Nothing is random. Everything happens according to scientific set of rules.. Why was there this rules in the first place?
Since everything in this universe react according to the scientific rules which is either proven or not yet discovered, next thing going to happen is based on history of every particle. So the probability of anything is either 0 or 1. From the movement of smallest particle to transfer of nerve impulse to the death of star, everything happens based on the history of the tiniest substance. So if we could make a hyper computer that can process the set of rules on the tiniest substance from the big bang, then we can see everything that have happened till the making of hyper computer; and then it will be stuck on an infinite loop. So it means that everything that have happened have 1 probability and that didn't have probability 0. Which proves that existence of FATE.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What you are describing is Newton's clockwork universe, and you are 100% right (about a clockwork universe). However, we don't live in a clockwork universe. There are events which are random. A couple examples are the decay of an atom, or the transmission of a photon through a polarized filter. You might think these examples are just trivial things in the sub-atomic world, but these effects can be amplified. If someone was sufficiently crazy, they could hook a gun up to a photon detector, and fire a photon through a filter at the detector. Now whether or not they are alive tomorrow is totally determined by chance.
Even the tiniest particle follows scientific laws. And by tiniest, I mean tiniest ever possible, ie particles smaller than neutrino. Decay of atom is caused by internal substance within the neutron and definitely it follows laws. Everything in this universe follows laws. So nothing is random.
The Almighty -"Even the tiniest particle follows scientific laws."
Those laws have randomness built into them.
The Almighty - "Decay of atom is caused by internal substance within the neutron and definitely it follows laws."
That is actually wrong. Neutrons obey Fermi–Dirac statistics, which means they are antisymmetric (they are identical) so your idea (which seems totally reasonable) is doomed.
"Those laws have randomness built into them." -so much details makes it almost impossible to calculate exact behaviour. But that doesn't mean that it is random. It is effected by it's history.
Same explanation suits to Fermi-Dirac statistics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Well this will be my last attempt to convince you that you are making a classic argument about a system that is not classical. Mathematically, antisymmetric objects (identical particles) are required to obey a different set of statistical distributions than non-identical objects. It has been long observed that fermions (neutrons, electrons, etc) obey this "new" statistical distribution. This means they are all the same, and they can not distinguished from each other, even in principle. Their internal structure (if any) must also be the same. Even if they contain things we don't know about, those things must also be the same! You can not blame the random outcome of experiments on differences between antisymmetric objects, because there are no differences by definition. Nature can't not tell them apart, and if there is a god, he can't tell them apart either. Because if anything can tell them apart---EVEN IN PRINCIPLE---then they are not really identical, and won't obey the mathematics of identical particles.
"The implications of this (which are described in Chapter 6 of Richard Feynman's The Character of Physical Law) are staggering. If everything in nature exhibits the wave-particle duality and is described by probability waves, then n̲o̲t̲h̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲n̲a̲t̲u̲r̲e̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y̲ ̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲. We can only talk about how nature will probably behave. Of course, the probability that Newton's laws will be obeyed for large objects like baseballs is very, very, very nearly a certainty. But certainty does not describe nature on a small scale, the scale of atoms, molecules, electric circuits, and neural pathways. For example, we cannot predict where a given electron will strike the screen after passing through a double slit. We can only say that there is a high probability it will strike in one of the bright bands of the interference pattern, and a low probability it will strike in one of the dark bands. I̲d̲e̲n̲t̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲l̲e̲c̲t̲r̲o̲n̲s̲ ̲f̲o̲l̲l̲o̲w̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲i̲d̲e̲n̲t̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲p̲a̲t̲h̲s̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲l̲i̲t̲s̲ ̲w̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲h̲i̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲c̲r̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲d̲i̲f̲f̲e̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲s̲. Nature herself does not know where an electron will strike the screen before the electron actually hits."
As I have said earlier, "nothing in nature is absolutely certain" because we have to account for tremendous amount of other particles influencing it. But that doesn't make it random. It only makes it almost impossible to calculate. And yes you don't have to say same thing over and over again if you didn't understand what i said
Can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
I always consider a philosophical answer as a defeat.. Especially if it is nothing related to the stuff, but personal. Feels sorry for you.
Sadly this isn't a physics classroom. There is only so much I can do for you. Good luck with your classical arguments!
Since science doesn't know what the laws if any apply to the subatomic world you point is invalid. You cannot say and you did not prove that things are not random.
I really like(hate) it when fools profess things that they don't know anything about such as you have done here. It is both amusing and pathetic.
