WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
ONE FUTURE, you can't change it, your born with it.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/28/10 , edited 10/28/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)


My hypothetical scenario has everything to do with the OP's statement about there being only a singular possible future. I gave scenarios for different decisions to be accounted for but each scenario only has a singular outcome, and the future can only have a singular scenario. Therefor it is only possible to have a singular future.

It is actually you who is being too narcissistic to realize that we are talking about there is only one future as stated by the thread's namesake. We are not talking about what you're talking about which is as you put it "if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence."

Considering how we established an exchange of words prior to you intruding upon the conversation by quoting us, it is you who is blindly narcissistic and forcing your topic upon us. A topic which we have both on several occasions explicitly told you we are not talking about, and also a topic which does not have any direct conflicts with our original conversation but you're randomly spewing forth valid yet unrelated statements about it in an attempt to prove we are "wrong".

Who is the ignoratio elenchi-committing-narcissist now?

PS: If you report this reply to you, you better damn well report your reply to me just now as well.
Just don't get breakfast, and have brunch later. That will totally stick to the OP's original proposition, not mine:

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.

and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice

So as a matter of fact, not only you're a narcissus who can't take criticism at all, you also ignored the OP's thesis while you hijacked his thread with your own "free will" argument.




There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it


Basically he's saying a person's life is like a huge Rube Goldberg machine, everything was predetermined and though it seems complex, there is still only one path you can go on. Even if the machine has multiple paths built into the system, the sequence of events will only happen in a singular way and that way becomes the only way, the only past, the only present and the only future.

Which is exactly what I said, so tell me how I hijacked his thread again?

You're the one who can't take criticism, which has been demonstrated in every thread I've ever seen you in, not me.

PS: When you use idioms, try to make sense.
Posted 10/29/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)


My hypothetical scenario has everything to do with the OP's statement about there being only a singular possible future. I gave scenarios for different decisions to be accounted for but each scenario only has a singular outcome, and the future can only have a singular scenario. Therefor it is only possible to have a singular future.

It is actually you who is being too narcissistic to realize that we are talking about there is only one future as stated by the thread's namesake. We are not talking about what you're talking about which is as you put it "if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence."

Considering how we established an exchange of words prior to you intruding upon the conversation by quoting us, it is you who is blindly narcissistic and forcing your topic upon us. A topic which we have both on several occasions explicitly told you we are not talking about, and also a topic which does not have any direct conflicts with our original conversation but you're randomly spewing forth valid yet unrelated statements about it in an attempt to prove we are "wrong".

Who is the ignoratio elenchi-committing-narcissist now?

PS: If you report this reply to you, you better damn well report your reply to me just now as well.
Just don't get breakfast, and have brunch later. That will totally stick to the OP's original proposition, not mine:

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.

and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice

So as a matter of fact, not only you're a narcissus who can't take criticism at all, you also ignored the OP's thesis while you hijacked his thread with your own "free will" argument.




There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it



Basically he's saying a person's life is like a huge Rube Goldberg machine, everything was predetermined and though it seems complex, there is still only one path you can go on. Even if the machine has multiple paths built into the system, the sequence of events will only happen in a singular way and that way becomes the only way, the only past, the only present and the only future.

Which is exactly what I said, so tell me how I hijacked his thread again?


You're the one who can't take criticism, which has been demonstrated in every thread I've ever seen you in, not me.

PS: When you use idioms, try to make sense.
No, you didn't. Because that's quantum mechanic theory of multiple dimensions on a single time axis. Which was nothing liked your original argument:

excalion wrote:

I believe what the OP is trying to get at is something along the lines of:
"You cannot change fate, if you do then it was your fate to change fate, so in the end you've changed nothing."

Let's dissect this some more. So we are inclined to try and predict our futures, we set some certain trajectory to aim our cannons of fate towards, but we are not infallible. The trajectories we set, try as we might to be as accurate as possible, sometimes just doesn't work out. This is where we get disillusioned about 'changing' our fate, when the actual course of events to take place are a deviation from our initially predicted framework of the future. We call this phenomenon a changing of fate.

