The Impossibility of Knowing Your Own Future

which brings us back to the argument of laymen vs professional..
(btw your next post does a very good job of lineing up with what i was arguing about..it is more constructive to educating me..)

true enough..(well i am getting better at linking sources, but the assumption is you guys are smarter than me and you should know what i am talking about, so i do default to not quoting and linking..)

i wouldn't put it like that..
but in the spirit of which you claim to want to educate ppl..yes..
(see comment about your next post)

fair enough..
(i am emotionally driven,which i have learned about myself since i have been here at sciforums.)
(which is also why you should consider the truth about what i am saying about insults and distractions..)

(stupid mouse doesn't want to work right when i try to highlight..)
as i have said there is a certain amount of reasonability in holding laymen to a standard..i will admit that i could stand to learn how to do better research,
(again see comment about your next post..)(i am well aware of how i learn, which is another reason i rant like i do..(insult vs distraction))

i never claim to be smarter than anyone else..IOW he is smarter than me in that respect..

no, the petty and juvenile comment was for you focusing on the lack of quotes..
IE..the difference between:
She said that she would go with you
vs
She said "I will go with him"
vs

all statements are understandable as written..it is petty to focus on the lack of form instead of the understanding of it...

i get on here (a science forum) because i think i have some fairly valid insights, sure (as i have admitted) i have probs putting some those insights into a coherent and clear form, it is my hope that there are ppl here that will understand what i am trying to say (and not get caught up with what i am literally saying) and translate what i am actually saying to what i am trying to say..(again i cite that there is a certain amount of reasonability in trying to educate me to do this myself) but i know i am not perfect, nor will i ever be perfect.
i tend to respect the ppl who do not try to force me to learn, but rather do like you have in your next post...
When it all boils out..it does not matter whether i learn anything or not(to a degree)as long as others learn through our interaction..
IOW
for the greater good of forum conversations,It doesn't matter whether i believe 2+2=5,what matters is that it gets corrected , by posting 2+2=4, not a rant about how wrong i am...that way other users can see the correct answer and learn accordingly,
of course if this were real life and i was working with you it would matter more, and this particular argument would be invalid..(course if this were the case i would still get distracted by you focusing on how wrong i am,but i wouldn't say anything to you in RL..)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All of this makes sense except for one fault: If the prediction is a determined one, the prediction will account for the n+1 since it, too, is determinant.
Since you say an endless loop will result, I ask: How can the prediction be made that an n+1 could thwart if n+1 can be accounted for prior to making the prediction?

This bit is more trickish...
If the person making the prediction is using determinism, then he will not aggressively try to account- he will not need to. He would yawn, shrug and crunch the numbers and tell the result. He may not even bother to read them if he's bored with his job...

If the person is using a Soft Deterministic method due to an inability to employ determinism, this means he will be unable to account for ALL variables and yes, that would be stressful for him as he tries to "think up" all variables. That's nonsense, really- and pretty irrelevant because it defeats the premise.

The premise is to try to show that a perfect set will still produce the infinite loop.

If the person is using magic, he needs to be shot.

And lastly, if the person is from the future, we can make no claims of certainty as to the accuracy of his predictions anyway- again rendering it useless for the exercise.

I'm glad to hear I can be constructive but I'm not above lighting you up when you rear up and act like a jerk.

I don't know if people are smarter than you or not, but you continuously making that claim makes me think you're using that as an excuse to fall behind.

The rest of your post contains personal opinions and some self examination that I can't really take the time to really respond to now- about to sign out.

I will repeat something: It's perfectly fine to say, "I don't know."
It's perfectly fine to say, "I need time to look into it."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

clearly?

ah so two points for my case of being wrong can lead to greater insights for others..(IOW don't focus on the wrongness of a person..)

well..see comment about me assuming you guys smarter than i, so is it a good thing or bad thing concerning my gullibility.(I have been told that i give ppl more credit than they deserve,)

btw..kudos on this post,way more conducive to teaching than focusing on the wrongness..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wrote:

So how could the calculation ever halt and reach a conclusion?

