Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum ยป Does Jordan Peterson not understand determinism?
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 106
  2. Page 2 of 4
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  10. Last

Thread: Does Jordan Peterson not understand determinism?

post 1550509841 05-01-2018, 12:07 PM
-
#31
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
that seems like a contradiction. if i never had control in making my action, then the outcome was determined, therefore all future outcomes would be predictable.

which is physically incorrect. you cant know if the cat is alive or dead lol.
It's overwhelmingly correct the vast majority of the time. In the few cases it wouldn't be, due to quantum fluctuations, you yourself had no control over the outcome of the quantum measurement.
post 1550509891 05-01-2018, 12:08 PM
-
#32
  1. midcoastking33
  2. Registered User
  1. midcoastking33
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2008
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 30,048
  6. Rep Power: 69010
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
that seems like a contradiction. if i never had control in making my action, then the outcome was determined, therefore all future outcomes would be predictable.

which is physically incorrect. you cant know if the cat is alive or dead lol.

maybe im just not understanding this properly...
the cat is both alive and dead until you observe its state
post 1550510061 05-01-2018, 12:10 PM
-
#33
  1. SirFapsAIot
  2. YEAH YOU MAD
  1. SirFapsAIot
  2. YEAH YOU MAD
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Posts: 37,166
  5. Rep Power: 430786
Originally Posted By FailedPotential⏩


Guys got a bunch of knowledge, but holy fuk the things he says in this video shows that he doesn't understand the concept of determinism

I'm not sure if he truly doesn't understand it or if he's simply deluding himself because it makes him feel better about the state of things
...or maybe he just doesn't subscribe to determinism?
post 1550510561 05-01-2018, 12:16 PM
-
#34
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2014
  4. Posts: 14,376
  5. Rep Power: 59586
Originally Posted By SirFapsAIot⏩
...or maybe he just doesn't subscribe to determinism?
Right, but his arguments against it are easily refutable

I want him to give good arguments against it, but he's not giving good arguments against it, he's giving poor arguments against it
Fak U say? Cheeky kent ya, i'll fakin fak ya, ya lil sloot
post 1550510991 05-01-2018, 12:20 PM
-
#35
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2014
  4. Posts: 14,376
  5. Rep Power: 59586
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
that seems like a contradiction. if i never had control in making my action, then the outcome was determined, therefore all future outcomes would be predictable.

which is physically incorrect. you cant know if the cat is alive or dead lol.

maybe im just not understanding this properly...
Yes, with this view on things, all future events from the big bang until way out in the future could be predicted.

You'd have to imagine some god-like entity that was somehow outside of our universe, and had incredible calculative abilities... and with this view on things, said entity would be able to predict the future, yes
Fak U say? Cheeky kent ya, i'll fakin fak ya, ya lil sloot
post 1550511511 05-01-2018, 12:25 PM
-
#36
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By northernlights7⏩
Agreed.

I don't have beef with atheism in general, and granted Peterson isn't exactly one himself. I think he's a self help shill who tries to ride the fence on the issue of religion/atheism in an attempt to appease both without offering good arguments to support either side.

What I do take issue with beyond that is career atheists who essentially make a cult-like religion out of atheism while selling it as the ultimate source of logic and reasoning. I.e., people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and even Christopher Hitchens to an extent. That is, they twist it into something it is not meant to be by making it a militant movement against all forms of "spirtuality".
I read this book called 'Skeptics and True Believers' a few years back that spoke about this stance.


They way the author Chet Raymo put it, a 'True Believer' isn't someone that believes in god or religion necessarily, but someone who is utterly convinced that their beliefs are the correct ones, whether they can be affirmed or not. By that token, people like Dawkins are true believers in atheism, and the bible thumpers or creationists are true believers of God.

Skeptics are the opposite; utterly critical of any beliefs, unwilling to accept anything unless it is irrefutable. From a religious standpoint, that would be more like agnostics. I consider Jordan Peterson to be basically a skeptic, but one that doesn't really hold a solid religious stance.