So then what is fate? What is commonly subconsciously seen as fate is not what will happen in the future, no, it's what we think will happen in the future. Well tough, sorry to break it to you but sometimes we think wrong, we fuck up.
So the future ends up something completely different from what we expected, did we change fate? No, come off it, who do you think you are? We just tried to predict the future and failed horribly, we didn't change anything.
As a matter of fact, that's not how quantum computation works at all:

Before talking about the strange things that can be done using pairs of qubits, let's talk about the things that can't. Like copying qubits. The most basic operation one can perform using classical bits is to copy the value of one bit into another bit. Simple, right?

Not really. When we want to copy a single classical bit, we really perform two operations in sequence:

1. Measure both bits.
2. If they don't match, flip the second one.

Uh-oh. Not only can a single qubit take on a whole sphere full of values, it can only be measured along a single axis at a time. Not only that, but measuring it changes its state from whatever it was before the measurement to whatever state the measurement produced. That's a problem. In fact, it can be proven that even in principle it's not possible to copy an unknown qubit's state. You can move it—that's called quantum teleportation—but, just like in Star Trek, teleportation just moves the state from one place to another. It doesn't make a copy.(citation)
Furthermore, when it comes to self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, say like racism inspired racial profiling for example, those who came up with the stereotypes will behave just as they predicted themselves would be:

In an age of information overload, "nutshell" stereotypes encapsulate information compactly and efficiently and thus possess an undeniable survival value. Admittedly, many stereotypes are self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophecies. A young black man confronted by a white supremacist may well respond violently and an Hispanic, unable to find a job, may end up is a street gang.

But this recursiveness does not detract from the usefulness of stereotypes as "reality tests" and serviceable prognosticators. Blacks do commit crimes over and above their proportion in the general population. Though stereotypical in the extreme, it is a useful fact to know and act upon. Hence racial profiling.

Stereotypes - like fables - are often constructed around middle class morality and are prescriptive. They split the world into the irredeemably bad - the other, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, gay - and the flawlessly good, we, the purveyors of the stereotype. While expressly unrealistic, the stereotype teaches "what not to be" and "how not to behave". A by-product of this primitive rendition is segregation.

A large body of scholarship shows that proximity and familiarity actually polarize rather than ameliorate inter-ethnic and inter-racial tensions. Stereotypes minimize friction and violence by keeping minorities and the majority apart. Venting and vaunting substitute for vandalizing and worse. In time, as erstwhile minorities are gradually assimilated and new ones emerge, conflict is averted.

Moreover, though they frequently reflect underlying deleterious emotions - such as rage or envy - not all stereotypes are negative. Blacks are supposed to have superior musical and athletic skills. Jews are thought to be brainier in science and shrewder in business. Hispanics uphold family values and ethnic cohesion. Gays are sensitive and compassionate. And negative stereotypes are attached even to positive social roles - athletes are dumb and violent, soldiers inflexible and programmed.

Stereotypes are selective filters. Supporting data is hoarded and information to the contrary is ignored. One way to shape stereotypes into effective coping strategies is to bombard their devotees with "exceptions", contexts, and alternative reasoning.(citation)
Finally, you'll say anything about my person just so you can be right, even if you had to lie about it. And that's stereotyping.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, it's in fact you're the one who committed the irrelevant thesis argument in the first place. When you made your hypothetical statement not based on the OP's porposition of 1) there's no "free will" and 2) if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence. I was going for number 2 in my last statement, but you're just too narcissistic and subsequently arrogant to realize that:

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "being destined for greatness". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.(citation)


My hypothetical scenario has everything to do with the OP's statement about there being only a singular possible future. I gave scenarios for different decisions to be accounted for but each scenario only has a singular outcome, and the future can only have a singular scenario. Therefor it is only possible to have a singular future.

It is actually you who is being too narcissistic to realize that we are talking about there is only one future as stated by the thread's namesake. We are not talking about what you're talking about which is as you put it "if God rules over you, you're screwed unless you change your very essence."

