Do accidents exist?

Anatoly · 2017-04-05 17:25:50

Or our future is Foreseeably?

I can't vote here, seriously, i can't

N1KF · 2017-04-05 17:28:49

Human accidents? Yes, but I still believe in destiny.

TaskManager · 2017-04-05 20:38:05

in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things

guys, jonhvictor2004sonic

LukeM · 2017-04-05 20:48:50

maxi123 wrote:

in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things

I thought the same as you until I heard about the complete randomness of quantum physics
Nobody has yet managed to show that some things in quantum physics are predictable, which means most scientists agree that it is completely random (an example being radioactive decay)
These small random events build up and can end up causing big changes, meaning nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty

Edit: This could be incorrect though, and we just haven't found a way to predict these events

N1KF · 2017-04-05 20:50:22

destroyer123 wrote:

maxi123 wrote:
in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things
I thought the same as you until I heard about the complete randomness of quantum physics
Nobody has yet managed to show that some things in quantum physics are predictable, which means most scientists agree that it is completely random (an example being radioactive decay)
These small random events build up and can end up causing big changes, meaning nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty

I thought like pretty much everything was the result of something else, perhaps besides free will. I guess that's wrong?

LukeM · 2017-04-05 20:58:43

N1KF wrote:

▼destroyer123 wrote
maxi123 wrote:
in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things
I thought the same as you until I heard about the complete randomness of quantum physics
Nobody has yet managed to show that some things in quantum physics are predictable, which means most scientists agree that it is completely random (an example being radioactive decay)
These small random events build up and can end up causing big changes, meaning nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty
I thought like pretty much everything was the result of something else, perhaps besides free will. I guess that's wrong?

I really don't know much about it, but in quantum physics, things like complete random 'teleportation' of particles can happen (quantum tunnelling)
There could always be a way to predict it though, but we just haven't found it out yet I guess

TaskManager · 2017-04-05 21:07:39

destroyer123 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
▼destroyer123 wrote
maxi123 wrote:
in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things
I thought the same as you until I heard about the complete randomness of quantum physics
Nobody has yet managed to show that some things in quantum physics are predictable, which means most scientists agree that it is completely random (an example being radioactive decay)
These small random events build up and can end up causing big changes, meaning nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty
I thought like pretty much everything was the result of something else, perhaps besides free will. I guess that's wrong?
I really don't know much about it, but in quantum physics, things like complete random 'teleportation' of particles can happen (quantum tunnelling)
There could always be a way to predict it though, but we just haven't found it out yet I guess

look, the behavior of quantum physics may be unpredictable
but it still leads to one specified outcome and not any other outcomes and that outcome could be considered as "predefined"
at this point we could look into the definition of word "random" but that will turn the discussion into a boring grammar and words debate

LukeM · 2017-04-05 21:17:40

maxi123 wrote:

▼destroyer123 wrote
N1KF wrote:
destroyer123 wrote:
maxi123 wrote:
in my opinion (as in i may be wrong)
in reality theres no such thing as "random events" or "accidents" simply because we can't test it, a specific set of events/conditions leads to a specific result and we can't test whether the result will be different with these same events/conditions the second time it happens simply because we cant replicate/repeat the exactly same events/conditions/state of things, thus the chance of result A is 100% against any other outcomes/results that could happen
therefore accidents do not exist and every little detail in the future is predefned by the current set of events and state of things
I thought the same as you until I heard about the complete randomness of quantum physics
Nobody has yet managed to show that some things in quantum physics are predictable, which means most scientists agree that it is completely random (an example being radioactive decay)
These small random events build up and can end up causing big changes, meaning nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty
I thought like pretty much everything was the result of something else, perhaps besides free will. I guess that's wrong?
I really don't know much about it, but in quantum physics, things like complete random 'teleportation' of particles can happen (quantum tunnelling)
There could always be a way to predict it though, but we just haven't found it out yet I guess
look, the behavior of quantum physics may be unpredictable
but it still leads to one specified outcome and not any other outcomes and that outcome could be considered as "predefined"
at this point we could look into the definition of word "random" but that will turn the discussion into a boring grammar and words debate