If it halts at any point (I labeled that arbitary halting point n), and if the prediction at that point n is handed to Cyperium, then he's just going to do something at n + 1 to thwart it. If the calculation is expanded to include his trying to thwart it, and if you hand that expanded prediction to Cyperium as your new n, then that's the prediction that he has in his hand, and that's the one that he's going to thwart.

For any finite positive integer n, no matter how big it is (and no matter how complete somebody thinks the calculation generating the prediction associated with it was), Cyperium's hypothetical situation always has it being undone by the succeeding n + 1.

 

Which begs the question: Is Cyperium ABLE to thwart it in a Deterministic Universe? As long as we assume he is able to thwart the prediction, simply by having knowledge of it, then yes, you can make this claim.
But this idea is contrary to the concept of being Determinant.

You would need to be in an indeterminant system in order to thwart the prediction. Because all you need do is "choose" something else.

But in a determinant system, the outcome is not predicted, really. It is not even determined. It is Set.

So before we can examine n+1 we must first establish Cyperiums ability to thwart the prediction that is Determined. If you read these past posts between Cyperium and me, you should see my stance marginally clearly.

It halts and reaches a conclusion when a determined data set is beyond Cyperiums ability to change the outcome. That is always the outcome of a determined prediction. You cannot just claim that Cyperium can have arbitrary supernatural powers granting him the ability to change any outcome. You must establish a reasonable control.

Which is the first point that I was making: The prediction that Cyperium would see would not ever be one that he could change anyway. Because the factoring would account for all of that before he ever saw it. It would be determined, already. And even if it did show something he plausibly can change, the determined prediction must come true- quite reasonably because Cyperium was halted from changing the outcome even if he was capable of doing so, by a factor that showed in the determination during the calculation; Yielding the prediction in the first place.

Well, ok- clearly he considered it 'mistaken.'

3=1+1
Wrong is just wrong. It's the way it is. A person can be wrong to say someone else is wrong, if they are wrong. But they can be right, too.

Look, Squirrel, you may believe in playing with your nuts in the tree all day, having the warm and fuzzies.
But I don't. I believe life is harsh and that harshness is an essential part of life. I do not believe that harshness is life and that it should be nothing else but.

Harshness is a part of it, though and it has it's place. If you are denying yourself things that have their place, you are missing out. Even the negative things.

Ostracizing a socially inept person can be the impetus they need to learn proper social behavior. If that person can accept negative things in life and not miss out.
It can cause an obese person to lose weight, when people look at them negatively, IF they can accept the purpose of negativity and make it worthwhile.
And the irony is, in this one- a person teasing a fat person causing that person to hit the gym and learn a good diet may well save that persons life!

When a person is unable to accept negatives and harshness, they can miss out. Become depressed and in some horrible cases- Suicidal.

But I have Good News!
There has never been one reported case of a squirrel deliberately throwing himself out of a tree onto the power lines below.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The catch is that makes you fair game.

You don't seem gullible to me. In fact, I take the "You guys are smarter so I'll take your word for it" as a cop out and utter B.S.

Because if you truly thought that was the case, you wouldn't get upset and argue. You wouldn't resort to insults and you wouldn't reject the scientific principles regularly, in order to maintain your belief system.

You were honest that you do not wish to work or put effort into research and learning. I think that's directly related to you saying that others are smarter, while behind that, you dispense with what they say and fall back to your beliefs.

The only thing conducive to learning is your desire to do it.

