Do you believe in fate? I can scientifically prove that it does exist.

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dave Matson's picture


"As I have said earlier, if the causes are exactly same, then the result should also be same..."
That is exactly what Nyarlathotep's magnetic moment experiment rebuts! How does the angle affect the probability? Nyarlathotep summed it up in that trigonometric formula. Remember? (The relative difference in the orientation of the magnetic field of the detector and the magnetic moment angle of the particle determines its odds of getting through.) How can we know that the magnetic moment of a particle is not affected by unseen influences in that experiment? The fact that all the particles in a zero degree orientation pass through the detector is proof that none of their magnetic moments have been influenced by unseen forces. (If our particle bumped into one of your teeny-tiny particles which somehow changed its magnetic moment angle, then its odds of passing through the detector would not be 1. That is, less than 100% of the particles would make it through. Since they all go through, their magnetic moments are clearly not being affected by unseen forces.) As to your last objection, identical CAUSES lead to a mix of two pathways. Of course a particular cause at a particular instant would always lead to one detected pathway. The point is that the same cause, applied over and over, leads to a mix of pathways in Nyarlathotep' experiment. That can't happen if determinism is true.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I always find it funny when

I always find it funny when someone tells you that everything in the universe is predetermined (including everyone's actions), then tells you what you should and shouldn't do:
The Almighty - "Being atheist, we shouldn't have the traits of theist that makes us choose atheism."
The Almighty - "So you should keep an eye and tongue on him"

Almost exactly 1 year ago, I posted the following here. It seems more accurate than ever:
Nyarlathotep (2015) - "In my experience, everyone acts as if we do have freewill, even the people who claim we do not."

God Follower's picture
I thought you like sarcasm

I read your comment with the same tone as i used to read theist's argument's like " If there is no god, why should we have morals?" "Why do we exist here?"..

Weird.. isn't?

CyberLN's picture
Perhaps the more important

Perhaps the more important question about whether free will does or does not exist, at least for the time being, is, does it matter? We typically behave as though it exists and most folks think it does. In the grand scheme of human life, how any given particle behaves is trumped by how we view our ability to choose.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Almighty - "As I have

The Almighty - "As I have said earlier, If the causes are exactly same, then the result should also be same"
The Almighty - "If it was determined in some way then the path would always go one way or the other"

"Identical electrons following identical paths to the slits will hit the screen in different locations. Nature herself does not know where an electron will strike the screen before the electron actually hits."


"In the experiment, angle for the magnetic moment is dependent.- Yes.. And how does the angle affect the probability?"

Actually the angle is the independent variable, remember the function?
P(θ) = [cos(θ/2)]^2
And that function is also the answer your other question, ("how does it effect the probability?"). Your answer is in the function.

The Almighty - "At any particular instant, there is only one way. There isn't any mix."

This contradicts one of the postulates of quantum mechanics, superposition; which states that given 2 valid states of a system that any linear combination of these states is also valid. For example if the state |a> is valid, and the state |b> is valid, then the state (i/3)|a> + (2sqrt(2)/3)|b> is valid. You'll notice that this state is extremely non-classical, not only is it a mix of 2 valid states, it has a complex phase (an imaginary number) in the first term! Yet it is still a perfectly valid state. Not only is mixing allowed, there is no limit to the amount you can mix them (any linear combination, which is a fancy word for just multiplying each state by a number).

Also for anyone who hasn't fallen asleep, believe it or not you can do some of these experiments yourself at no cost! IBM has been gracious enough to allow free access to their 5 qbit computer (quantum computer) ( In a later post I'll take some screenshots and show how to set up an experiment similar to the one I described earlier in this thread. An interesting paragraph on the welcome page:

IBM - "In order to comprehend the quantum world, you must l̲e̲t̲ ̲g̲o̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲y̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲f̲s̲ ̲a̲b̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲o̲u̲r̲ ̲p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲, and develop an intuition for a completely different (and often surprising) set of laws...By making quantum concepts more widely understood—even on a general level— we can more deeply explore all the possibilities quantum computing offers, and more rapidly bring its exciting power to a world t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲n̲k̲s̲ ̲i̲t̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲l̲i̲m̲i̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲l̲a̲w̲s̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲s̲."

Sound like anyone you know?

It is also funny that typically the very first thing I do in my experiments is to put the system into a superposition of all possible angles. Remember "The Almighty" said there isn't any mixing of these paths, meanwhile I (well IBM does on my instructions) does an infinite amount of mixing. You can also erase this mixing by reversing the steps later. Remember "The Almighty" tells us that the apparent randomness is an artifact of millions of unaccounted for particles. Funny how we can retroactively and perfectly disable all these millions of particles, by preforming a small rotation at a later time, in a different location.

