It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forecasting the future is possible, just not feasible.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
During the early hours of the morning I was trying to stop my mind wondering so I could get some sleep when a thought occurred to me, this grew into a revelation, to me at least.

I think I am going to struggle to get my idea understood, and I might be missing a point that is obvious to some which would make this whole post nonsense. Damn my lack of education has a lot to answer for. I’ll try and get my idea across in a nutshell.

Imagine you had a super duper computer that could take 2 snapshot of every single piece of matter within an instant of each other and know its exact position down to the spin of an electron. This computer would then be able to tell you the very next position that all of existence should be in if Newton’s laws of motion are correct and should be able to calculate the positions to infinity.

So not only is it possible to know the future, though not feasible, it would also means that our future is predetermined and has been since the beginning.

Let me apologise in advance if this is in the wrong forum.




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Yes, our future is determined in advance. All your experiences are the result of careful planning on your part before you even got here.
And on top of all this, you mind is being manipulated to such an extent that if you were to realize it, it would be very hard for the ego to accept it, let alone believe it...



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Good thinking, But... the computer would only be able to predict physical materials.. like a leaf falling from a tree, of a rock rolling down the hill.

But a human can change his mind from one thing to another, changing the future for imself, plotting another destiny.

So for some part I think the future is predictable yes, but the soul of a human is something on another scale , perhaps.

sorry for the bad english


Cheers

S



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by lagenese
Yes, our future is determined in advance.

Correct.


Originally posted by lagenese
All your experiences are the result of careful planning on your part before you even got here.

I had no part in it. I am just the result of chain of event, chemical reactions that started at the dawn of time.


Originally posted by lagenese
And on top of all this, you mind is being manipulated to such an extent that if you were to realize it, it would be very hard for the ego to accept it, let alone believe it...

Nothing can be manipulated if it is predetermined because the manipulation itself is also predetermined.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I am pretty sure that this is incorrect because there is no way to determine the outside forces which act on the matter.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solidus Green eye
What we see as thought is just one chemical/electrical reaction that happened because of a previous chemical/electrical reaction and so on.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Rebostar]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rebostar
 


I think its pretty close minded to think EVERYTHING is set in advance.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rebostar
 


Oh, and how do you know that for sure? I think that would take some serious research.

I see a possibility in predicting the future for non-sentient lifeforms , and for physical materials , with the right calculations.

But something with a soul is something different. at least, thats what i think



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Solidus Green eye
 


To understand, you need to know all about the manipulation of the mind. Once you fully understand all visible and invisible forces that are involved in that process, you begin to see the bigger picture of evolution.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The issue with this is in quantum mechanics. Yes, a particle may be "here" at this point and "there" at another, but since the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know with precision both a particle's position AND its velocity, taking data on two positions leaves you with no real knowledge of the overall velocity.

And without that, calculating into the future is impossible.

Along with that, any particle's position at any given time is probabilistic in nature. When not observed, it has a tendency to spread out as a wave (though there is evidence that this is not always so). When observed, it could be in any of the wave locations, with certain locations more probable than others.

So I'm guessing that using Newtonian physics does not work at all on the particle level.

[edit on 5/24/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lagenese
 


A theory, yet to be proven.
The mind may be manipulated to some sort of degree, but a person always keeps his own ethics and moral beliefs , wich helps the person make decisions.

And ofcours ethics can be twisted around, but a person always keeps his own gutt feeling of right and wrong.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Oooo, you have just stopped me dead in the water with that reply.

Although, my mind is grasping at something as I type.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solidus Green eye
reply to post by lagenese
 


A theory, yet to be proven.



A theory for you, and a fact for me. Again, i can't transpose my experiences onto anyone, you have to "KNOW". And for this, you need to experience. But i respect your reply.

Peace



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



So if you had a quantum camera and just "pointed" it at where you wanted a predetermined object to be, it would then show up at that point?