 

thought that was what the internet was for..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so you are actually arguing a pro-bully point??
really?
or are you just looking for justification?
i would argue but you just made my point in the next line..

so you are an expert in being able to tell who could benefit from bullying and who could not?
how can you tell who is suicidal and who is not?
or i should say..
so if a person is unable to accept the negatives and harshness, your answer is to desensitize them with more negatives and more harshness? sending them even closer to the suicidal tendency..
wow, this reeks of justification..

chuckle..just reminded me of the rube Goldberg Squirrel in the other thread..

not my exact words..talk about misquoting..

i get upset when i think you are smart enough to understand but refuse to because of your own beliefs..(keep in mind in this context i am not asking you to agree, just to understand)

if you were to do the research (not asking you to)you would find that the only ppl i have insulted is the ones who have insulted first..

i don't reject scientific principals..i reject them having to apply to everyone..

there is nothing wrong with me wanting to maintain my belief system..
just as there is nothing wrong with you wanting to maintain your belief system...(though i do argue what i think is not right..)(not right does not equal wrong)

um i did not say i did not wish to learn..i said sometimes (well most times) I do not like to research (being a layman, it is easier/faster to get someone who knows to explain it, than it is for me to struggle through a document thick with unknown vocabulary,which just opens me up to misinterpreting the document and setting me up for ridicule by those who do not hesitate to point out others mistakes.)

BINGO!
this is my point..
you cannot create a desire to learn in someone by focusing on how wrong they are..nor by pointing out every little mistake they make, Nor by being a bully.
It is through patience and understanding that you can create(or encourage) a desire to learn (or at the very least, a desire to listen to you.)

 

Reality is what it is. :shrug:

 

Hey, vouch for yourself, buddy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, I am. Wanna make something of it, shorty?
Let's face it, our society currently is on a roll. It's taking anything that has negative connotations and making it "BAD!"
And it seeks to control it. It must control it. Didn't you start a thread on this topic (Which I have recently hijacked, shamefully...)?

In that thread do you not complain about police enforcement in regards to child safety?

Are you actually arguing a pro-neglect viewpoint??
Really?
Or are you just looking for justification.

Didn't feel too good, reading that, Did it?
Face it, Squirrel, hardships are a part of life and they can be a great motivator. Arguing a pro-bully point would be to condone all bullying. Which I do not do.
I got bullied as a kid, Then I beat one up. Then another. And you know what? We all survived our childhoods and I learned how to defend myself and to stand up for myself.

I'm sorry if that disturbs you, Grandpa. (Hint!)

Oh, I never claimed to be. Not in the least. In fact, I openly admit to being wrong sometimes. There are other times when I won't though...

Believe me- I wish I always could. But usually there are many signs.
Not always, some people hide it very well.

No, not at all. If someone is suicidal, they are a bit beyond all that at that point and really need compassion and HELP. A person at the point of suicidal thoughts needs a hug, not a beating.

What I said was that negativity has it's place. I also made it clear not every place has a negativity card on it.
Positivity has ITS place as well. Don't you agree?

Stop ignoring half of what is actually said in the post and it won't.

Eh, close enough.

Perspective is very important. I have not only watched you reject hard evidence for your beliefs but also experienced it, long ago when I was posting.
Don't even try- you cannot reject hard evidence and then claim I should be smart enough to understand you when you promote gibberish sometimes.

Or, at least, that you have decided and accused of insulting first...

Heh, set up a demonstration sometime to show me how physics, chemistry and other fields do not apply to you.

Squirrel, be honest:
Have I ever told you that you should NOT believe in something?
I have referred to delusion- I stand by that when the word is accurate.
I have called certain beliefs, "Primitive," "archaic," "unsubstantiated" and even "absurd."
I stand by that too, when they qualify.

But at no time have I ever said to you, "You're Wrong to believe in God." I have never said to you that you should not, that it is incorrect or that it was 'not right.'

What I DO say, are things that urge you or anyone else to question the validity of beliefs.
That is something only they can do on their own. And it is something where I can never ever take a belief away from someone.

Get over your fear.
If you fear ridicule, you are too afraid to Stand and Deliver.
Learning requires research. You cannot just take someone else's word for it. You must investigate on your own. You must independently verify what you're told. Check its accuracy.
And you know what? I make a fool of myself often enough that I should be the one afraid. I've taken plenty of ridicule, including right here in this lil' ol' forum.