Considering how we established an exchange of words prior to you intruding upon the conversation by quoting us, it is you who is blindly narcissistic and forcing your topic upon us. A topic which we have both on several occasions explicitly told you we are not talking about, and also a topic which does not have any direct conflicts with our original conversation but you're randomly spewing forth valid yet unrelated statements about it in an attempt to prove we are "wrong".

Who is the ignoratio elenchi-committing-narcissist now?

PS: If you report this reply to you, you better damn well report your reply to me just now as well.
Just don't get breakfast, and have brunch later. That will totally stick to the OP's original proposition, not mine:

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.

and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice

So as a matter of fact, not only you're a narcissus who can't take criticism at all, you also ignored the OP's thesis while you hijacked his thread with your own "free will" argument.




There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it



Basically he's saying a person's life is like a huge Rube Goldberg machine, everything was predetermined and though it seems complex, there is still only one path you can go on. Even if the machine has multiple paths built into the system, the sequence of events will only happen in a singular way and that way becomes the only way, the only past, the only present and the only future.

Which is exactly what I said, so tell me how I hijacked his thread again?


You're the one who can't take criticism, which has been demonstrated in every thread I've ever seen you in, not me.

PS: When you use idioms, try to make sense.
No, you didn't. Because that's quantum mechanic theory of multiple dimensions on a single time axis. Which was nothing liked your original argument:

excalion wrote:

I believe what the OP is trying to get at is something along the lines of:
"You cannot change fate, if you do then it was your fate to change fate, so in the end you've changed nothing."

Let's dissect this some more. So we are inclined to try and predict our futures, we set some certain trajectory to aim our cannons of fate towards, but we are not infallible. The trajectories we set, try as we might to be as accurate as possible, sometimes just doesn't work out. This is where we get disillusioned about 'changing' our fate, when the actual course of events to take place are a deviation from our initially predicted framework of the future. We call this phenomenon a changing of fate.

So then what is fate? What is commonly subconsciously seen as fate is not what will happen in the future, no, it's what we think will happen in the future. Well tough, sorry to break it to you but sometimes we think wrong, we fuck up.
So the future ends up something completely different from what we expected, did we change fate? No, come off it, who do you think you are? We just tried to predict the future and failed horribly, we didn't change anything.
As a matter of fact, that's not how quantum computation works at all:

Before talking about the strange things that can be done using pairs of qubits, let's talk about the things that can't. Like copying qubits. The most basic operation one can perform using classical bits is to copy the value of one bit into another bit. Simple, right?

Not really. When we want to copy a single classical bit, we really perform two operations in sequence:

1. Measure both bits.
2. If they don't match, flip the second one.

Uh-oh. Not only can a single qubit take on a whole sphere full of values, it can only be measured along a single axis at a time. Not only that, but measuring it changes its state from whatever it was before the measurement to whatever state the measurement produced. That's a problem. In fact, it can be proven that even in principle it's not possible to copy an unknown qubit's state. You can move it—that's called quantum teleportation—but, just like in Star Trek, teleportation just moves the state from one place to another. It doesn't make a copy.(citation)
Furthermore, when it comes to self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, say like racism inspired racial profiling for example, those who came up with the stereotypes will behave just as they predicted themselves would be:

In an age of information overload, "nutshell" stereotypes encapsulate information compactly and efficiently and thus possess an undeniable survival value. Admittedly, many stereotypes are self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophecies. A young black man confronted by a white supremacist may well respond violently and an Hispanic, unable to find a job, may end up is a street gang.

But this recursiveness does not detract from the usefulness of stereotypes as "reality tests" and serviceable prognosticators. Blacks do commit crimes over and above their proportion in the general population. Though stereotypical in the extreme, it is a useful fact to know and act upon. Hence racial profiling.

Stereotypes - like fables - are often constructed around middle class morality and are prescriptive. They split the world into the irredeemably bad - the other, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, gay - and the flawlessly good, we, the purveyors of the stereotype. While expressly unrealistic, the stereotype teaches "what not to be" and "how not to behave". A by-product of this primitive rendition is segregation.