Scientists currently don't think there is any way of telling what will happen in quantum physics based on the inputs, even if they were all known exactly
I guess you will never be able to know if things are predetermined though, as you don't have any way of going back and 'replaying' the universe, so that question may be more about philosophy than science, as I was thinking of it

TaskManager · 2017-04-05 21:24:55

destroyer123 wrote:

I guess you will never be able to know if things are predetermined though, as you don't have any way of going back and 'replaying' the universe,

yeah thats kinda the point

destroyer123 wrote:

Scientists currently don't think there is any way of telling what will happen in quantum physics based on the inputs, even if they were all known exactly

two centuries ago scientists didnt think the electrons were orbiting the nucleus in an atom. who knows how far the science will go in the next decades and what will be discovered?

LukeM

Ratburntro44 · 2017-04-05 21:33:24

maxi123 wrote:

destroyer123 wrote:
Scientists currently don't think there is any way of telling what will happen in quantum physics based on the inputs, even if they were all known exactly
two centuries ago scientists didnt think the electrons were orbiting the nucleus in an atom. who knows how far the science will go in the next decades and what will be discovered?

that's sort of a ridiculous argument. scientists were previously more inclined to believe in determinism, but that changed because they actually have different evidence. just because they could discover new stuff in future doesn't mean the status quo of scientific understanding isn't the most reasonable thing to believe today (though, given the nature of the question and evidence at hand, it can still be reasonable to take either position based on differing interpretations of quantum mechanics or different philosophical positions—regardless, "who knows how far the science will go" isn't a good reason for thinking this)

Raphe9000 · 2017-04-05 22:01:13

I wonder if I exist at times.

Sensei1 · 2017-04-05 22:30:57

The thing about quantum physics, I don't think it proves determinism wrong. I never actually even understood how it could prove determinism wrong. Does the double slits experiment prove it wrong? Does superposition prove it wrong? Ok I guess the theory about superposition would prove it wrong, but I say we just don't know enough about the small world yet. I think it's weird to think that particles are having a crazy party while we're not looking and then they just act normal when we do look.

Actually the double slits experiment supports determinism in a way, since the fact we were observing them changed something to make them stop partying.

Ratburntro44 · 2017-04-05 23:36:57

it's the bell test experiments that are generally referenced as evidence in an argument against determinism

LukeM · 2017-04-06 00:10:26

Sensei1 wrote:

The thing about quantum physics, I don't think it proves determinism wrong. I never actually even understood how it could prove determinism wrong. Does the double slits experiment prove it wrong? Does superposition prove it wrong? Ok I guess the theory about superposition would prove it wrong, but I say we just don't know enough about the small world yet. I think it's weird to think that particles are having a crazy party while we're not looking and then they just act normal when we do look.
Actually the double slits experiment supports determinism in a way, since the fact we were observing them changed something to make them stop partying.

You can't really prove it wrong, as you could only do that by controlling every single variable, and you can never know if you know of all of them
Also, a lot of people get the observing particles thing wrong, I'm pretty sure it is about how you actually try to observe the particles, e.g. by firing photons / electrons at them or whatever, rather than actually looking at them that affects it

TaskManager · 2017-04-06 14:18:17

Ratburntro44 wrote:

maxi123 wrote:
destroyer123 wrote:
Scientists currently don't think there is any way of telling what will happen in quantum physics based on the inputs, even if they were all known exactly
two centuries ago scientists didnt think the electrons were orbiting the nucleus in an atom. who knows how far the science will go in the next decades and what will be discovered?
that's sort of a ridiculous argument. scientists were previously more inclined to believe in determinism, but that changed because they actually have different evidence. just because they could discover new stuff in future doesn't mean the status quo of scientific understanding isn't the most reasonable thing to believe today (though, given the nature of the question and evidence at hand, it can still be reasonable to take either position based on differing interpretations of quantum mechanics or different philosophical positions—regardless, "who knows how far the science will go" isn't a good reason for thinking this)

my point is that we barely know anything about quantum physics and their behavior right now, no? we may think the behavior of particles is random but that could be just because the laws for said behavior havent been discovered/figured out yet

LukeM

Ratburntro44 · 2017-04-06 14:27:05

we know a lot about quantum physics. obviously our understanding is incomplete and there are still a number of things we have to clear up in physics but at this point we already have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics.

Anatoly · 2017-04-06 16:41:06

I mean accidents not about quarks... Was that accident that exactly I and not my friends started playing Everybody Edits? Or was it seen in my future that i will play EE and Unity won't be installed.

N1KF · 2017-04-06 16:57:41

AnatolyEE wrote:

I mean accidents not about quarks... Was that accident that exactly I and not my friends started playing Everybody Edits? Or was it seen in my future that i will play EE and Unity won't be installed.

So, you're asking if destiny exists?

Nobody can know.

TaskManager · 2017-04-06 21:04:42

Ratburntro44 wrote:

we know a lot about quantum physics. obviously our understanding is incomplete and there are still a number of things we have to clear up in physics but at this point we already have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics.

guess i was wrong on the first one
but the 2nd point still stands:

maxi123 wrote:

we may think the behavior of particles is random but that could be just because the laws for said behavior havent been discovered/figured out yet

on top of that, quite literally we dont know what we dont know... as in if there's something that we dont know we also don't know that we are missing the knowledge about that something

LukeM

LukeM · 2017-04-06 21:40:49

Ratburntro44 wrote:

we know a lot about quantum physics. obviously our understanding is incomplete and there are still a number of things we have to clear up in physics but at this point we already have a very good understanding of quantum mechanics.

We really don't, quantum physics is such a large topic that we probably know next to nothing compared to what we don't, there are even (comparatively) fairly simple things that we still don't know the answers to

Ratburntro44 · 2017-04-06 23:13:34

maxi123 wrote:

but the 2nd point still stands:
maxi123 wrote:
we may think the behavior of particles is random but that could be just because the laws for said behavior havent been discovered/figured out yet
on top of that, quite literally we dont know what we dont know... as in if there's something that we dont know we also don't know that we are missing the knowledge about that something

as i've literally already said

Ratburntro44 wrote:

just because they could discover new stuff in future doesn't mean the status quo of scientific understanding isn't the most reasonable thing to believe today (though, given the nature of the question and evidence at hand, it can still be reasonable to take either position based on differing interpretations of quantum mechanics or different philosophical positions—regardless, "who knows how far the science will go" isn't a good reason for thinking this)

it is (to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how science works) quite obvious that we could discover something new. but as it stands now it's most reasonable to make arguments based on the evidence at hand

destroyer123 wrote:

We really don't, quantum physics is such a large topic that we probably know next to nothing compared to what we don't, there are even (comparatively) fairly simple things that we still don't know the answers to

there really isn't a canonical way to measure a quantity of knowledge, but our knowledge of quantum physics is very expansive. principles of quantum mechanics, a standard textbook on the subject still today, was written in 1930. in 1930 biologists didn't even know what DNA looked like yet. the standard model (first developed in the 60s) has had extreme predictive success on things that couldn't even be tested until years after they were predicted, and continues to match experimental reality. the known elements of quantum mechanics and the related theories have been repeatedly and exhaustively tested and are very unlikely to be subject to significant change beyond reformulations or any of the many potential clarifications that exist within theoretical physics. even the very difficult questions posed in particle physics have numerous proposed explanations developed with a basis in quantum physics. our (humanity's/really the physics community's) understanding of quantum mechanics if very thorough, and in particular the parts relevant to determinism (bell theorem) are among the least likely to be reconsidered on scientific grounds. any reasonable argument concerning determinism should base itself in our (almost certainly highly accurate) current understanding of quantum physics, and any that is significantly concerned with the possibility of physics being otherwise has barely more merit than "well maybe an evil demon is deceiving us about the nature of reality"

