The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

I find the topic interesting Wynn, but I'm referring to average human behavior.

You are not off topic for what I was getting at so feel free to expand on that a bit...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whatever we name it, it is still what it is. If there is no message that contains the determined future, then we have no paradox. But if we have a message that does contain the information of the determined future, then the paradox is there.

The message would have to have its own message written down inside of it and the consequences thereof is because of that impossible to have been written down in that message beforehand (as it would have to be written down a infinite number of times as each message would contain the message). It doesn't matter what we name it, it is what it is. In order to avoid the paradox we have to assume that the message can be written in the first place - which, in my view, has been shown that it can't be done.

Perhaps it's just nature's way of avoiding the paradox. The message must never be allowed to be written - no matter what we name it, we could name it Santa - it would still be what it is, a impossible message of the future.

I'll see if I can hit the right wording. Right now it seems clear as a day to me.

I'll see if I can make the act of measuring the trajectories fit into my idea. It does make it more complicated, but I think that the principle in my idea can't be escaped because of this.

Let's say that we measure all the trajectories into the fourth dimension (that is the events that must come to pass because of the present events), we would have to measure our own measuring device.

Let's say that we have a measuring device where all the events of that device is already known to us, for the sake of the argument (we've very carefully set it up in such a way that it can know it's own events), it would measure and know all the events of the present, including its own actions, this knowledge would then have to be recorded on a paper (or any other medium) in order to count as a message or prediction, and the act of recording this on the paper would then also have to be measured (because however we set up the present it couldn't know the future before it was measured) and be recorded on the paper where that act would also have to be measured and be recorded on the paper (ad infinitum). The event of prediction is thus also an event that has to be predicted, since any event has future consequences.

The most important part is in bold. Take into consideration that I had to describe this in quite a different way than what I have done earlier, but I still think it holds water.

Sure, but we couldn't predict it so that it can be delivered into a knowledgable form to us. The NAME is just a description of the events that would need to take place, it is not by any sense a convention for reality itself. We could name it anything we want, it is still what it is, and the concept does still apply - it just becomes less clear.

Yes and in conclusion there would be a infinity of them as each would have to account for itself, each duplicate would have to be a duplicate into infinity.

Exactly.

Yes and there is no reason why these paths couldn't be described with names. Sure it seems to be more complicated, but it has no difference to my idea. Why would the act of naming all the trajectories have a influence on the result? Are we making things less clear just so we can't see that we are making a contradiction, when the contradiction with names in place is easy to see?

How much further must we make this less clear in order for us to ignore the conflict?

...and for the reasons earlier described (which was only less clear in your version) such a prediction can't be made, or as you would have it, such a measurement can't be made because it would produce a infinite cycle of measurements when measuring it's own actions of measuring and plotting the data.

It just becomes less easy to understand why it is impossible - there is no contradiction to physics in using names and known concepts to make it easier to understand. As long as those names and concepts doesn't contradict the actual processes and I don't see how it does.

The human constructs that we've used to describe the processes aren't logically invalid in light of this idea. Prediction (as a message about the future) and the process of prediction (the process of measuring all present events in order to predict the future and also plotting it down on a medium which we can later gain access to) aren't illogical names of what we're describing, and doesn't change what we are describing. In one way or another we have to describe something to make sense of it, and the way that is available to us is to use known concepts which describes what that something actually is.

Why would the naming of what we do have any consequence on what we do?

I know that all our thoughts, free will, and everything must be already set in the past according to a predetermined universe - this has no consequence to my idea however, which already assumes a predetermined universe and the implications thereof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think that such linear reasoning is helpful here.

We live in the present moment. The present moment is the only time in which we can act. Which is why the present moment is the only relevant time, not the past nor the future.

So I think essentially all problems of determinism in linear time and free will can be conceptualized in a simpler manner, without reference to a linear timeline of events, but instead in terms of (ethical) values and standards and the judgments and decisions for action based on those values and standards.

The only time in which we can act is now; and our actions depend on our values and standards.

 

Well if He made it then why wouldn't He know it. Time might be of no consequence to God, but might be of consequence to us (perhaps because we need to experience our life in such a fashion in order for us to reach our true nature or something), so I don't really see the point, but you're right, this thread is maybe not the place to discuss it so I might continue my thought there instead.

I agree.

True, this idea does, however, assume a determined universe, whether or not the universe is of that character is irrelevant. It's a case of "what if" really - it doesn't tell if the universe is deterministic or not, if it does then it is a unintentional side-effect (but please tell, if so).

 

It depends on what you mean by "determined."

By "determined," we can simply mean that there are regularities, that there are cause and effect relationships, as opposed to chaos.

We can readily observe that there are some regularities.
For example, if you have a certain feeling in your body, and you then drink some water, the feeling dissipates. And this can be observed with some regularity.

 

I think it's interesting to compare some general Western approaches and Eastern approaches to dealing with a personal problem.

In the West, when we have a problem, we tend to focus on the past and we try to figure out what went wrong in the past so that now we have a problem. The Freudian focus on childhood trauma as the source of problems later in life is typical. We then try to do something about the past - such a "healing our inner child," confronting our parents or abusers, trying to understand why things in the past happened the way they did.

On the other hand, in general, the Eastern approach is focused on the present: one is encouraged to investigate the things that one is currently doing (ie. mental, verbal and physical actions) or experiencing that could be causing the problem one is having. Then some action is taken about those current issues; these are usually very pragmatic steps, such as changing one's diet, changing the way one relates to other people (such as avoiding particular people, or omitting certain topics in conversation), changing what one wears, changing one's schedule or adhering to one more consistently, etc. There is little or no focus on the past.