A large body of scholarship shows that proximity and familiarity actually polarize rather than ameliorate inter-ethnic and inter-racial tensions. Stereotypes minimize friction and violence by keeping minorities and the majority apart. Venting and vaunting substitute for vandalizing and worse. In time, as erstwhile minorities are gradually assimilated and new ones emerge, conflict is averted.

Moreover, though they frequently reflect underlying deleterious emotions - such as rage or envy - not all stereotypes are negative. Blacks are supposed to have superior musical and athletic skills. Jews are thought to be brainier in science and shrewder in business. Hispanics uphold family values and ethnic cohesion. Gays are sensitive and compassionate. And negative stereotypes are attached even to positive social roles - athletes are dumb and violent, soldiers inflexible and programmed.

Stereotypes are selective filters. Supporting data is hoarded and information to the contrary is ignored. One way to shape stereotypes into effective coping strategies is to bombard their devotees with "exceptions", contexts, and alternative reasoning.(citation)
Finally, you'll say anything about my person just so you can be right, even if you had to lie about it. And that's stereotyping.




Let's dissect this some more. So we are inclined to try and predict our futures, we set some certain trajectory to aim our cannons of fate towards, but we are not infallible. The trajectories we set, try as we might to be as accurate as possible, sometimes just doesn't work out. This is where we get disillusioned about 'changing' our fate, when the actual course of events to take place are a deviation from our initially predicted framework of the future. We call this phenomenon a changing of fate.

So then what is fate? What is commonly subconsciously seen as fate is not what will happen in the future, no, it's what we think will happen in the future. Well tough, sorry to break it to you but sometimes we think wrong, we fuck up.
So the future ends up something completely different from what we expected, did we change fate? No, come off it, who do you think you are? We just tried to predict the future and failed horribly, we didn't change anything.


Ever thought maybe I wasn't trying to describe quantum computation at all? I was trying to describe the general consensus for what "fate" encompasses and entails for an average person. What is described by the word "fate" to most people is some certain expectation for how the future will come to pass. People have this expectation because they are able to predict the future to a certain extent of demonstrable accuracy based on prior experience and knowledge. Now if something unexpected comes up and deters the future from what is expected by the individual's predictions, people usually consider this a "change of fate".

What I tried to show next is that this "change of fate" is actually not a change of fate because of people's misconception on "fate" itself. "Fate" in its proper definition is the only scenario that actually happens for an individual., which by definition can only be a singularity. This idea is expressed in the statement: "You cannot change fate, if you changed fate, then it was your fate to change fate. So in the end you changed nothing." - because the fate to "change fate" was your fate to begin with, which you have not changed. This is in exact accordance with the OP's statements about how everything is predetermined and how there is only ONE future.

So, what exactly are you arguing against here? I still don't understand what your point is.

PS: I do apologize for acting rashly and perhaps too emotive in our prior engagements. I'll try to mellow out and see if we can get to the bottom of exactly why we have these intensely disagreeable confrontations with each other. I've very rarely ever gotten into these feuds with others on this forum so I'm kind of curious myself.
Posted 10/29/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

No, you didn't. Because that's quantum mechanic theory of multiple dimensions on a single time axis. Which was nothing liked your original argument:

excalion wrote:

I believe what the OP is trying to get at is something along the lines of:
"You cannot change fate, if you do then it was your fate to change fate, so in the end you've changed nothing."

Let's dissect this some more. So we are inclined to try and predict our futures, we set some certain trajectory to aim our cannons of fate towards, but we are not infallible. The trajectories we set, try as we might to be as accurate as possible, sometimes just doesn't work out. This is where we get disillusioned about 'changing' our fate, when the actual course of events to take place are a deviation from our initially predicted framework of the future. We call this phenomenon a changing of fate.