I'm still speakin' my mind though. Still steppin' up. Event at risk of insults, ridicule, ad hom attacks and me occasionally misunderstanding or flat out being WRONG.

I understand that you say you are a layman. But you have termed yourself that.
It is within your power to change it just as it's within your power to hide behind it.

Really?

'Cause you don't seem to have stopped listening to me yet.

In fact, I really seem to be getting your attention.

Enough so that now we have hijacked a pretty good thread hashing out our own squabbles.

 

A true teacher wouldn't insult or ridicule people because he believes that they know less than he does. After all, his own students would fit that description, or else there wouldn't be much point in their taking a class from him. It's a very poor teacher who despises and abuses his own students for enrolling in his class.

And there's something else. This is the philosophy forum. There's rarely a single generally accepted correct answer to philosophical questions. There certainly aren't for the issues of this thread.

In many cases what's most instructive about philosophical problems is how friendly and constructive dialogue back and forth helps people on both sides of an issue to deepen their understanding by responding to questions, doubts, counter-examples and objections. Socrates understood it.

But as is probably the case with all human interactions, philosophical dialogue carries with it the psychological risk of becoming pathological, where the joy of intellectual exploration is crushed by bullying, hostility and ego-driven abuse.

 

i would argue about that.but i am shorter than most..( i tease my daughter all the time cause she is shorter than me, and her daughter is shorter than her...we are getting shorter each generation..(hopefully she will grow taller than her mom..till then i can still joke about it..)

true enough..
so the quote ' its not the use, its the abuse' would apply to your argument.

too clear a flip to be effective..

see above..

that is still not an excuse to create hardships where there should not be.

listen to your elders sonny...we have more experience being screwed..there is no point in creating hardships where none is needed...the world is bad enough without ppl creating hardships under the pretense of desensitization.

exactly..but you would not have any clue as to where a person is in relation to how close they are to suicide, even experts have a tough time with this, so as you have just said it would be better to default to hugs than beatings..

i would agree with that but not as an intentional means, as you have claimed.

will revisit this in a moment..

assumption..

didn't say that..

i haven't argued against the accuracy of your words..i have argued the distractability of them.

Dywyddyr?

now go back and reread what you said earlier when I commented of revisiting it..and see how these both line up..

you say i reject because of my beliefs..not entirely inaccurate, it is only inaccurate in the sense of what you think my beliefs are..(test all things, hold on to what is true)
you claim i have rejected hard evidence..but go back and analyze it again, am i rejecting it or just questioning it? am i just taking your word for it or not? and pay attention to my use of the phrases 'i believe','i know','i think' and 'i feel'..i try hard to separate their usages.

and on that note..this is how i tend to think things through..think,feel,know,believe..i cannot convince you of the validity of these concepts, but i believe when they line up is when you get the closest to the truth of anything, you (and most ppl here, IE science geeks) tend to just focus on the know/think part of that equation, religious ppl tend to just focus on the believe/feel part of it..both tend to ignore the opposite set..but IMO all four MUST be present to have balance..
but i digress..if you wanna know more of this, you will ask..It is not a complete hypothesis..

same here bub..

by now you should realize that trying to shame/humiliate me into compliance to your way of thinking, does not work..(the phrase 'hide behind it' qualifies this, a negative connotation designed to shame/humiliate me into believing as you do ) (and there are anti-scientific standards involved here also..)

IOW it is my choice as to whether i want to change or not..not yours.

it is simpler than that..
it is because you continue to argue instead of just ignoring me..

and it hasn't been the first time a thread has been hijacked by me and another, talking about the same things...(see comment about Dywyddyr)
It is something that i strongly believe is a common problem among ppl.
and it really makes no difference to me(to a point) whether i convince you of this or not,(several points would be missed if i had convinced you of it right away)
since this is a public conversation there is bound to be other ppl who would learn from our exchange.