The answer BTW is to be both a skeptic and a true believer; willing and able to form new convictions based on 'faith' (more like confidence in a hopeful outcome or reality), but not blinded by your faith and able to try to understand opposing points of view. A healthy christian (or atheist for that matter) will embody both of these characteristics.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550511991 05-01-2018, 12:30 PM
-
#37
  1. northernlights7
  2. Banned
  1. northernlights7
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Posts: 24,527
  5. Rep Power: 24
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
I read this book called 'Skeptics and True Believers' a few years back that spoke about this stance.


They way the author Chet Raymo put it, a 'True Believer' isn't someone that believes in god or religion necessarily, but someone who is utterly convinced that their beliefs are the correct ones, whether they can be affirmed or not. By that token, people like Dawkins are true believers in atheism, and the bible thumpers or creationists are true believers of God.

Skeptics are the opposite; utterly critical of any beliefs, unwilling to accept anything unless it is irrefutable. From a religious standpoint, that would be more like agnostics. I consider Jordan Peterson to be basically a skeptic, but one that doesn't really hold a solid religious stance.


The answer BTW is to be both a skeptic and a true believer; willing and able to form new convictions based on 'faith' (more like confidence in a hopeful outcome or reality), but not blinded by your faith and able to try to understand opposing points of view. A healthy christian (or atheist for that matter) will embody both of these characteristics.
I think the cliffs of what you're saying here is that fundamentalism is retarded no matter what label you attach to it, whether it be atheism or some form of religion.
post 1550512001 05-01-2018, 12:30 PM
-
#38
  1. Voidgaze
  2. Real Azz Misca'
  1. Voidgaze
  2. Real Azz Misca'
  3. Join Date: Feb 2018
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 54,578
  6. Rep Power: 603960
Originally Posted By CoolKnees⏩
Why don't you *******s clean your room?
Originally Posted By phikappa⏩
^this.
^These
post 1550512311 05-01-2018, 12:33 PM
-
#39
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By northernlights7⏩
I think the cliffs of what you're saying here is that fundamentalism is retarded no matter what label you attach to it, whether it be atheism or some form of religion.
And that Jordan Peterson is somehow sort of a fundamentalist yet without any clear religious alignment.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550513571 05-01-2018, 12:47 PM
-
#40
  1. wrassler45
  2. Registered User
  1. wrassler45
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 4,359
  7. Rep Power: 90674
Just because I have not read it in this thread yet.. Pure determinism is down to your genetic code. In this belief, you are programmed to react a certain way to any external catalyst. Hawking was a pure determinist
post 1550513951 05-01-2018, 12:50 PM
-
#41
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 20,766
  7. Rep Power: 77972
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
It's overwhelmingly correct the vast majority of the time. In the few cases it wouldn't be, due to quantum fluctuations, you yourself had no control over the outcome of the quantum measurement.
if all future outcomes were predictable the 'vast majority of the time', you would be able to notice some sort of pattern. predictability implies order, order implies an observable pattern. unless you mean to say that every outcome is predictably random, which is contradiction.

the laws of probability extend past the quantum level. take the example he gave about the chess game, at the beginning of the game, there are 2 possible outcomes as far as the results of the game go: white can win, or black can win. the outcome is unpredictable.
post 1550515451 05-01-2018, 01:05 PM
-
#42
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
if all future outcomes were predictable the 'vast majority of the time', you would be able to notice some sort of pattern. predictability implies order, order implies an observable pattern. unless you mean to say that every outcome is predictably random, which is contradiction.

the laws of probability extend past the quantum level. take the example he gave about the chess game, at the beginning of the game, there are 2 possible outcomes as far as the results of the game go: white can win, or black can win. the outcome is unpredictable.
We do notice a pattern. There is a notion known as the correspondence principle. At large scales, quantum effects are negligible barring pathological examples that couple macroscopic states to quantum measurements. There is no contradiction.

