Fate

I don't believe in faith. I do believe everyone including my self's decisions influence everything around me and will continue through out time. ( i don't believe in some logic defying bullshit)

When the probability becomes predictable, isn't it still deterministic? I admit I have never studied quantum mechanics, so I don't know very much about it, but I did attend several seminars on quantum computing and quantum cryptography. In the second topic, it is interesting that you can use the probability in quantum mechanics to send a clear digital signal and also detect the presence of someone eavesdropping on the signal. If quantum mechanics was fully probabilistic, it doesn't logically follow that we could use it for anything deterministic, but somehow we can and do.

Sounds much more to me like Schrodinger's equation is simply compensating for an unknown factor. Maybe similar to what classic physics was before Einstein came up with special relativity. Again though, I haven't really read up on quantum mechanics, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. I should probably do some research on it, heh.

Well, what is predictable is the wavefunction, or... let's say... the distribution of the probabilities of the outcomes, not the result of measurement itself. about the signal, they make use of entangled systems to do that. this is thanks to the fact that even though entangled systems are in fuzzy state prior to measurement, their fuzziness are also entangled, so when one pokes one side the other also behaves as if it is also poked.

lol, weird stuff, but that's exactly what EPR paper is all about. einstein argued that if that is the case, then entangled particles must have those properties all along and there must be no fuzziness in the first place. well, all those leads to shits like spooky action at a distance and stuff. too bad Bell showed those spooky things are indeed real, and quantum cryptography was born. =_=

I agree, quantum mechanics is indeed incomplete. but as things stand it is the most complete stuff we have so far. xD

Ah well. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it, and I can't be bothered to spend hours on wikipedia trying to figure it all out. In any case, there still isn't any free will even assuming that our choices are partially probabilistic (which again doesn't make sense... but whatever). Choices just become unpredictable and random then... which doesn't really hold up to observable evidence, but again, whatever.

+rep to you for your impressive grasp on quantum mechanics/theory

fate only has to do with how you are born

- What sex you are born as
- Where you are born
- Your family's status
- When you are born

From that point on, it is mostly up to you.

That's a good point. But honestly, do you feel that even the time of your convceive, that was already decide? Fate is but what we make.

Your concept is not the same as my concept ... besides, theory meant to be against if it has flaws .. like what you did to my theory now ..

i simply try to imply that fate is not something already written, you can say it has decided ... but it contain several possibilities ..
and it is depend on yours to choose ..
what is the possible output you may got ? who knows ..

yet people still bitching about their life ... and so on .. they keep complaining bad luck and fate ... without doing something better to do to raise his/her value

Ok wrong word, scratch that. what i meant was " people who fails in life" and saying that fate is the reason why this shit is happening to them are the deluded ones.



dude, that's bullshit. so all of those people that died due to either sickness, hunger or murder is fate that God has planned?

Don't mind the Einstein quote, it was supposed to be something pithy that relates to what he mentioned previously.

This is the real point.

Also, let's say he was talking about god's plan. How does people's suffering in any way disprove fate? Saying "that's bullshit" is not much of an argument. God does not have to be benevolent, you know.

Nothing...but when he added the "God does not play dice", it gives a different meaning.

*The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines events.*
by that supposed power, he meant God.


mentally impossible, even if you dedicate your whole life studying a particular subject, you won't be able to know everything about it... well except batman.

No it doesn't. Plus, if you read the rest of the thread past his post, you'll see that the Einstein quote wasn't really properly used.


Nope, but I guess you won't take my word for it until Static makes a response. He even says that he doesn't believe in fate in the mystical sense.


Irrelevant. The key words are "If" and "Theoretically".

Rbz has the right of it. If you know anything about me, you know that I don't believe in god or religion. I only used the Einstein quote as a sort of call to authority argument, and only for how it relates to Einstein's belief in determinism, not for any religious beliefs he may have had.



Lets pretend you didn't know I was atheist though, which is reasonable if you have not been tracking the other threads in serious discussion. Reading my post, it should have been obvious that I believe in determinism. While it is possible for religion and determinism to co-exist in the same belief system, traditional religion preaches that you have free will. The alternative is as you say, god would have to willingly and knowingly allow sickness, hunger and murder, and for what? The traditional argument is that god allows these things to exist so that we can experience free will, but with the deterministic view this doesn't work, because under the deterministic view god becomes a tyrant for allowing these things.

So it should have already been apparent that I either believed god to be a tyrant or I didn’t actually believe in god at all. Regardless though, it is generally a poor idea to suppose you knew what someone else had intended to say, if they didn’t actually say it. It is generally an even worse idea to incorporate such a blatant presumption into your argument.

But since my use of the Einstein quote has yielded so much misunderstanding in this thread, I think I should point out that the context of the quote has absolutely nothing to do with god. Einstein did not say what he said because of his belief in god, he said it because of his belief in determinism. His reference to god in the quote is only a byproduct of his belief structure, and not really the essence of the quote as you suppose. It is only a summation of Einstein’s opinion regarding the possibility that nature could be governed by probability on the smallest scale (quantum mechanics). Einstein, for whatever his religious beliefs might have been, was a very scientific person, and the quote really only illustrates his determination that the world is governed by precise laws. I will find you sources if you like.



I believe I already stated in one of my other posts that it is impossible to know everything, due entirely to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This experimental limit does not undermine my point however. I don’t really need to reiterate this, since Rbz already pointed it out as well, but I think it is worthwhile to confirm regardless..