 

Yeah, so what's your point? Are you suggesting that someone here is a teacher?
I'm not, speaking for myself- I am a student.
I always will be.
And students tend to pick on their classmates. And what's with your exaggerations? You strike me as latching onto Squirrels complaints and running with them as far as your feet will carry you.

Are you suggesting that someone here is Despising and abusing his students?
Those are some heavy words there, Yazata. Let's find this "Teacher" and duct tape him to a wall.

In all honesty, we can classify many, many things as philosophy simply using semantics.

Either way, even philosophy is not "whatever the heck you want it to be."
Yes, there are generally accepted axioms, including ones in this thread.

So do not try to weasel out of having to answer hard questions by promoting the idea that there are no answers. If you don't want to take part- then don't. But to dive in, slash and attack for your disagreements (Fine and good so far) and then try to prevent your own accountability is nonsense (not so good so far.)

YOU, Yazata, have been promoting your take just as "factually" as I have mine.
YOU have been stating the n+1 idea that you invented off the top of your head as fact.

And you refer to "Hard" Determinism, hiding behind "undefined" determinism much of the way.

Lastly, just because it's placed in the philosophy forum does not mean that mainstream physics won't get discussed here.

And yet, you do not. Sure, you haven't been majorly unfriendly, although you do over-exaggerate your accusations.
Such as "Silence everyone else," "despise" and "Teachers abusing..."
But you haven't exactly responded well to questions, doubts, counter examples and objections like Socrates, here.

You spend a lot of time, instead, whining about my nature and personality.

Well, I'm not here to be your friend. I'm not here to pander to your ego and spoon feed my ideas to you in order to make you receptive to them.

Either you care about the debate or you do not. I do not need to EARN your attention on the topic by coddling you. Nor do I need to listen to you instructing the rest of us on how to teach with considerate kindness as you hypocritically slug, attack and insult your way to your point.


I am not teaching a class, nor do YOU consider me to be a teacher.

So consider me the evil overlord and you're the plucky young hero if it makes you feel better- Get Back To Debating the Topic, already.

My personality is not your concern.

More of your exaggerations.

Hostility is actually pretty normal in debates and it has not exceeded the norm for THESE forums; not by a long shot. We've all seen the Real Fights here.

Cyperium and I may be at odds on our ideas, but he's not whining or coming up with any excuses. Even when I accused him of it, He buckled down and pressed his case each step of the way. It's frustrating for him and for myself when we think the other person isn't getting the other- But We're slugging it out between OURSELVES and it's between him and I. And it's probably fair to say that he's had to tolerate more than you have out of me. When he gets back to HIS thread, he may want to give me a piece of his mind too. Frankly, at this point, he's earned my respect, not because I demanded it. So he'll get a lot further with it than you will at this time.
Then again, he may wish to just ignore all this crap and get back to the topic that he wanted to discuss. I'd prefer that, myself. I've had enough of my character being attacked to last me for a while and I'd rather get back to attacking our ideas, perceptions, conceptions or misconceptions about them.

He'll probably be pissed. It's like a parent that left the teenager at home alone and came back to find the house wrecked after a wild party.

"Jeez! I wasn't even gone a full day! What have you guys done to the place?!"

He's stepping up and posting like a man, in spite of me saying that he had misconceptions. He just slugged it right back.

At least, I think Cyperium is a He. Didn't think about it much til this moment...
Squirrel and I are hashing it out between squirrel and I.
So what exactly is your deal? Do Cyperium or Squirrel strike you as in need of rescue?

Either way, you don't like me and I now don't think too highly of how YOU post, either.

Irrelevant.

Discuss the topic or get off my back.

 

Eh, well the expression was my rough humor...

Not at all.
You accused me of promoting Bullying, in spite of the clarity and distinctions I had already made.
You took it to extremes as an accusation. It was the same thing Squirrel- exactly the same.