God Follower's picture
Again and again and again,

Again and again and again, you are not understanding what I am saying..
1) Cause are exactly same: we can only say that if get into next level of detail (atleast), which is not yet studied, to say cause are exactly same .. (And yet again you misinterpreted definition of 'cause')
2) "How does it affect the probability?"-I didn't ask the equation.. I asked why the initial angle is affecting the alignment..
3) Yes.. In the experiment you are making an observation.. And then you conclude that there is no reason for this behaviour.. Or it is electrons property.. But guess what? every property has a reason and are you claiming not??
4) "Remember "The Almighty" said there isn't any mixing of these paths"" didn't you see the word "at any instant".. or is it your habit of missing the key words?

"Funny how we can retroactively and perfectly disable all these millions of particles, by preforming a small rotation at a later time, in a different location." I didn't get it. (maybe I have poor taste in sarcasm).

Now I believe with this comment, you are not trying to prove your "truism" theory (which i hope is not abandoned,yet).

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Almighty - "Now I believe

The Almighty - "Now I believe with this comment, you are not trying to prove your "truism" theory (which i hope is not abandoned,yet)"

Listen, no one likes to be spammed with quotes from sources, so I tried to present the arguement in my own words. What did I get for my trouble? Your accusation that this is somehow my theory. This theory is over 80 years old, and it taught in the physics departments at universities all around the world (which is exactly where I learned it). Perhaps I did a poor job explaining it so here comes the pain:

IBM (from the documenation for their qcomputer) - "The qubit does not always have to be in just |0> or |1> or but can be in any quantum state, denoted |Ψ> , which can be any superposition |Ψ> = α|0> + β|1>, of the basis vectors. The superposition quantities α and β are complex numbers..."

IBM - "A point of fascination is that a quantum measurement takes any superposition state of the qubit, and projects it to either the state |0> or the state |1> with a probability determined from the parameters of the superposition."

IBM - "The qubit should spend half its time in the |0> state and the other half in the |1> state. Before the measurement forced it to choose, t̲h̲e̲ ̲q̲u̲b̲i̲t̲ ̲w̲a̲s̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲b̲o̲t̲h̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲a̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲c̲e̲."

IBM - "If you run this circuit you will find that, like before, the outcomes are equal. D̲i̲f̲f̲e̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲g̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲c̲o̲m̲e̲s̲!"

IBM - "This is not a limitation of the measurement, but a̲ ̲f̲u̲n̲d̲a̲m̲e̲n̲t̲a̲l̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲q̲u̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲u̲n̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲t̲y̲ ̲p̲r̲i̲n̲c̲i̲p̲l̲e̲."

IBM - "One of the infamous counterintuitive ideas of quantum mechanics is that two systems that appear too far apart to influence each other can nevertheless behave in ways that, though individually random, are t̲o̲o̲ ̲s̲t̲r̲o̲n̲g̲l̲y̲ ̲c̲o̲r̲r̲e̲l̲a̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲."

IBM - "Bell showed that if these measurements are chosen correctly for a given entangled state, s̲t̲a̲t̲i̲s̲t̲i̲c̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲e̲x̲p̲l̲a̲i̲n̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲h̲i̲d̲d̲e̲n̲ ̲v̲a̲r̲i̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲, and that there must be correlations that are b̲e̲y̲o̲n̲d̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲."

IBM - "GHZ states demonstrate an even stronger violation of local reality than Bell's inequality. Instead of a probabilistic violation of an inequality, the GHZ states lead to a deterministic violation of an equality."

IBM - "So, as Mermin pointed out, the GHZ test described above c̲o̲n̲t̲r̲a̲d̲i̲c̲t̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲p̲o̲s̲s̲i̲b̲i̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲s̲ ̲b̲e̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲r̲e̲a̲l̲i̲t̲y̲!"

IBM - "the GHZ test can r̲u̲l̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲r̲e̲a̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲p̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲w̲i̲t̲h̲ ̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲t̲y̲ after a single run of the experiment"

IBM - "The ability of quantum computers to exist in entangled states is responsible for much of their extra computing power, as well as many other feats of quantum information processing that t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲p̲e̲r̲f̲o̲r̲m̲e̲d̲,̲ ̲o̲r̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲,̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲l̲y̲."

IBM - "This implies that a quantum system in a perfectly definite state can be certain under one measurement and c̲o̲m̲p̲l̲e̲t̲e̲l̲y̲ ̲r̲a̲n̲d̲o̲m̲ under another."

As I've told you from the start, this idea of yours is done (classical mechanics/clockwork universe), it has been done for more than 80 years. It blew my mind too when I learned it. I still find myself falling back on it, but it is wrong. QM might someday be shown to be wrong, but it won't be replaced with classical mechanics, cuz that dog don't hunt.