The laws of probability do not apply to chess. You are looking at the standard approach of attributing randomness to the absence of knowledge. Quantum phenomena is random due to an inherent randomness truly built into nature. The outcome of a chess game may be well described probabilistically for our purposes in the absence of detailed models, but it is in fact almost completely deterministic, much like a coin flip. We just do not have the data on the conditions to make that prediction, but if we did, we could with near perfect accuracy.
post 1550516251 05-01-2018, 01:13 PM
-
#43
  1. Luc1fer
  1. Luc1fer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 45,573
  5. Rep Power: 685731
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
At our scales, quantum indeterminacy plays virtually no role in outcomes. The future for us is overwhelmingly deterministic. (As it should be for life as a phenomenon to make sense. You take reasonable actions to avoid predictable outcomes. If the future were completely unpredictable, it would be difficult to justify any type of decision or show any trait to be adaptive, and lifeforms at our scales would likely never emerge.) Life requires a complicated set of prescribed responses to stimuli. For the selection process to make sense, these responses should elicit deterministic and predictable outcomes the vast majority of the time. That is one reason why there are no quantum lifeforms.
Outcomes are effectively deterministic and predictable 'at our scales' (the macro level) yes. But I'm referring to predicting the exact state of the universe from one moment to the next. If you had every single piece of available information in the universe at one moment, the next state wouldn't be deterministically predictable due to quantum phenomena. So I'm just trying to be technically correct.
๐•ฎ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–ˆ๐–๐–Š๐–ˆ๐•ถ, ๐–“๐–Š๐–›๐–Š๐–— ๐–ˆ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–‡๐–Ž๐–™๐–ˆ๐–

โ–ˆโ–“โ–’โ–’โ–‘โ–‘๐ŸงตMake trolls invisible: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=180234573 โ–‘โ–‘โ–’โ–’โ–“โ–ˆ
post 1550516501 05-01-2018, 01:16 PM
-
#44
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
We do notice a pattern. There is a notion known as the correspondence principle. At large scales, quantum effects are negligible barring pathological examples that couple macroscopic states to quantum measurements. There is no contradiction.
I fail to see how the correspondence principle has anything to do with this. Determinism is aphilisophicaltheory, no physics principle is going to substantiate it.
Originally Posted By Luc1fer⏩
Outcomes are effectively deterministic and predictable 'at our scales' (the macro level) yes. But I'm referring to predicting the exact state of the universe from one moment to the next. If you had every single piece of available information in the universe at one moment, the next state wouldn't be deterministically predictable due to quantum phenomena. So I'm just trying to be technically correct.
Interdasting, that's true. Kind of pokes a big hole in determinism, even though the notion of having all possible information for a system is impossible anyway.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550516821 05-01-2018, 01:19 PM
-
#45
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Luc1fer⏩
Outcomes are effectively deterministic and predictable 'at our scales' (the macro level) yes. But I'm referring to predicting the exact state of the universe from one moment to the next. If you had every single piece of available information in the universe at one moment, the next state wouldn't be deterministically predictable due to quantum phenomena. So I'm just trying to be technically correct.
When you say the "universe at a moment", what exactly does that mean? Because there is no absolute time. So, really, you are probably just restricting yourself to a light cone for some observer. Also, IGUSes don't perceive particular events, but rather a kind of aggregate, average of them, since our component particles are measured to exist at different points in spacetime, and the system takes time to resolve information and respond. To put it clearly, our minds do not perceive present "moments" aka events in spacetime. We are not singular point particles. All the perceptions are space-time averaged and occur over some ball in some region of space and time.

