h a l f b a k e r y
This would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
marked for Please Advise for Better Category
So in the past 50 years we are constantly treading on the
Will vs Causatlity debate. (I just realized why the movie was
named Free Willy...)
My proposal here is to take this debate to a new direction -
It is very plausible
and intuitive that there is only one
(I'm not strictly saying that all string theory is wrong, but
still). At some point in time (if there is such a thing) in the
future, once something has happened, it did. So there is
only one real future that will happen. Just like you can, or
least it is theoretically possible to trace from an existing
system, which you have the full knowledge of, to the
outcome, so it is theoretically possible to trace back from a
current moment in time to see what lead to it.
And just like we can infer with a high probability from
states in time to a point in time in which we only have
PARTIAL information, and figure out where it will lead to,
we could (and should?) theoretically be able to see where
things are leading to, with a high probability, and refer that
back to the current point in time.
Thus leading to a whole new science, replacing "where is
leading us?" and "are we leading to this or that?" to "what
leads us this way or that?", more importantly: "what COULD
move us this way or that" and most importantly: "what way
SHOULD we move?"
Since it is mostly agreed that reality has within it the
possibility of decided change -before it actually happened,
although that decision itself is also causal - and teleological
as just explained, still, the new science may move on from a
fatalist view on reality to a more optimistic one.
[LimpNotes, Nov 08 2015]
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 08 2015]
||Saw something like this in a video once <link>. They were saying that moving faster toward something would alter your perception of time, and the something would actually move through time faster than you, giving you an observation of the future. The problem I have is that the speed of light stays the same across all frames of reference, so time dilation would be irrelevant, because any information about the future would take "longer" to reach you. So the "now" slice may have future things going on, but because time is slower as you move faster, you still wouldn't be able to observe that future.
||Why is it wrong to say there is only one future, but we can't yet know what it is?
||Fascinating TED talk on the possibility that our 'now' may be a 'past' simulation run by our 'future' selves. [link]
||The mistake many people make is that they think Einstein
discovered that there is no real time, and that he proved
that there are multiple futures, while in fact what
proved was that our KNOWLEDGE of time is only an
and that what "we" perceive as happening "now" actually
all happened in the past, therefor, probably, what is
happening now by us, is actually what some future
perceiving being will perceive as "now", but only at some
other point in THE (presumably single) future.
||Still this has nothing to indicate anything towards the
notion of several actual futures.
||So I'm staying, as probably most of you do, with the
intuitive and simple idea, that after the fact, one (and
only one) single
"future" reality will exist.
||Arguing with that would be very similar to arguing that
because till now we saw that although laws of gravity
"explain" physical phenomena, there is no guarantee that
they will apply to any current or future test in the real
world, and therefor cannot be counted on. There was an
Ernie and Bert episode where Ernie eats the whole loaf of
bread each time checking another slice just to be sure.
||And since we treat science relying on the single past and
its behavior in accordance with a (more or less) stable
of rules, there is no reason not to do the same working
backwards from the future.
||In the same way, in continuation to the neo-teleology
basic laws that will be discovered, we can discuss the
opposite of entropy, since there is always a certain xmall
but non-zero amount of order in every disorder, and in
every finite setting even the most random setting will
some sort of order to it. And viewing that order in time
slices there is bound to be self-sustaining and evolving
emergence of order.
||These are the foundations of the neo-positive scientific
outlook, the non-anthropocentric mature post post-
modernist eco-friendly (as well as humanistic) ethical
philosophy of science.
||Is this idea just "predict the future based on the present
||Also, the idea of there being only one reality is compatible
with quantum mechanicsthat's the Copenhagen
Interpretation. Though that still says the future behavior of
quantum mechanics-governed systems is impossible to
||Well there we go : sentience' purpose in the universe is to create massive free-energy devices to balance out black holes.
||// the future behavior of quantum mechanics-governed systems is impossible to predict. //
||Not impossible; it's just that the Uncertainty Principle militates against analysing any deterministic event which will occur in more than two Planck times from T0.
||Besides, even if you do have free will now, it isn't going to last. Freedom is irrelevant, self-determination is irrelevant. You will be Assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.
||Certainly wasn't expecting [Max] to delete all his recent annos. Free will or determined?
||He got fed up of explaining the failures in my pseudo science.
It was an act of contemplation and the easier way to explain
it is teleologically, as an act towards a cause, and not as the
sum of billions of irrelevant facts like the fact that his
keyboard color was entering his eyes when deleting his
annos but not interfering with his decision to do so.
||[pocmloc], because in some cases we do know the future, in
well tested, scientifically discerned, segregated and closed