God Follower's picture
I didn't say you formulated

I didn't say you formulated the "truism" theory.. But you are arguing on the bases of that, by saying that it is true because it it should be. Which ,I believe, is satisfactorily ruled out by my "coin" example.

1) "D̲i̲f̲f̲e̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲g̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲c̲o̲m̲e̲s̲!" Yes. And what are you trying to say?
2) ̲"f̲u̲n̲d̲a̲m̲e̲n̲t̲a̲l̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲q̲u̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲u̲n̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲t̲y̲ ̲p̲r̲i̲n̲c̲i̲p̲l̲e̲." Do you really know uncertainty principle? "the principle that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be precisely determined at the same time." And does that mean ,at any instant, the particle doesn't have accurate position and momentum?- No. It states that we cannot "precisely determine" . It doesn't mean that we can never determine even if we have advanced technologies.
3) "there must be correlations that are b̲e̲y̲o̲n̲d̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲." did I say classical theory is ultimate? Infact I am not at all supporting "classical theory". It is you who said I am talking "classical theory"
4) "c̲o̲n̲t̲r̲a̲d̲i̲c̲t̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲p̲o̲s̲s̲i̲b̲i̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲s̲ ̲b̲e̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲r̲e̲a̲l̲i̲t̲y̲" I am not talking about local reality. I am talking about ultimate reality since the beginning of this thread. (And I think you already know that too)
5) "quantum computers"- Again, this computer is not working on "quantum level".. And If we enter exact same data and we are getting a mix, then what does that mean? Either there is something wrong with computer OR the process done on the data allows a mix of outcome. Remember ,this process is not physically established in "quantum level", but in a level where it precisely follows "classical physics"(which is the way you usually call it).. So what is it justifying? My claim that tiniest particle is subjected to some laws or your claim that after certain level, no such laws exist?
I am not trying to disprove QM. I am saying that this isn't the ultimate theory and that it is going to replace "classical mechanics" ... ie there would be a better cat that would get it's food without hunting, from human slave.

Dave Matson's picture
Perhaps you haven't yet read

Perhaps you haven't yet read my reply to your post #144. 1) The "cause" is the relative difference between the orientation of the particle's magnetic moment and the orientation of the detector's magnetic field. No further understanding is needed. Indeed, the "cause" doesn't even have to be exact since a tiny difference between the relative angles can only produce a tiny change in the observed probabilities. You still have to explain how almost-similar "causes" (which according to determinism should lead to a strong statistical preference for one path) can lead to the 50% mix for the case of 90 degrees. 2) Don't understand your question. The relative alignment of the angle of magnetic moment for a particle with the magnetic field of the detector (actually a filter, but it could also be a detector if we added a detection component) determines its chances of passing--according to the formula given by Nyarlathotep. Why it does that is irrelevant to our discussion. 3) Define "reason" as you mean it. Are we talking metaphysics here? Is it a code word for a deterministic cause? If the latter, then we have already ruled it out. There is no cause in that sense when we are dealing with these quantum results. 4) My post addresses your concern here as far as detected paths are concerned. How do you deal with the superpositional state which allows a mix of possibilities? That was Nyarlathotep's point.

By the way, we are still waiting for your "proof" against true randomness. At least pull some evidence out of the silk hat!

God Follower's picture
"The "cause" is the relative

"The "cause" is the relative difference between the orientation of the particle's magnetic moment and the orientation of the detector's magnetic field. No further understanding is needed" - "CAUSE""CAUSE""CAUSE" how does it cause? -it is related to square of cosine function of half the initial angle.- No I mean why does the initial angle influence probability? Nyarlathotep summed it up in that trigonometric formula. Why it does that is irrelevant to our discussion -I am done
2) It wasn't a question

Dave Matson's picture
Is there a cause? Who cares?

Is there a cause? Who cares? It's the results we are talking about! Is this another of your many diversions?

You began with a bold claim of proof and we indulged your every whim, your every digression down irrelevant ally ways, your metaphysical queries, and yet we are no closer to your evidence! Indeed, you had the audacity to inform us that such evidence would eventually be discovered, that it was not presently available! And, you are still meandering about and muddying the waters! You refuse (or are unable) to properly address our points in a structured, logical manner.

I think it is time to say "Goodbye, Mr. Almighty." Come back when you have a real proof backed up by real evidence! There's no point in following your meandering any further.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Almighty - "It doesn't

The Almighty - "It doesn't mean that we can never determine even if we have advanced technologies."

This is 100% WRONG. I know it seems reasonable, but it is wrong; and as long as you continue to hold this mathematically discredited idea, you will (probably) continue to think everything is predetermined. This is the major stumbling block, so I will concentrate on it. Since you don't seem willing to accept anything I have to say on the matter, I will just link academic sources telling you that you are wrong on this key point:
"that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature"

"This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions."