So then what is fate? What is commonly subconsciously seen as fate is not what will happen in the future, no, it's what we think will happen in the future. Well tough, sorry to break it to you but sometimes we think wrong, we fuck up.
So the future ends up something completely different from what we expected, did we change fate? No, come off it, who do you think you are? We just tried to predict the future and failed horribly, we didn't change anything.
As a matter of fact, that's not how quantum computation works at all:

Before talking about the strange things that can be done using pairs of qubits, let's talk about the things that can't. Like copying qubits. The most basic operation one can perform using classical bits is to copy the value of one bit into another bit. Simple, right?

Not really. When we want to copy a single classical bit, we really perform two operations in sequence:

1. Measure both bits.
2. If they don't match, flip the second one.

Uh-oh. Not only can a single qubit take on a whole sphere full of values, it can only be measured along a single axis at a time. Not only that, but measuring it changes its state from whatever it was before the measurement to whatever state the measurement produced. That's a problem. In fact, it can be proven that even in principle it's not possible to copy an unknown qubit's state. You can move it—that's called quantum teleportation—but, just like in Star Trek, teleportation just moves the state from one place to another. It doesn't make a copy.(citation)
Furthermore, when it comes to self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, say like racism inspired racial profiling for example, those who came up with the stereotypes will behave just as they predicted themselves would be:

In an age of information overload, "nutshell" stereotypes encapsulate information compactly and efficiently and thus possess an undeniable survival value. Admittedly, many stereotypes are self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophecies. A young black man confronted by a white supremacist may well respond violently and an Hispanic, unable to find a job, may end up is a street gang.

But this recursiveness does not detract from the usefulness of stereotypes as "reality tests" and serviceable prognosticators. Blacks do commit crimes over and above their proportion in the general population. Though stereotypical in the extreme, it is a useful fact to know and act upon. Hence racial profiling.

Stereotypes - like fables - are often constructed around middle class morality and are prescriptive. They split the world into the irredeemably bad - the other, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, gay - and the flawlessly good, we, the purveyors of the stereotype. While expressly unrealistic, the stereotype teaches "what not to be" and "how not to behave". A by-product of this primitive rendition is segregation.

A large body of scholarship shows that proximity and familiarity actually polarize rather than ameliorate inter-ethnic and inter-racial tensions. Stereotypes minimize friction and violence by keeping minorities and the majority apart. Venting and vaunting substitute for vandalizing and worse. In time, as erstwhile minorities are gradually assimilated and new ones emerge, conflict is averted.

Moreover, though they frequently reflect underlying deleterious emotions - such as rage or envy - not all stereotypes are negative. Blacks are supposed to have superior musical and athletic skills. Jews are thought to be brainier in science and shrewder in business. Hispanics uphold family values and ethnic cohesion. Gays are sensitive and compassionate. And negative stereotypes are attached even to positive social roles - athletes are dumb and violent, soldiers inflexible and programmed.

Stereotypes are selective filters. Supporting data is hoarded and information to the contrary is ignored. One way to shape stereotypes into effective coping strategies is to bombard their devotees with "exceptions", contexts, and alternative reasoning.(citation)
Finally, you'll say anything about my person just so you can be right, even if you had to lie about it. And that's stereotyping.




Let's dissect this some more. So we are inclined to try and predict our futures, we set some certain trajectory to aim our cannons of fate towards, but we are not infallible. The trajectories we set, try as we might to be as accurate as possible, sometimes just doesn't work out. This is where we get disillusioned about 'changing' our fate, when the actual course of events to take place are a deviation from our initially predicted framework of the future. We call this phenomenon a changing of fate.

So then what is fate? What is commonly subconsciously seen as fate is not what will happen in the future, no, it's what we think will happen in the future. Well tough, sorry to break it to you but sometimes we think wrong, we fuck up.
So the future ends up something completely different from what we expected, did we change fate? No, come off it, who do you think you are? We just tried to predict the future and failed horribly, we didn't change anything.


Ever thought maybe I wasn't trying to describe quantum computation at all? I was trying to describe the general consensus for what "fate" encompasses and entails for an average person. What is described by the word "fate" to most people is some certain expectation for how the future will come to pass. People have this expectation because they are able to predict the future to a certain extent of demonstrable accuracy based on prior experience and knowledge. Now if something unexpected comes up and deters the future from what is expected by the individual's predictions, people usually consider this a "change of fate".