Sci-fi-like scenarios of traveling into the past, future, or a parallel reality are attempts to resolve a problem. But it is an attempt to resolve a problem by means that are not actually available to us. So such attempts are bound to fail.

So instead, it would be better to focus on the means that are available to us now and see what can be done with them.

 

What I mean by "determined" is that there are no unknown factors that could alter the future if all events are set in place - as they need to progress according to natural law (which itself - in a determined universe - couldn't change randomly).

In other words; there is no such thing as 'random' in a predetermined universe and each effect must have causes which completely defines that effect.

 

Do you think that only the existence of randomness would allow for there to be free will?

 

I honestly don't know. Randomness and free will both requires that there are options in the universe. That the same cause could have two or more possible effects. The way scientists usually think about this is that any isolated cause can only have one isolated effect. By isolated I mean that no other causes influence either the cause or the effect. By cause (in this case) you could imagine a electron hitting a atom, exciting it. By effect you could imagine a photon being relased as the energy level of the atom comes back to normal (the photon would then be the energy difference).

I have a hard time imagining free will in a predetermined universe as there would seem to be no options but the causes already set in action. If the universe could be proven to behave non-deterministic then there's a chance for free will, cause then there would be optional futures. Since a cause could then give two different effects depending on either randomness or free will.

This is my understanding of it at least.

 

because the discussion is that same as with him..(btw where did he get off to? haven't seen him post in awhile.)

Yes..and i use it, there are others just as sensitive who do not know how to communicate that sensitivity effectively..(or do not know that they are sensitive..see below) most just default to getting defensive without being aware of their sensitivities..

hehe..see what i mean?
i never claim who is at fault..and my statement was not designed to intone fault.

no..because if i can teach others how to treat me, then they will be more effective communicators and teachers to others..It takes extreme characters/situations to teach simple concepts..

conclusion in a moment..

first to address your statement of :

 

This is confusing me. My perspective is that any message need only be written ONCE. You would not have messages within messages simply because only one message would be produced.
That message being the final determinant result.
Anything else before that is just factoring.

I may have created confusion here.
My point on the Forth Dimensional perspective was not relevant to the topic at hand directly.
It was an exercise to show how your mind works and figures things out and how it can fall short on topics of which it is not accustomed to thinking a certain way.
WE ALL suffer from this, self included, and my example could be applied to me as much as you.

This is why we are bouncing off of eachother, both of our minds work this way and the physics works its own way.

This is fundamentally inaccurate to determinism.

In determinism, the future is "Known" even if 'known' is the wrong applicable word. Determinant is the right word.
This being the case, what you just described is in error.

The message recorded would show only the path of determinant trajectories.

So if I measure the path of billiard ball A and determine it's future trajectory (In a deterministic fashion, covering all factors that can influence the outcome) and then record that on paper- You can call that a prediction.

I then pick up the stick and call my shot- and shoot.

The prediction WILL come true.

In your example, you say you can choose to change the outcome by knowing the prediction.
But here's the clincher;
That projection, that trajectory- would not have been predicted.
The physical process that work in your brain are determinant as well. They would have been factors in the creation of that piece of paper with the message.
Had you been so motivated to await the prediction to be printed on paper so that you could choose against it, the prediction would have been altered to show whatever inevitable result would happen.
The original prediction in the thought experiment would never have existed.

At this point you say a prediction cannot be reached, simply because any prediction finally printed out on paper would affect the next outcome.

And at this point I say that it can be reached just fine- even if our minds cannot fathom the events- because it would have determined what the result would be, based on our brains as a factor- the trajectories as a factor- and the prediction would be perhaps one were you could not alter events or decided not to alter events-- essentially, whatever the outcome of it all would be.

Yes but still not relevant to Determinism because in determinism, the future is "known" (actually determinant) all the way up til the end of time. Whatever that end may be.

Yes, my only point was that the names cannot be treated as the physical.

Saying that it was because of my actions- is blame. Just the way it is, Squirrel.

It's not my job to do things your way.

That does not make me a teacher or an instructor.
Peers and classmates can teach eachother. An ex girlfriend who treated you badly can teach you how to choose more wisely in dating.
"Teachers" are not always the professional kind and since I'm not- I'm just some bonehead posting on a net forum- I am not constrained to follow a professions rules because it makes you feel better.

True. It's part of my programming and occasionally, I can overcome it... Not always...

No it is true and I am aware of it...

My personality is also my own.
I'm my own man and I do things my way.
This doesn't always mean that you will like it. But just because I can have emotional reactions doesn't invalidate scientific claims.
The best you can say is they distract from them. That they call into question...
The onus is always on you to investigate claims and you have chosen to do no research.
I think that THIS is why it bothers you more than many others.


That said, I will do my best to control emotions better. But I will also NOT be constrained- my personality, my character, the way I express myself are all ME and I do not like being edited. Not At All.

Consider an apology from me, sincere though it may not sound as such- For any offenses made in which I was harsher than I realize- meaner than was necessary- Because if I'm not aware that I was more wrong than I thought I was, see, I cannot confront them.
So accepting that it's possible that I was, I apologize because I do not want to be considered a Heartless Dickhead. I DO have a heart. I just don't like it when people act a fool to me and expect no equal recompense.

This applies to Yazata (Half-heartedly) and Cyperium as well.

Back on topic...


Why would the naming of what we do have any consequence on what we do?

I know that all our thoughts, free will, and everything must be already set in the past according to a predetermined universe - this has no consequence to my idea however, which already assumes a predetermined universe and the implications thereof.[/QUOTE]

 

something else we have in common neverfly..

both of us wanna have the last word..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you want the last word, take it.

 

Fair is fair....I'll take it.

Just an anonymous bystander.

 

ok..lol..

 

Alright, then.

 

grrrr...

 

I knew you were going to say that. The prediction came true.

 

uf..