"Notice that this is not the measurement problem in another form, the combination of position, energy (momentum) and time are actually undefined for a quantum particle until a measurement is made"

"the uncertainty principle states that there is a built-in uncertainty, indeterminacy, unpredictability to Nature."
"the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology."
"This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."
the uncertainty principle states that there is a built-in uncertainty, indeterminacy, unpredictability to Nature.
"Even if we try to imagine the “perfect” measuring instruments, we cannot determine the exact position and exact momentum simultaneously. Such a device can never be built."
"This principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational limitation of current technology"

"Uncertainty guarantees genuine source of randomness"

"if uncertainty principle is taken as granted, then genuine source of intrinsic randomness can be certified not only in quantum mechanics but in all probabilistic theory."
"This imprecision is not due to limits in current technology. It represents a fundamental limitation of our ability to know the properties of a particle. No improvement in technology could overcome this barrier and allow for a more complete picture."
It's OK if you don't understand why what you said is wrong, but I'd like to see some progress here. Could you acknowledge that your statement "it doesn't mean that we can never determine even if we have advanced technologies" is wrong?

God Follower's picture
I am done

[((Again and )^4)/and] you are claiming(or concluding) that exact location and momentum doesn't exist even if it says that it cannot be measured by any means.
Let me give you a few examples that I believe would make you think that there is difference between "to know" and "truth":
Distance between 2 stars cannot be measured precisely.
Temperature of stars cannot be measured precisely.
Light cannot be detected in vacuum without any substance.

But these doesn't mean that these values are not precise at any instant of time.- Whether you are convinced or not I am done.

God Follower's picture
This would be my last comment

This would be my last comment in this thread.

I am convinced that all my assumption and claims are wrong or invalid. I understand the fallacy and lack of strong evidence in my arguments.
I appreciate everyone, for their comments to convince me, and at the same time, I apologise for wasting your valuable time.
I understand that randomness is the essence of this universe and everything couldn't have a reason behind it.

Once again I apologise for my ignorance.

chimp3's picture
The Almighty : "I understand

The Almighty : "I understand that randomness is the essence of this universe and everything couldn't have a reason behind it."

I do not think anyone implied that there were not reasons for events. Your original premise was that every event had been predetermined at the time of the Big Bang . Every event. Your argument was a claim about fate. Not laws or possibilities. You end your claim about fate by conceding randomness. Yet I do not remember anyone else claiming randomness was the only other possibility. Perhaps as one variable but not the only variable. So your concession is yet another fallacy.

Sir Random's picture
"I understand that randomness

"I understand that randomness is the essence of this universe and everything couldn't have a reason behind it."

*Raises his eyebrow*

Nyarlathotep's picture
I promised earlier in this

I promised earlier in this thread to post some stuff from the IBM 5 qbit computer. Below is a link to the experiments I ran at 0, 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees. Below each outcome is the quantum circuit I constructed to implement the experiment. The pink needle symbol at the end just means preform a measurement. The orange "T" represents a 45 degree rotation (so the 90 degree rotation is just two of these, for example). The blue H's I won't discuss at this point as I'm try to keep this simple. Some things to notice:

1) No matter what angle is input, the outcome is either 0 or 1 (0 means 0 degrees, 1 means 180 degrees).

2) Each experiment is run 1024 times, so the results we are seeing is the distribution of outcomes. So a result of 0.52 means 52% of the time we got the result in question.

3) The system is always started in the state |0> which is just a fancy way of saying it starts at 0 degrees.

4) You might notice some small errors in the range of about 2%, (very obvious on the last experiment at 180 degrees). These happen because the system is not perfectly cold (and other real world problems). The average temperature of the processor unit is about 0.02 degrees above absolute zero, but even this is warm enough to get disrupt the experiment a little. An interesting side note: the colder and colder you make the experiment, the closer and closer it comes to our idealized prediction of pure randomness.

PS: if you are interested, it is totally free, just have to make an account. It's fun!

Sapporo's picture
I think that everything is

I think that everything is determined by natural laws and is thus not random, but I do not think that should give the justification to act irresponsibly. This may seem absurd, but my rationale is that we are subjective beings and at least have the illusion of free will.

MCDennis's picture
You are demonstrating cause

You are demonstrating cause and effect --- not fate

Samhain's picture
This thread is over 4 years

This thread is over 4 years old and probably no one cares but as much I hate to agree with the OP, since he is a religious troll, his claim about "fate" actually has scientific roots. According to the block universe theory, which is strongly supported by Einstein's relativity and accepted by most physicists, all of time past present future exists simultaneously and only our brains perceive it like it's flowing.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.