What I tried to show next is that this "change of fate" is actually not a change of fate because of people's misconception on "fate" itself. "Fate" in its proper definition is the only scenario that actually happens for an individual., which by definition can only be a singularity. This idea is expressed in the statement: "You cannot change fate, if you changed fate, then it was your fate to change fate. So in the end you changed nothing." - because the fate to "change fate" was your fate to begin with, which you have not changed. This is in exact accordance with the OP's statements about how everything is predetermined and how there is only ONE future.

So, what exactly are you arguing against here? I still don't understand what your point is.

PS: I do apologize for acting rashly and perhaps too emotive in our prior engagements. I'll try to mellow out and see if we can get to the bottom of exactly why we have these intensely disagreeable confrontations with each other. I've very rarely ever gotten into these feuds with others on this forum so I'm kind of curious myself.
What you been referring to as "fate" was actually self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping. Because you're not running quantum computation by considering the alternatives at the same time, aka quantum parallelism. Whatever that you're predicting as your "fate" all along, is exactly what you've been doing based on what you only knew, but not what you don't know.
Posted 10/29/10


I know this may be a little off subject dom but have you ever played the game chrono cross? It has to do with fate and the travel between parallel worlds where in one world some one maybe alive because of their decisions or maybe a poet instead of waitress depending on what actions they decided to take a critical point in their life. Personally I do not believe in fate, we are given the free will to make our own choices and we just have to suffer/rejoice at what the outcome maybe.
Posted 10/29/10 , edited 10/29/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:



I know this may be a little off subject dom but have you ever played the game chrono cross? It has to do with fate and the travel between parallel worlds where in one world some one maybe alive because of their decisions or maybe a poet instead of waitress depending on what actions they decided to take a critical point in their life. Personally I do not believe in fate, we are given the free will to make our own choices and we just have to suffer/rejoice at what the outcome maybe.
This is why I tend to not use popular science fiction as a cultural frame of reference to illustrate the scientific and philosophical concepts of relative time and quantum computation. Because although the pseudoscience of time travel is entertaining, it ignores the logical contradiction between wishful thinking and the objective reality of space and time within the context of quantum physics:

TIME TRAVEL INTO THE PAST

There is no debate, even among science fiction writers, that this is completely impossible. It not only involves violations of the laws of physics, particularly the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but literally and actually involves gross logical contradictions. The idea is that mad Dr. Soandso gets into his time machine (not clearly described) and somehow goes back to ancient Rome, where he gives a translated handbook of physics and chemistry to a Roman scholar, and thus utterly changes the course of human history … the atomic bomb, for instance, is then invented by Claudius Festus Arpinna in 350 AD. Despite the fact that even the writers agree time trips into the past are an impossibility, they love to play with them, because of the plot complications that can be generated by the logical contradictions that arise. My favorite books of this type are Dinosaur Beach by Keith Laumer and The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov. The time-travel short story to end all time-travel short stories is All You Zombies! By Robert A. Heinlein. Wells' 19th Century The Time Machine is the genre's daddy.

SUSPENDED ANIMATION OR TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE

Nothing impossible about this, and a pseudoscientific rewrite of the Rip Van Winkle plot was the easiest way for a writer to get his 19th century Every man into the Utopian future to comment, marvel, and react. A classic example is Wells' When the Sleeper Wakes. However, travel into the future (possible -- in fact, unavoidable!) is not much fun unless you can return to the past to tell the home folks what you saw (impossible).(citation)
And when you consider how we obtained the conceptualization of "free will" through socialization, we're in fact have been sabotaging our own emotional well-being with the cultural values, meanings, and practices of patriarchy masculinity.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/29/10

DomFortress wrote:

What you been referring to as "fate" was actually self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping. Because you're not running quantum computation by considering the alternatives at the same time, aka quantum parallelism. Whatever that you're predicting as your "fate" all along, is exactly what you've been doing based on what you only knew, but not what you don't know.


Dom, I'm talking about people, not subatomic particles. Just because electrons can be at a location and not be at a location at the same time, doesn't mean I can be in class and not be in class at the same time. I would advice you to read some of the criticisms of schrodinger's cat and see how that stuff has zero implications in everyday life.

You say my "fate" definition is a self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, what exactly am I stereotyping in this definition?


fate is the only scenario that actually happens for an individual., which by definition can only be a singularity.


Are you trying to say I'm stereotyping against the passage of time? I'm making a stereotype because I said that all futures converge upon one present and that becomes the only present, which consequently means there is only one meaningful future, and all others are inconsequential because they never happen? Also, do you know how self-fulfilling prophecies work? They need to gain the acceptance of the group of people the stereotype effects in order to become self-fulfilling. Time, however, is an impartial agent. It does not care what stereotype you give it, it will still function exactly as it has since forever.
Posted 10/29/10 , edited 10/29/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What you been referring to as "fate" was actually self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping. Because you're not running quantum computation by considering the alternatives at the same time, aka quantum parallelism. Whatever that you're predicting as your "fate" all along, is exactly what you've been doing based on what you only knew, but not what you don't know.


Dom, I'm talking about people, not subatomic particles. Just because electrons can be at a location and not be at a location at the same time, doesn't mean I can be in class and not be in class at the same time. I would advice you to read some of the criticisms of schrodinger's cat and see how that stuff has zero implications in everyday life.

You say my "fate" definition is a self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, what exactly am I stereotyping in this definition?


fate is the only scenario that actually happens for an individual., which by definition can only be a singularity.


Are you trying to say I'm stereotyping against the passage of time? I'm making a stereotype because I said that all futures converge upon one present and that becomes the only present, which consequently means there is only one meaningful future, and all others are inconsequential because they never happen? Also, do you know how self-fulfilling prophecies work? They need to gain the acceptance of the group of people the stereotype effects in order to become self-fulfilling. Time, however, is an impartial agent. It does not care what stereotype you give it, it will still function exactly as it has since forever.
People don't have "free will", only individual within a collective does. This is why I see human society as a quantum machine; the moment that you convert it into a singularity, it stops working as it supposed to. Therefore you are yourself an individual, you're not the will of the people. The moment you start to think like that, you're stereotyping. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with duality created by uncertainty, so your lack of understand in quantum theory makes your argument a moot point. Just as with your lack of understanding of how time is in fact a concept of relativity between two exact objects that each possesses different time dilation.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/29/10 , edited 10/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What you been referring to as "fate" was actually self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping. Because you're not running quantum computation by considering the alternatives at the same time, aka quantum parallelism. Whatever that you're predicting as your "fate" all along, is exactly what you've been doing based on what you only knew, but not what you don't know.


Dom, I'm talking about people, not subatomic particles. Just because electrons can be at a location and not be at a location at the same time, doesn't mean I can be in class and not be in class at the same time. I would advice you to read some of the criticisms of schrodinger's cat and see how that stuff has zero implications in everyday life.

You say my "fate" definition is a self-fulfilling prophecy stemmed from stereotyping, what exactly am I stereotyping in this definition?


fate is the only scenario that actually happens for an individual., which by definition can only be a singularity.


Are you trying to say I'm stereotyping against the passage of time? I'm making a stereotype because I said that all futures converge upon one present and that becomes the only present, which consequently means there is only one meaningful future, and all others are inconsequential because they never happen? Also, do you know how self-fulfilling prophecies work? They need to gain the acceptance of the group of people the stereotype effects in order to become self-fulfilling. Time, however, is an impartial agent. It does not care what stereotype you give it, it will still function exactly as it has since forever.


People don't have "free will", only individual does. This is why I see human society as a quantum machine; the moment that you convert it into a singularity, it stops working as it supposed to. Therefore you are yourself an individual, you're not the will of the people. The moment you start to think like that, you're stereotyping. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with duality created by uncertainty, so your lack of understand in quantum theory makes your argument a moot point. Just as with your lack of understanding of how time is in fact a concept of relativity between two exact objects that each possesses different time dilation.


Maybe my lack of understanding is mainly caused by your inability to express your ideas clearly and coherently so I can actually understand what you're talking about. I thought your argument against the "predetermined future" was based on the ideas of duality created by uncertainty. If it's not, then what are you basing your arguments on?

Aside from that, I never once said I was the will of the people. I made examples of certain individuals in their individual lives with their individual scenarios, I never once tried to express that certain individual's particular scenario as the scenario of all humanity. Only that the problem of choice is a problem faced by most, if not all of humanity.

It is apparent to me that all humans must make choices, and those choices create their futures. Note: it doesn't always create the futures the choice makers intended, but it will always create the futures that the choices cause to exist. The choices that people make are then determined by A.) their biological chemistry, B.) their past experiences, both of which are already predetermined and beyond the individual's ability to change. So in the end you end up with the future that was always meant to be.

Also your "lecture" to me about how time works, maybe you should again take the time to understand me before jumping to conclusions based on your desire for me to be wrong. My point when I stated time as an impartial agent means that no matter how you "think" time works, it will still work the way it's supposed to work. Hence it is impossible to have a self-fulfilling prophecy against time itself, because it can never be effected by an attack on it's self-image, since it doesn't have one.

PS: I'm wondering dom, are you still in this conversation because you want to discuss the issue at hand? Or do you just want to prove me wrong no matter what methods you have to resort to? Though I understand both of these intentions are not mutually exclusive, which one is more important to you? You don't have to give me an answer but at least be honest with yourself. If you actually want to have a discussion, then I urge you to come back and try to sincerely understand what I'm trying to say before making a remark. If you really just want to prove me wrong, then fine, you win. I admit that my posts are all bullsh*t. Please go away.
Posted 10/29/10
Yeah, but we don't know our futures.
17865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / some where heaven...
Offline
Posted 11/15/10

Daniel9878 wrote:

Do not read this if you get confused easily (lack of brain power)



There is only one future
If the proposed future did not come to pass, then it was not the future
therefore the future will all ways be the future and you cannot change it

In a persons life, the events that take place are his/her future
if not, well then it is not their future

The only thing that effects a persons future/ outcome/ actions is the body and mind they're born with
and where they are born, the place they are born cannot be changed, neither is it the child's choice
because everything they do in the future will always come to pass, it is and always will be the future

All the external factors to your choices and dessicions were all part of the future
Everything you do, was all decided the moment you we're born
and everything that happens later in life is the effect of external forces that were gonna happen anyway.
There is no such thing as free will

The only way you can change your future, is change who you are when you are born, your very essence.
and if you are a believer in god, well then he controls who you are born as
therefore he controls your future and judges you for his choice



i really disagreed this.....our fate already be decided when we're born.....if we choose the path that our future,beside it was apart of fate....




Posted 11/19/10
As opposed to...multiple?
30256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Davao
Offline
Posted 11/25/10
I feel terribly sorry for the topic starter.
He/she must have a shitty sort of life right now.
I believe that we all have the right to dictate our own future.
We are who we choose to be.
66074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 11/27/10
Your life is dictated be your own will and choices you make. There will always be outside factors that can become barriers to a person. That they will over come or not thats free will and chose the path they follow. Then again all people are not created equal that just life from mental make-up sex hight so forth. People that believe everyones life should be fair is a fool.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 12/11/10

tarakelly wrote:

Your life is dictated be your own will and choices you make. There will always be outside factors that can become barriers to a person. That they will over come or not thats free will and chose the path they follow. Then again all people are not created equal that just life from mental make-up sex hight so forth. People that believe everyones life should be fair is a fool.



If I sent you back 5 years in time with the same memory, body and mind. You would do everything exactly the same.
This would also be true if I sent you back to when you were born.

Hence meaning: everything that ends up happening, is determined by your mind and body at the time of birth.




























First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.