• Moose


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  


About Bipin

  • Rank

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New BATs: http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=3238

Recent Profile Visitors

7,995 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by Bipin

  1. your




    highly predictable.

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. RandyE


      It seems if determinism is an absolute, then it is self-refuting, it means nothing whether it is, or is not, either way, it is the same.  If determinism is not absolute, then free-will exists to some degree and so determinism can be opposed to some degree.  

      Of course, under absolute determinism, any free-will decision as to what degree determinism is not absolute would also be an illusion.

      Now, onward to world domination!!  *:thumb:

    3. Bipin


      You raise an interesting point here. I've always found it a bit funny that science is inherently deterministic, yet, determinism itself cannot be refuted by virtue of it being what it is. There is no way to prove or disprove it, yet it is fundamental to the scientific method, which necessitates that theories be testable. If it is refuted, then determinism does not exist, but at the same time, is that not what brought us the ability to posit that it can be disproven? Then therefore, it does (or did) exist simultaneously, only changing state upon measurement.

      Logically,  disproving something doesn't mean it has changed state upon arriving at that conclusion; logically, it has always remained in that state, it's only now that it was measured. If I had to pick, I'd say that determinism only exists if observed as such; there is no hard and fast rule. Quantum physics would suggest that is the case; simultaneous existence until measurement, and only then, does it become reality: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html

      ok now let's take over the world...! :bunny:

    4. RandyE


      Your solution is reasonable, it allows an acceptance of a limitation to our perception and knowledge that also leaves open the door to further investigation.

      If we reduce reality down to just material particles, then to explain one single particle we'd have to explain all the other ones.  By the time we explained all the other ones, the one we started from would have changed, so our model would always be incomplete and stuck with the same mysteries.

      What if we could take snapshots of all the particles in the universe at the same time in single frames?   Think of it like a very fast, large, high-res. film.   Studying the frames we would be able to see exactly how reality is 'fabricated', resolving the dualitiies, dilations, paradoxes, synchronicities, and entanglements.

      Now that's world domination for sure! *:party:

    5. Show next comments  3 more