LukeM · 2017-04-07 00:10:37

▼Ratburntro44 wrote

maxi123 wrote:

but the 2nd point still stands:
maxi123 wrote:
we may think the behavior of particles is random but that could be just because the laws for said behavior havent been discovered/figured out yet
on top of that, quite literally we dont know what we dont know... as in if there's something that we dont know we also don't know that we are missing the knowledge about that something

as i've literally already said

Ratburntro44 wrote:

just because they could discover new stuff in future doesn't mean the status quo of scientific understanding isn't the most reasonable thing to believe today (though, given the nature of the question and evidence at hand, it can still be reasonable to take either position based on differing interpretations of quantum mechanics or different philosophical positions—regardless, "who knows how far the science will go" isn't a good reason for thinking this)

it is (to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how science works) quite obvious that we could discover something new. but as it stands now it's most reasonable to make arguments based on the evidence at hand

destroyer123 wrote:

We really don't, quantum physics is such a large topic that we probably know next to nothing compared to what we don't, there are even (comparatively) fairly simple things that we still don't know the answers to

there really isn't a canonical way to measure a quantity of knowledge, but our knowledge of quantum physics is very expansive. principles of quantum mechanics, a standard textbook on the subject still today, was written in 1930. in 1930 biologists didn't even know what DNA looked like yet. the standard model (first developed in the 60s) has had extreme predictive success on things that couldn't even be tested until years after they were predicted, and continues to match experimental reality. the known elements of quantum mechanics and the related theories have been repeatedly and exhaustively tested and are very unlikely to be subject to significant change beyond reformulations or any of the many potential clarifications that exist within theoretical physics. even the very difficult questions posed in particle physics have numerous proposed explanations developed with a basis in quantum physics. our (humanity's/really the physics community's) understanding of quantum mechanics if very thorough, and in particular the parts relevant to determinism (bell theorem) are among the least likely to be reconsidered on scientific grounds. any reasonable argument concerning determinism should base itself in our (almost certainly highly accurate) current understanding of quantum physics, and any that is significantly concerned with the possibility of physics being otherwise has barely more merit than "well maybe an evil demon is deceiving us about the nature of reality"

I guess it's not that what we already think we know could be wrong as much as just not knowing large parts of it, for example anything much smaller than quarks is still up for debate, as well as a lot of the more confusing, 'multiple things at the same time' areas where we have a lot yet to fully understand
Quantum physics is such a large topic that we can never really say we have a good understanding of most of it

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-04-05 17:25:50

Do accidents exist?

#2 2017-04-05 17:28:49

Re: Do accidents exist?

#3 2017-04-05 20:38:05

Re: Do accidents exist?

#4 2017-04-05 20:48:50, last edited by LukeM (2017-04-05 20:51:28)

Re: Do accidents exist?

#5 2017-04-05 20:50:22

Re: Do accidents exist?

#6 2017-04-05 20:58:43

Re: Do accidents exist?

#7 2017-04-05 21:07:39, last edited by TaskManager (2017-04-05 21:08:36)

Re: Do accidents exist?

#8 2017-04-05 21:17:40

Re: Do accidents exist?

#9 2017-04-05 21:24:55

Re: Do accidents exist?

#10 2017-04-05 21:33:24

Re: Do accidents exist?

#11 2017-04-05 22:01:13

Re: Do accidents exist?

#12 2017-04-05 22:30:57

Re: Do accidents exist?

#13 2017-04-05 23:36:57

Re: Do accidents exist?

#14 2017-04-06 00:10:26

Re: Do accidents exist?

#15 2017-04-06 14:18:17

Re: Do accidents exist?

#16 2017-04-06 14:27:05

Re: Do accidents exist?

#17 2017-04-06 16:41:06

Re: Do accidents exist?

#18 2017-04-06 16:57:41

Re: Do accidents exist?

#19 2017-04-06 21:04:42

Re: Do accidents exist?

#20 2017-04-06 21:40:49

Re: Do accidents exist?

#21 2017-04-06 23:13:34

Re: Do accidents exist?

#22 2017-04-07 00:10:37

Re: Do accidents exist?

Board footer