This statement can be quite true. In fact, I have said similar, myself at times.
I think you may need to give it some time and get to know me a bit better before assuming that if I posit a certain stance, (even when I clarify it is not a universal one and only applicable in certain situations) that it is universal and applicable in all situations.

No, because hugs can be just as harmful as beatings if it is all anyone ever gets.

Check out Veruca Salt (Fictitious character but the analogy stands.)

I'm not a sweet little girl, Squirrel. I'm a rough old man.

Clarify what you said, please. I misunderstood your meaning.

Okay, this one I can consider a valid point... however I will counter with the basis that ALL arguments use distraction. It really is the nature of debate. But you aren't all innocent and fairy dust in distraction either here.
Lower in your post, you even admit you have a history with this distraction.
Not everyone has the same personality type as you or what you desire. You do not wish others to forcefully change you but you'll go on and on about how others need to act in your view.
These hijacked debates are a distraction and they are not one of which you share none of the guilt. You have your fair share to think about.
How much of the guilt is mine, I will not bother to debate as I'm liable to be biased toward my own position. I'm not so delusional as to not see that, nor enough so to fail to recognize I am choosing to defend myself rather than ignoring it.

I have no idea what your intent is here. I'm aware there is a member by that name here. I have not spoken to him since the last time I debated with you.

It has been a long while, hasn't it? Perhaps in the last year, you have changed yuor behavior a bit- And I was not aware of it.

Very well- It's FAIR that I stop hiding behind my own admitted bias and from this point forward, give you the fair chance of asserting what your beliefs are and what you consider your scientific conclusions are.

If I mess up, slip up or forget (which is possible) remind me of how I said I would try to forgo a preconception.
I will probably backtrack at that point and if you deserve one- I will offer an apology for my bad behavior.

This, however, does not mean that I will not Question you.

Fair enough?

The scientific method requires of us that we reach a conclusion based on the evidence.
Reaching a conclusion means you "accept the probable likelihood that something is true given the accuracy of a model used to describe it."
This is good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sadly... as human beings we still screw it up, not just with an ego or a sense of rightness- but even of simple language and wording flaws.

Keep it up.
I just position that you do not use fear of ridicule as an excuse.

I just said it was your choice and not mine. Don't steal my lines.

As far as shaming or humiliating you by saying you're hiding behind an excuse... all I can say is:
Really?!
Are you THAT Sensitive?
If that's really ALL it takes to shame and humiliate you - especially since you demonstrate the statement as accurate (Constantly calling yourSELF a layman, saying others are "Better" and Smarter--- Come on!) Either you have a really low self esteem and are beating yourself up needlessly or you're using those terms as an excuse to not do the research that you've already admitted you do not wish to do and will not do.
If that humiliates you- You brought it upon yourself.
But... Somehow, Squirrrel, I think you're rolling with the punches and as the ferocity of your post demonstrates, you are not hanging your head ashamed.

Ah, it's all my fault.

You humiliate and shame me... I can justify that statement just as easily as you just tried to do. Shame/Humiliate by using a negative connotation to suggest that by countering your arguments, I'm abusing you.
I'm not obligated to ignore your behavior, either, Squirrel. There is nothing wrong with questioning it when you use that behavior to support a position in a debate.
Well, except for the fact that you dislike that.

Maybe you should stop trying to tell other people how to talk, how to behave, how to Speak To You.

Concentrate on yourself and let others be themselves.


Can we conclude the hijacking and get back on topic now? Or shall we continue and I'll take one for the team, accepting all responsibility for having continued to argue with you?

 

I'm not sure it is even possible to have a philosophical exchange without some measure of applying The Art of Being Right, regardless how reprehensible it may be.

The real challenge is to keep one's cool even when faced with hostile, contemptuous opposition.
In Buddhism, this is sometimes called "keeping your seat."

(Here's an interesting story on this.)