@Jacob, absolute determinism in the philosophical sense is most likely false. Physics has much to say about this, although of course, nothing is "proved". However, the approximate determinism I mentioned still holds, and it is btw, a very, very good approximation that is really the most accurate way to look at things. After all, given some basic information, you really can calculate where and when the cannonball will fall to an excellent approximation. There may be quantum effects, but they are utterly negligible unless your cannonball is somehow coupled to a device that pwrforms a quantum measurement.
post 1550517201 05-01-2018, 01:25 PM
-
#46
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
When you say the "universe at a moment", what exactly does that mean? Because there is no absolute time. So, really, you are probably just restricting yourself to a light cone for some observer. Also, IGUSes don't perceive particular events, but rather a kind of aggregate, average of them, since our component particles are measured to exist at different points in spacetime, and the system takes time to resolve information and respond. To put it clearly, our minds do not perceive present "moments" aka events in spacetime. We are not singular point particles. All the perceptions are space-time averaged and occur over some ball in some region of space and time.
First of all, you are getting more and more esoteric and off-topic with each post


Secondly, there is a such thing as absolute time. Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration. There is a such thing as one instant in time for the entire universe. Time simply passes at differentratesat different places in the universe, being that matter drags on time.

Again, I fail to see how has to do with determinism though.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550517431 05-01-2018, 01:27 PM
-
#47
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
First of all, you are getting more and more esoteric and off-topic with each post


Secondly, there is a such thing as absolute time. Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration. There is a such thing as one instant in time for the entire universe. Time simply passes at differentratesat different places in the universe, being that matter drags on time.

Again, I fail to see how has to do with determinism though.
Take a course in relativity please. Absolute time has been dead for about a century now.
post 1550517831 05-01-2018, 01:32 PM
-
#48
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Take a course in relativity please.
I have studied relativity, and absolute time exists even in relativity. Time only is different with different inertial reference frames. The key word being INERTIAL, which implies what I stated before that matter drags on time and causes it to pass at different rates. That does not mean that there is no such thing as an instantaneous moment, it just means that if you started two clocks in different inertial reference frames and allowed them to run for a duration of time then stopped them at a later instantaneous moment, they would read differently. But they would still be stopped at the same instant.


Stop trying to pontificate physics to me, please.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550517841 05-01-2018, 01:32 PM
-
#49
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 20,766
  7. Rep Power: 77972
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
We do notice a pattern. There is a notion known as the correspondence principle. At large scales, quantum effects are negligible barring pathological examples that couple macroscopic states to quantum measurements. There is no contradiction.

The laws of probability do not apply to chess. You are looking at the standard approach of attributing randomness to the absence of knowledge. Quantum phenomena is random due to an inherent randomness truly built into nature. The outcome of a chess game may be well described probabilistically for our purposes in the absence of detailed models, but it is in fact almost completely deterministic, much like a coin flip. We just do not have the data on the conditions to make that prediction, but if we did, we could with near perfect accuracy.
i just googled correspondence theory, iim not too sure how it applies here, how does it explain the randomness of probability?

if you have the data of the coin flip (i.e. forces acting on the coin, mass of the coin, etc), yes you can determine the outcome, but how can you determine the outcome at the moment it is about to be flipped? much like cat, at the moment the coin is about to be flipped, the 2 outcomes are ina superimposed state, right?
post 1550517901 05-01-2018, 01:33 PM
-
#50
  1. Love-Feet
  2. Registered User
  1. Love-Feet
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 4,011
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By northernlights7⏩
Agreed.

I don't have beef with atheism in general, and granted Peterson isn't exactly one himself. I think he's a self help shill who tries to ride the fence on the issue of religion/atheism in an attempt to appease both without offering good arguments to support either side.

What I do take issue with beyond that is career atheists who essentially make a cult-like religion out of atheism while selling it as the ultimate source of logic and reasoning. I.e., people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and even Christopher Hitchens to an extent. That is, they twist it into something it is not meant to be by making it a militant movement against all forms of "spirtuality".
Sam Harris wrote a book on spirituality without religion, shows the level of thought that goes into your arguement
Winners find solutions, Losers find something to blame
post 1550518441 05-01-2018, 01:39 PM
-
#51
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
I have studied relativity, and absolute time exists even in relativity. Time only is different with different inertial reference frames. The key word being INERTIAL, which implies what I stated before that matter drags on time and causes it to pass at different rates. That does not mean that there is no such thing as an instantaneous moment, it just means that if you started two clocks in different inertial reference frames and allowed them to run for a duration of time then stopped them at a later instantaneous moment, they would read differently. But they would still be stopped at the same instant.


