[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ldmaniac Who says the only thing the future is, is the way things will behave in relation to reletivity? So basically your idea only works with what? MATTER

Anything that has a location, a direction, and can affect matter works too.

There are things that do not consist of matter, but we know they exist. My thoughts are an example. They do not have matter, but rather a production of such, but if they themselves actually have no matter in them, then how will I know what my thoughts are? Your first point only recognizes what is tangible. Not all things are tangible.

Time is only related to tangible things.

Thoughts are caused by tangible things (particles in your brain).

There are other things that do not have matter, like tachyons, but as far as I know they have no affect on matter.

We can make infrences about what will happen in the future, and guess what? THAT IS CALLED PREDICTING. making infrences and science even your evidence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle uses them.

That's not called predicting, that's called guessing.

Nothing wrong with statistics and probability, but it's not an exact prediction.


Okay stop and think for a second. If this is true then there had to be some one to "Break" or get the pool balls, what you call matter, moving.

So if we were to "Break" we would obviously aim in a certain direction or a predetermined choice of which ball to start off in our little chain reaction. Then I have already predicted the future. I have said that when I aim the white billiard at this ball, it shall colide with something. Now I have made an infrence. And if my infrernce is true, then I can make another infrence at where this billiard that I have recently hit, will hit next, and I can be correct. Now I have predicted the future through infrences and proven your second statement false.

You're right about one thing.

If someone knew the direction and location of all particles after the big bang (which would be the "break"), one could predict the future image of those particles in the universe at any time he wanted assuming that one also knew all the ways that the universe could affect those particles in a non linear fashion.

I already pointed this out, I believe.


The reason we can't predict the future is that we don't have a starting point with all the information of locations and directions of particles.

If we could know the exact location and direction of every particle in the universe now, that would work too. But because of HUP, we can never get that information since we change the direction or location by determining the other.

Get it?

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. So your saying that at the beginning of time, ther was an infinate # of choices? Okay, so who chose these things? Considering that man was not around, it could not be him. Considering that the only thing existing at the time was nature you must claim one of two things: A: God exists and made the choice B: Nature is living and breathing.

I'm having a hard time understand your question.


I'm saying that if there is no free will, even if it appears that there are limitless possibilities, there is only one possibility for the future. That future image has already been determined. It just a matter of time before that image becomes the present.

Okay, your premise is that the Universe is ordered and structured and everything must fit. Wrong, the universe is completely chaotic and random. If we look to science, we see that nature favors entropy, which is an increase in randomness, therefore as long as entropy exists you have completely contradicted you premise.

If there are random things that affect the way that particles move, it should be impossible to determine the future image of particles. Which would mean that a limitless number of possibilities are therefore vaild. Ergo, free will.

If it is true that those random things happen.

It may be that they only appear random because they are so complex and we just haven't found an equation for them yet.