this has ever been proposed by the scientific community. and if so, what were the results?
No, but it wouldn't be different. If you freeze time for one moment, and look at it, than go forward any given amount of time, and then look at your frozen moment in time (a photograph, btw), it will still be the same. So the past falls neatly into place. What i am trying to say is taht there is only ONE past, one direction for the past to go in, so wouldn't it be reasonable to say that there is only one future as well? That no matter what you do, you cant change anything because it is predetermined to happen, if time were a physical dimension? There is no "alternate ending", there is only ONE future. and it is jsut a series of photographs that have not been uncovered, or shown, but are still there. i guess i should explain what i mean.
Imagine a line of photographs. this is every moment in history. Some of the photographs we can see, the others are upside down. as time passes, the next photograph of time is turned over. Now, that photo was never different when it was upside down, we just couldn't see it. so then would time be a series of predetermined events, photographs, which are always the same picture, whether or not they are upside down or right side up, that we just cant see until they come into happening?
He's describing determinism, if I understand him correctly. He's just talking about it in a very confusing manner. Not exactly revolutionary, but not wrong either. It's probably that he just hasn't had exposure to such thoughts before, so it's hard to form it into a cogent opinion.
YES! it has just been swirling around in my head, and i have never put it into words before, so it is a bit tough. damn, and i thought i was original! i'll look determinism up.
But if you mean what I think you do, then I agree.
It's also know as causality. The conditions in one moment lead inexorably to the next. And the series of events could be no different. Like your movie analogy. If we have a decision to make, we make a certain decision (maybe we choose chocolate over vanilla ice cream). Now rewind existence to the moment before the choice, and we don't have knowledge of the previous iteration. The person would choose chocolate again. Run it a million times. Chocolate every time. Because the forces surrounding and preceding the event (the person's brain function as well as environment around them) could only lead to one conclusion. Otherwise, you have an occurrence without a cause, which is logically impossible.
Christians hate the idea, because it messes with their concept of free will, which states that we could always choose anything, presumably. Personally, some divine randomness would, to me, undermine my ability to make my own decisions. My decisions are determined, yes, but they are my own....everything that makes up "me" is responsible for the decision. In that sense, I'm free because nothing impedes on my decisions.
Too often people associate determinism with fatalism. When I discuss it with others, they seem to take it as a depressing view of life. But we don't know what is determined by the past, so life is still exciting, surprising, joyful, etc. or whatever else we make it to be for us. It's not inherently good/bad. It's just how things are. How we react to it, either positively or negatively, is still up to us.
YES! that is exactly it! we still have free will, but not RANDOM will! thats a better way of putting it! Now my question is, if time is technically so preset, is it possible to see the future?
A similar question was once posed to Stephen Hawking. His answer was fairly long-winded, but hopefully I can paraphrase:
Say we made a computer so advanced that it could analyze all pertinent forces and predict something, like the chocloate/vanilla of earlier, and it comes back "chocolate". At the time of the prediction, that is true. But the act of prediting "chocolate" changes the system in which chocolate was true...in other words, the act of predicting something could very well change the outcome. So the prediction would have to account for its own prediction, and then the prediction of the prediction, and so on into infinity.
So relative, imprecise predictions based on physical forces should be feasible, but exact ones never could be. Which is somewhat comforting, since it means no future generation will, say, have its future laid out for it already.
And I'd also hesitate to use the term "free will" in regards to determinism. The way it is traditionally understood has nothing to do with causality/determinism. Philosophers who espouse determinism sometimes use "free" but it requires re-defining the term.
I think he's still on the path of working out various thoughts and ideas, you can't hold the fact that he has things to learn against him...(though, I do wonder how long it will take him to convert to Christianity)
If he worked out determinism in his head I don't think he's going to convert to Christianity very quickly since he's looking for answers by his own thought process not from God.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Oh cummon, like you've never had an "idea" which you later rejected upon reasearching a codified version of it.
He'll branch off from determinism and end up exploring various fields of thought before settling into one which he thinks provides all the neccessary answers to explain his experiences.
Its likely, at some point in his life he will believe in God...or atleast be very very open to the possibility, even if only for a short while.
...this response is, well, probably true. Just based on the fact that the vast majority of the population isn't atheist. But your reasons for him coming to such a conclusion seem wildly self-affirming.
...
Anyway, I don't feel like straying too far from the topic. Determinism. It is correct. Anyone care to debate?
KMC Community Forums
Oct 13th, 2008 07:56 PM