Although I think this approach only really works IRL, in situations of actual urgency, and not in more or less artificial meta-environments or meta-discourses like forum discussions.

 

Hey could you do me a favor?

Instead of posting a link about one keeping their cool, which you admit probably wouldn't do a lot of good on a forum...

Could you post a link where I can read the "Art of Being Right" instead?

I think that would be a much better read, captivate my interests more and be more productive in practice.
In addition, it will solve the arguments and other issues in the thread, allowing me to simply post only One Time and the issues will all be resolved.
Additionally, it's good from a Self Help aspect as it will boost my self esteem, as well.

So see? It's good for me, good for my opposition (because they won't have the stressful problem of having to argue anymore since they will know I'm right immediately...) - good for everyone, really... We all win..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ETA:

I put some thought into this and did some soul searching and... I've decided that it's ok. I'm good with it.

Please post the link at your earliest convenience.
P.S. You can PM it to me if you don't want anyone to know.
(Sadly, I predict that you will say no.... sigh...)

 

Some posters here are well familiar with Schopenhauer's sarcastic treatise on how to "be right" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

 

Oh.
Sarcasm.



Bazinga....

 

That I received the prediction would be determined, and since the prediction is in the future then that would have to be determined also. So the future has to be determined before it was determined. That's the paradox, that's what can't be done. The message about the future is part of the "matrix" which will undoubtably change the future, so the message has to be formed in such a way that it will not change the future that it is a message of.

How could you when the effect of the prediction depends on what is predicted? The prediction would cast a shadow in the prediction, in where the future is unknown as far as the prediction could alter it.

It can probably say that "this must come to be" because some things can't be changed due to the prediction, but it can never predict what the prediction itself would cause.

I think that this is the main issue.

Yes, but ordinary life tells me that things wouldn't be so hard to change, I don't suddenly get amnesia from day to day, I'm not that forgetful, I'm not usually so tired after work that I don't care about what happened the other day, I mean the predicted future shouldn't be that hard to change, because of that it can not be predicted since it would have to account for the effect of it's own prediction.

I could make any prediction but the prediction wouldn't be the predetermined future that the universe "has in plan" if you see what I mean. I cannot make the prediction fit the future as far as the prediction itself would have a influence on it. It couldn't predict itself. Hence it wouldn't be accurate and wouldn't be the predetermined future.

I would skip to that page and see that oh, I'm going to have a beer in the end, let's not do this fruitless attempt that is in the message and have a beer now instead, then the message would be false because I didn't do the fruitless attempt. You see? There's no way to trick me into doing exactly what is told in the message. Rather it could say "I don't know your future cause you always trick me, you bastard.".

That's true and I agree with you. But the process of making the knowledge would involve actually predicting what the knowledge would do. Do you see that the prediction would have to predict it's own effects before it had the full prediction? That's where the problem is. A ready-made prediction can - for that very reason - not exist, at least not one that is accurate enough to account for its own effects on the future.

It seems that knowing all the present variables (we have no such limit in this idea) should be able to predict the future. However the predicted future with the prediction is different from the predicted future without it, because of that it would have to predict a future that has its own prediction within it. This is what can't be done.

I know, it's when the idea is fully laid out and you know that it's correct, but the other one has a different idea which is fully laid out, and I do think that your idea is also correct but that the prediction just can't be done. Not because of any physical limits of knowing all the present variables, but because of the philosophical limit that my idea represents which has variables lost in the prediction itself. It's just as if the prediction casts a shadow on it's own future - at least to any extent that the prediction is in itself involved as variables in the future.

The impossibility is basically that the prediction would have to predict itself before it was made - this causes a neverending loop in the prediction process.

Yes, since my knowledge of the future is altered with the prediction, and my actions must in some part depend on the knowledge of the future (as variables that must also be predicted) then those variables are not available when making the prediction itself (it can't see its own future, as the prediction isn't made before it is made).