Good thread by the way.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
One may be able to simulate reality with a certain degree of accuracy and issue a probability of an event occuring but as the predictions are forecast farther into the future, exponentially larger amounts of computational power would be required. For one, consider how many particles would need to be tracked. Also, how fast would the computer need to be to track and predict said particles and their properties in real-time? How fast would it need to be to compute said properties at a rate faster than real-time? ... something arguably necessary to predict the future. Using fuzzy logic, many properties could be abstracted or ignored but in doing so, the accuracy of the prediction deminishes as well. Think "butterfly effect".

Another thing to consider is whether or not all of "this" is even actually here.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

[Luke has seen a vision of Han, Leia and Chewie being tortured in Cloud City]
Luke: I saw - I saw a city in the clouds.
Yoda: [nods] Friends you have there.
Luke: They were in pain...
Yoda: It is the future you see.
Luke: The future?
[pause]
Luke: Will they die?

Yoda: [closes his eyes for a moment] Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.


Luke: I've got to go to them.
Yoda: Decide you must, how to serve them best. If you leave now, help them you could; but you would destroy all for which they have fought, and suffered.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Shouldn't that not matter if you only are focused on one specific point? Taking in the laws of probability you could eliminate the more statistically insignificant data, ie, two-tailed t-tests to determine the "most probable" outcome.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

So if you had a quantum camera and just "pointed" it at where you wanted a predetermined object to be, it would then show up at that point?


I am not sure what you mean by "quantum camera..." And there does seem to be evidence that expectation of the observer does affect the quantum world. Of course, hope does not equate to expectation.

I suppose that if you expected something to be, it would increase the probabilities that it would be there.

But no matter how hard one tries to conjure true expectation, one cannot. Expectation must be reaction and not a deliberate thought.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rebostar
 


This is the paradox of Complexity Theory. Reality is not the linear system we ascribe it to be. Indeed, it seems more and more than reality is non-linear, because there are innumerable nuances and variations, modification, and reactions so minute that you just can't keep track of them - but that interact and snowball - and can radically change a predicted outcome. This is why complex systems cannot be controlled... they can only be managed. They can be observed as they form trends, and can be interacted with to exploit those trends, but it's never a sure thing and you will eventually be spectacularly (or disastrously) wrong when you start to assume a measure of control.

However, while that's all true, every action does have an equal and opposite reaction. It's not that this law is broken, but that it's so vast we can't account for it. So reality IS a linear system - but on a level we will doubtfully ever attain. Unfortunately, to monitor and simulate every exact little fluctuation and property of every single sub-atomic particle in the entire universe - which you would need to have a truly and fully comprehensive prediction of the future - it would require more energy than is present in the entire universe to preform that sort of simulation.

So while it's possible in theory, in reality there's no known way to get around this energy limitation.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Shouldn't that not matter if you only are focused on one specific point? Taking in the laws of probability you could eliminate the more statistically insignificant data, ie, two-tailed t-tests to determine the "most probable" outcome.

How can you accurately predict the future if you're only focusing on one point, or even a subset of multiple points?

For instance consider rolling a marble across the floor. Without considering every aspect of the surface of the floor such as texture, slope or grade, cleanliness, etc., any irregularities in the surface of the marble, atmospheric conditions such as wind and humidy, the coreolis effect even... you can say the marble will probably roll X direction and Y distance but not do so with total accuracy. The marble may have a defect which affects its balance. Putting the marble in motion may impart a spin that affects the direction of travel. The wind may blow the marble to the left, or right, or otherwise affect its velocity. A dust grain could land in the path of the marble and change its course. Humidity could potentially increase its rolling resistance and friction with the air.

And for a more real-world demonstration of inaccuracy in prediction, using supercomputers no less, watch the weather report. I've seen predictions of 100% chance of rain within 12 hours only to find scattered clouds and plenty of dryness everywhere. They can't predict tornadoes out to more than a few minutes in advance. Wonder why that is? Because the best supercomputers do not have the power to model every bit of every particle in real time, and perform even worse in prediction more than a short period in advance due to the fact they have to ignore some data which apparently is statistically significant.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join