Stop trying to pontificate physics to me, please.
Ok. Explain how one defines a "present" state of the universe. Look at the case of two events occurring "simultaneously" at different points in space as viewed by an observer at rest. Now consider a moving observer. Does he agree that the two events are still simultaneous?

The answer is no.
Read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rela...f_simultaneity

I will pontificate physics to you if you say something wrong. I "pontificate" physics to people for money.
post 1550518761 05-01-2018, 01:42 PM
-
#52
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By exxtracool⏩
i just googled correspondence theory, iim not too sure how it applies here, how does it explain the randomness of probability?

if you have the data of the coin flip (i.e. forces acting on the coin, mass of the coin, etc), yes you can determine the outcome, but how can you determine the outcome at the moment it is about to be flipped? much like cat, at the moment the coin is about to be flipped, the 2 outcomes are ina superimposed state, right?
The correspondence principle applied to showing how our universe at our scales is approximately deterministic, in spite of inherent quantum randomness at the small scales. A coin is not well modeled as a quantum system. If you know all the initial data, you can predict the outcome of a coin flip almost exactly. Not so for something like the spin of an electron.
post 1550518961 05-01-2018, 01:45 PM
-
#53
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Ok. Explain how one defines a "present" state of the universe. Look at the case of two events occurring "simultaneously" at different points in space as viewed by an observer at rest. Now consider a moving observer. Does he agree that the two events are still simultaneuous?

The answer is no.
Read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rela...f_simultaneity

I will pontificate physics to you if you say something wrong. I "pontificate" physics to people for money.
relative to the moving observer, they do not happen at the same instant. but the key word is relative. The two events still could have happened at the same absolute time, if the passing of time was not affected by inertia.

I'll say again, there is a such thing as absolute time, not affected by external elements. Two events happening at the same instant in absolute time can appear to happen at different instants, depending on your inertial reference frame. This is demonstrated with a thought experiment by Einstein when first postulating the theory of relativity, which you basically stated, about an observer standing next to a moving train that which has two lights illuminated at the same absolute time. To someone on the train, the lights illuminate at the same instant in their reference frame, even though to the observer standing next to the train, one of them will appear to illuminate first.


Understand that you are refuting Newton here.
According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the Moon or Sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550519361 05-01-2018, 01:49 PM
-
#54
  1. bjjnovice
  2. Banned
  1. bjjnovice
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 4,251
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By FailedPotential⏩
You could have just as easily said "Keep thanking determinism for your successes in life.", is it your thought that anyone who takes this view on the subject must be a failure? It would work both ways, if true
Determinism is conducive to victim ideology. "It's not my fault... I was made this way." It's also conducive to not being able to take credit for your accomplishments. "I can't take credit... I was made this way". Also your UN speaks for itself
post 1550519731 05-01-2018, 01:52 PM
-
#55
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
relative to the moving observer, they do not happen at the same instant. but the key word is relative. The two events still could have happened at the same absolute time, if the passing of time was not affected by inertia.

I'll say again, there is a such thing as absolute time, not affected by external elements. Two events happening at the same instant in absolute time can appear to happen at different instants, depending on your inertial reference frame. This is demonstrated with a thought experiment by Einstein when first postulating the theory of relativity, which you basically stated, about an observer standing next to a moving train that which has two lights illuminated at the same absolute time. To someone on the train, the lights illuminate at the same instant in their reference frame, even though to the observer standing next to the train, one of them will appear to illuminate first.
First of all, this has nothing to do with inertia or mass. This is a result of special relativity, and has to do purely with the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. You are trying to define a coordinate system on the entire universe with time being unambiguously defined so that there is an absolute notion of "present" for different points in space. But you said yourself that there are observers that would perceive one event as occurring before the other.