I claim that the knowledge of the predicted future is enough to change it and therefor the prediction must be false. The reason is, again, because the prediction can't be made in a predetermined universe, it couldn't account for my knowledge of it, it couldn't even account for itself. In fact, even predicting the prediction would result in a neverending loop, as within the prediction there would be the prediction. This clearly shows the neverending loop even before the knowledge of it is gained. As such, if the infinite cycle would end and thus not be infinite, then the prediction wouldn't be accurate enough to account for itself and whatever future it predicted.

True, I would also like to keep it as simple as possible ;D

Yes, you've caught the point perfectly! An easier way to perceive it (which I thought about just now when replying to Neverfly, is that the prediction would have to have its own prediction in the prediction in a infinite cycle (kind of like placing two mirrors in front of eachother), if the cycle isn't infinite then the prediction isn't enough to account for itself - since at the end there would be a future predicted without the prediction as we had to end before the infinite loop was done (and the infinite loop could obviously never end on its own - we would be forced to predict a future that doesn't have the prediction within it, in other words, it has to cast a shadow on itself and into the prediction).

 

I do not find this statement to be accurate to the definition of determinism.

The deterministic result yields the paths. The trajectories. Nothing more. It's not as though the Universe has to think of its plan and then compare that to your will.
No, determinism simply shows the Path- that's all.
WE then take that shown path and interpret it and NAME it a "prediction."
But there is no process of predicting- only the measurement of the trajectories.

Keep trying is all I can say... Maybe I'm wrong and you'll hit just the right wording to make my brain click into place.
Maybe you are and I'll hit the right wording.

No, it actually does not. Again, there is no prediction- that is just a word, a name we gave it.
But prediction, as a word, implies a process of predicting.
In Determinism, it is a measure of the trajectories, not comparing one trajectory against a possible future trajectory. It accounts ONLY for the determinant paths.

You do not live in a 4 dimensional world that you can observe. So you are hard pressed to imagine 4 dimensions. You think in three dimensions. Trying to imagine a hyper cube, for you, would be an act of futility.
Similar to that here, you are not accustomed to exercising your brain in deterministic effects. Your Ordinary Life Experiences are very non deterministic.
You have spent a lifetime thinking in terms of Choice and predict and alter the future. Decisions and Will.
But none of these concepts hold in Determinism. The path set is the path set, no matter what we NAME it.
It's not chosen by the universe as a viable option, it is not a grand Plan.

It is the measurement of the Motions and even if we see that motion in a calculation, all we are doing as adding more motions that are BASED on the previous trajectories, They Must Follow their determinant paths even after you see it, because your observation did not add Fate to the calculation. IT only added more determinant trajectories.

You would not see a "Prediction" that considered This optional choice or that optional choice or process that shows it.

You would only see the trajectories, bouncing around, influenced only by eachother. That set of paths would be the final result.

We would then take that and interpret it as a prediction and it can ONLY show the path that must come to pass.

No, it would not contain any of those.

It would contain only the motion, only the paths. It is US that claims the prediction and the universe does not care either way.

It does not have predictions within predictions. That's an empirical fatalist viewpoint but not a deterministic one.

It would have only the trajectories and causal effect.

These predictions within predictions you refer to are purely a human construct- Our accustomed way of thinking.

 

Cyperium I'd like to propose a question for you to think about, hopefully research and consider- then bring it back into this topic when ready to discuss it. It is relevant...

How much of human daily behavior, common interactions, ways of speaking, movements, way of walking, holding things, reacting to something that startles you, emotional responses...
All of our daily interactive social and individual behaviors=== How much of it is a person following their programming and how much of it is a person considering how they will speak, walk, talk, act, react and choosing an appropriate behavior?

 

That depends on how aware a person is of what they do (do - mentally, verbally, physically) and what standards they have for their acting.

Some spiritual disciplines, like in Buddhism, focus precisely on this issue. They maintain that it is possible to transcend "autopilot" behavior and be fully awake 24/7.