You said you could "prove" your assertion. You have provided only more assertions, not proof.
please read all my comments in this thread
The Almighy: Well , prove it scientifically. This will require more than a philosophical argument. Do you know the difference?
It is a hypothetical construct and not far from an axiom. Also majority of physical laws are hypothesis and yet accepted.
PS: If you do not have any valid argument, kindly ignore.
Its funny that we have people claiming there is no randomness, when you can buy a true random number generator.
I was expecting a better argument. But the random number generator would be the weakest ever possible.It is based on algorithms. Going by your previous replies, you have fallen deeply.
An arrogant and condescending attitude is a poor substitute for clarification, elaboration, sources, etc.
"majority of physical laws are hypothesis and yet accepted"
A small correction: A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomena that can often be described by mathematical models. As such, the laws of physics can be observed / calculated / repeated / verified.
However the explanation as to why or how the specific phenomena is occurring may well be hypothetical.
( To learn and clarify such terms, I started a specific thread on the subject. Here are the conclusions: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/clarifying-terms-hypot... )
"Also majority of physical laws are hypothesis and yet accepted."
Complete drivel, you don't know what a scientific law is do you? I'll bet hard cash you can't define a scientific theory either. Or how both aromatically differ from mere hypothesis. Though the hilarity of you claiming scientific evidence for something that is axiomatically not accepted by science as evidenced at all, then denigrating scientific facts that are accepted as true by science, isn't wasted on anyone who has a basic grasp of the scientific process. Also what has this to do with atheism?
If you want to know whether there is scientific evidence for fate *or anything supernatural* visit a major news network, and see if the claim is being ticker taped across the bottom of the screen.
"PS: If you do not have any valid argument, kindly ignore."
Well quite, physician heal thyself....
Let me in a small secret. I am a hardcore atheist. I projected myself as a believer just to make you come up with strong arguments. And Nothing seems to be strong enough.
Have a nice day
Not withstanding your lack of grammar or maybe a typo....! I doubt that you actually tried to fool anyone. I believe that you are a theist that found out that you were way over your proverbial head, and are now trying to make excuses. Lame, very lame!
I am atheist and I know there is no such super power exist. I just do not believe in god; I know that there is no god. I came here from Facebook BTW..It is really depressing that atheist also agree with other atheists no matter what they speak and disagree with theist even if they are right.
I am still waiting for the evidence for your axioms.
You better have a lot of patience if you're going to wait for that...
@ The Almighty
"I am atheist and I know there is no such super power exist. I just do not believe in god; I know that there is no god."
Since you actually "know that there is no god", I'm very interested in hearing about any evidence for that as well. In fact, I bet the whole world is interested in hearing about it.
So are you the type of atheist who thinks god actually exist and ready to believe in it when some miracle happens?
@ The Almighty
"are you the type of atheist who thinks god actually exist"
I didn't know it was possible to that be "type of atheist", since the definition of an atheist is someone who lacks faith in a god or gods. Your suggestion is childish and provocative, and I think we should rise above that type of discussion.
To make it clear: No, I don't believe that a god exists.
However, you claim to *know* that no god exists and since you actually claim to *know*, then there should be something for you to actually base that knowledge on.
Sure, if you're talking about the god of the bible, if it is interpreted literally, we can know that Yahweh does not exist; Omnipotence alone takes care of that. But you haven't even defined what "god" you are talking about. If you are talking about a deist god, then you cannot claim to know that it doesn't exist, you can only state that "You don't believe that it exists".
Not necessarily. For example, we can say "I know that Pythagoras theorem is not wrong" instead of " I believe that Pythagoras theorem is not wrong"
@ The Almighty
Yes, of course you can express it different ways. But the meaning is not exactly the same. There is still a major difference when claiming 'to believe' or 'to know'.
My point isn't to berate you about this, but to make people aware of the difference. Claiming to know what we actually don't know, can get people into very problematic discussions and incorrect reasoning. It's much better to be humble and only claim to know what can actually be known.
If you say "I believe that Pythagoras theorem is not wrong",
you are stating that you *are not* 100% sure.
If you say "I know that Pythagoras theorem is not wrong",
you are stating that you *are* 100% sure.
And there are quite a few atheists who claim to *know* that there is no god.
If you believe that your favorite football team is going to win, you think they are going to win but you are leaving room for the possibility that they won't win.
If you know that your favorite football team is going to win, you are claiming that they *are* going to win.
There is also a difference between lacking belief that there is a god, and believing that there is no god:
I completely lack belief that there is any god, because there is nothing to base such a belief on. But I also believe that there is no god, but I cannot *know* that for sure.
@chimp3 sadly axioms cannot be proven...
So , where is the science in your argument?