So it seems your "absolute" time isn't so absolute is it? There is no preferred frame. Your mistake is you are presupposing the measurement by the observer claiming they are both occurring at the same time to be somehow the "true" one. That frame is no more valid than any other inertial frame.

We can speak meaningfully about the past and future for a given observer. The universe itself is best described at large scales as a 4 dimensional mathematical object known as a pseudoRiemannian manifold (pseudo because the way "distance" is measured allows nonzero vectors to have 0 magnitude). It doesn't "change in time".
post 1550520281 05-01-2018, 01:59 PM
-
#56
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
relative to the moving observer, they do not happen at the same instant. but the key word is relative. The two events still could have happened at the same absolute time, if the passing of time was not affected by inertia.

I'll say again, there is a such thing as absolute time, not affected by external elements. Two events happening at the same instant in absolute time can appear to happen at different instants, depending on your inertial reference frame. This is demonstrated with a thought experiment by Einstein when first postulating the theory of relativity, which you basically stated, about an observer standing next to a moving train that which has two lights illuminated at the same absolute time. To someone on the train, the lights illuminate at the same instant in their reference frame, even though to the observer standing next to the train, one of them will appear to illuminate first.


Understand that you are refuting Newton here.
You're damn right I'm refuting Newton. Again, you forgot about the last 100 years. Newton was wrong about this. Einstein was right.
post 1550520321 05-01-2018, 01:59 PM
-
#57
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
First of all, this has nothing to do with inertia or mass. This is a result of special relativity, and has to do purely with the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. You are trying to define a coordinate system on the entire universe with time being unambiguously defined so that there is an absolute notion of "present" for different points in space. But you said yourself that there are observers that would perceive one event as occurring before the other.

So it seems your "absolute" time isn't so absolute is it? There is no preferred frame. Your mistake is you are presupposing the measurement by the observer claiming they are both occurring at the same time to be somehow the "true" one. That frame is no more valid than any other inertial frame.
You either quoted before I added it, or conveniently left out the part where you are refuting Isaac Newton... there is a such thing as absolute time. It cannot be perceived by an observer, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Simple as that. The fact that this discussion is revolving around relativity should categorically exclude it from being used to refute absolute time, being that absolute and relative are the polar opposites in this situation.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550520641 05-01-2018, 02:03 PM
-
#58
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Jacobcapra⏩
You either quoted before I added it, or conveniently left out the part where you are refuting Isaac Newton... there is a such thing as absolute time. It cannot be perceived by an observer, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Simple as that. The fact that this discussion is revolving around relativity should categorically exclude it from being used to refute absolute time, being that absolute and relative are the polar opposites in this situation.
I am refuting Newton. It has been known that Newton was wrong about this for the last 100 years or so.
post 1550520851 05-01-2018, 02:06 PM
-
#59
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  1. Jacobcapra
  2. AAS Free since '93
  3. Join Date: Apr 2015
  4. Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 15,933
  7. Rep Power: 174320
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
I am refuting Newton. It has been known that Newton was wrong about this for the last 100 years or so.
He wasn't wrong about it, Einstein just discovered the fact that time as people observe it is actually slightly different than absolute time, and redefined the concepts by which we perceive time. That does not mean absolute time isn't a thing, nor does it mean that objects cannot share an instant, regardless of your reference frame. It simply means relativistic time is more accurate and can also be perceived by the observer so it is more useful.

not to mention we have completely derailed this thread.
**Georgia Crew**
**Mechanical Engineering Crew**
**2018 Aesthetics Crew**

01/02/2018 - 202.2 lb.
Current - 181.4 lb. (1/23/18)
post 1550521491 05-01-2018, 02:13 PM
-
#60
  1. QuitYourCrying
  2. Registered User
  1. QuitYourCrying
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Posts: 3,531
  5. Rep Power: 10765
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts