User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 75

  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Determined. Randomness is nothing more than a appellation to events who's causes are either unknown or pointless to declare because what determines them is at a level that is irrelevant to one's focus.

  2. #62
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TautologousTautology View Post
    Determined. Randomness is nothing more than a appellation to events who's causes are either unknown or pointless to declare because what determines them is at a level that is irrelevant to one's focus.
    Of course how can yeu determine this without knowing said events and causes? There's no way to 100% proove this without knowing every single event and cause, shred of matter and energy in the universe XD

  3. #63
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    From the perspective of the individual? Random, mostly.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  4. #64

    Default

    It depends on your abstraction level. But if you want a single answer...

    Probabilistically determined...at least that is my interpretation of currently accepted science...and I am not including string theory since it hasn't had much (if any) empirical testing.

    There are 4 fundamental interactions. There are two forces of limited scale (that is distances that it effects stuff)...the strong nuclear force (responsible for holding nuclei together), the weak nuclear force (responsible for beta decay and other such things). The two other forces have infinite scale, and they are the more familiar electromagnetic force (electric field and magnetic field depends on your reference frame) and the force of gravity.

    At base, the universe of particles is governed by Schroedinger's Equation (or rather Dirac's Equation when you account for special relativity), which is an equation of the governing the square root of the probability that particle will be measured at a particular position. The equation also happens to be a wave equation.

    Similar equations, Quantum Electrodynamics, describe electromagnetic forces.

    Quantum chromodynamics, describes strong nuclear forces.

    A theory of weak interactions mimics the theory of electrodynamics except with different mediators.

    These theories are all probabilistic in nature. The descriptions are neither complete randomness, not completely determined.

    Then there is the completely deterministic description of gravity known as General Relativity.

    So at the physical microscopic level things are probabilistic.

    But as you get more macroscopic, the averaging effects (law of large numbers, central limit theorem, statistical mechanics, etc.) make the physical world LOOK completely deterministic. This is the world described by classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics.

    But as you keep going up in abstraction..chemistry, biology, etc. Things start getting very dynamic and hard to predict, but there remains regularity and an inkling that, underneath it all, it is deterministic. Nevertheless, we model things with a mix of completely deterministic and probabilistically determined ways.

    Then we get to the level of individual people...here things are extremely dynamics and essentially chaotic. Psychology, Philosophy, History, etc. all attempt to describe this level, but we are left with things like "consciousness," "choice," and other phenomenon that we are hard pressed to even explain probabilistically. Are these phenomena due solely to complexity, or does the base fundamentally probabilistic nature also play a role?

    Then we go up in abstraction and we start to study people in aggregate. This is the realm of demographics, sociology, economics, etc. Here again, we are aided by averaging effects. Things become more predictable, and somewhat amenable to probabilistic descriptions. However, the theories often break down, due to things referred to as "Black Swans" (rare events that have profound effects).

    I applaud those who read this far. This is something, I think about a lot.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #65
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Love the explaination ygolo, but... I disagree.

    The only reason these things are probabilistic in nature, is because we are not capable of knowing all the information at all times, if we learn one piece of information more accurately, we know another piece less accurately. It doesn't mean it's not structured, it just means that we CAN'T know the full extent of it.


    Here's a quick example:

    A+B=C
    There's a sliding door between A and B, covering either one at any time, each time yeu move the door to one side, it exposes the other one, and conceals the first, and recalculates the values of A and B. We know the value of A, by knowing the value of A, the value of B is automatically changed based upon A. As soon as we check whot the value of B is though, the value of A changes. Therefore we can never know both A and B at the same time as we're only able to view one of them.

    So as we check on A, we loose sight of whot B is, and the value of B is changed to reflect the answer of whot A is. As we check B, the value of A is changed. We can do this back and forth many times, estimating closer and closer to the guess of whot the relation between the two are, but if we don't know for certain whot that relationship is, there may be errors in it as well. If we get enough points of referance, we can guess whot C is for any given value of A or B, but we can never know for certain 100%. It doesn't mean that this's a randomized situation, or that it's even a probability. Our UNDERSTANDING of it is only able to be measured as a probability. The actual solution itself is completely rigid in structure, we just can't see all ends at the same time.

  6. #66

    Default

    Your perspective is analogous to what is known as the "hidden variable" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

    Sometimes also called the "realist" position. That is the belief that the particle was at a particular position, but it is just that we don't know where it is.

    Another interpretation is the "orthodox" position. Which says the particle wasn't anywhere in particular till you measured it. It was the actual measurement of a particle that produces the position.

    In 1964, John Bell came up with a way to distinguish the two positions experimentally. Suffice it to say the experiments come down on the side of the orthodox position, and against the realist position.

    That is to say experiments give evidence that until you measure the position of the particle, it really isn't anywhere.

    I am not well versed in QM enough to elucidate Bell's argument. However, I am taking a QM class this fall. Hopefully, after that, I will be able to explain why the particle really isn't anywhere.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #67
    Senior Member Sacrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Planned for adventures yes but for career kinda halfway. I plan with my career so i can have a adventure.

  8. #68
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Determinism: Irrelevant or incredibly irrelevant?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #69
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Determined/quantifiable. Not religiously.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  10. #70
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Life is whatever you make of it. So in that way, I guess it's determined.

Similar Threads

  1. Considering a huge shift in my academic life. Yay or Nay?
    By GZA in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-16-2010, 10:37 PM
  2. Is it easier to live a life with or without religion?
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 06:25 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Life After (Or In Lieu Of) MBTI (Sensing Types Move On After Determing Type)...
    By "?" in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 08:26 AM
  4. Life: to be taken ambitiously or laid-back?
    By niki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 09:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO