CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If there's no such thing as destiny, then things would not be destined to happen. We would not be able to say, "It was destined to happen." But things are destined to happen to happen all the time and people go around saying stuff like, "It was destined to happen." So there is a destiny ;)
This depends upon how literally you are taking the meaning of the word. That is, I certainly don't believe that there is some kind of Supernatural Force at work with a script/screenplay to my life (the major details) as if it were one big Shakespearean play/drama.
Now, if taken in a more metaphorical sense, then I think events tend to unfold based upon causal determinism (cause-and-effect). However, the probabilistic nature of predictions in quantum mechanics have muddied the waters a bit more than clarifying them on this front.
This brings us to the matter of Laplace's Demon, which is a useful thought-experiment that remains an open question as of yet (that is fiercely argued about).
the probabilistic nature of predictions in quantum mechanics
If you ask me, that's just a fancy way of saying "physicists don't know how particles work"
If you flip a coin, it may seem like a 50/50 chance it could land on either side, but there are always causal factors such as how much force was used to flip the coin, did the wind blow and alter the flip etc.
But at the same time, what separates the human brain from everything else is that it is specifically structured in such a way that allows it to "take a step back" and consciously evaluate what it wants to do. We are not separate from the largely deterministic nature of reality, but I would argue that we have an awareness of our actions that allows us to have some say in what we do. I believe in a sort of semi-free will. it is more of a negotiation between causal influences and will power derived from self awareness and the feedback loops which allow your conscious brain to communicate with your body and your subconscious brain.
If you ask me, that's just a fancy way of saying "physicists don't know how particles work"
It really depends what you mean by that. That is, yes, Physicists do not understand what is happening on a conceptual level however they have a very good understanding of what is happening on a practical level, which they are able to model with extreme accuracy.
Physicists do not understand what is happening on a conceptual level however they have a very good understanding of what is happening on a practical level
There is a problem though, they do not really know what is happening at a practical level. They are observing a phenomena and trying to explain it using mathematics, but mother nature does not use a calculator. Mother nature is not a crazy crack whore with a bag of magic particles that can be in two places at once, these ideas are all a mathematical contrivance and are merely theoretical explanations that are in many cases untestable as of yet. Quantum theory does not just "not make sense" but it is explicitly contrary to logic itself, and based on the principal of atomism meaning that there are fundamental indivisible units that can be counted, hence "quantum" i.e quantity. The only logical way to view the universe is as a field, not a series of little magic teleporting balls and strings. Are you familiar with the electric universe theory?
There is a problem though, they do not really know what is happening at a practical level. They are observing a phenomena and trying to explain it using mathematics
Yes, they model it with Mathematics the same way that if you picked up a baseball and threw it in the air, it would be modeled with Kinematic Equations. These models have proven to be very strong & highly reliable.
but mother nature does not use a calculator
This matter is still very much up in the air and open to discussion as the answer remains unclear
Mother nature is not a crazy crack whore with a bag of magic particles that can be in two places at once, these ideas are all a mathematical contrivance and are merely theoretical explanations that are in many cases untestable as of yet. Quantum theory does not just "not make sense" but it is explicitly contrary to logic itself,
It is against your/our Primate senses of "logic" that evolved under very different conditions to hold a very different view about the nature of reality
they model it with Mathematics the same way that if you picked up a baseball and threw it in the air, it would be modeled with Kinematic Equations.
Don't get me wrong, math can be a very useful tool, but it is not an accurate representation of reality at a fundamental level and it can never be used to explain it. For instance you can measure the distance the ball traveled and get an idea of it relative to a given standard of measurement, but in reality the ball doesn't "click" from one position to the other, there is no one two three, there is just a spherical dense construct of what we call "matter" flying smoothly through space.
It is against your/our Primate senses of "logic" that evolved under very different conditions to hold a very different view about the nature of reality
My primitive homo ape cerebral tells me that there is an up and down, but this is just my equilibrium telling me this based on where the center of gravity is. My primitive photoreceptors tell me there is "color" but in reality that is just my subjective brain's interpretation of various wavelengths of EM radiation within the visible range. There are plenty of things we experience and deem "common sense" that are merely the subjective interpretation of our primate senses, but those things are very different from something being in two places at once or a particle responding to being observed before it is observed, these things violate logic itself, not just our senses. I think it is much more likely that our problems with locality are due to the fact we are looking for a point called an "electron" but that point does not exist as a single tangible object. When we look at an atom we are looking at a vortex within a field, not a ball of particles.
I think it is much more likely that our problems with locality are due to the fact we are looking for a point called an "electron" but that point does not exist as a single tangible object.
We already know that an electron doesn't exist as a "point...single tangible object" as is promoted in the Bohr Atomic Model but is rather it is a "cloud". In fact, this is fundamental to Quantum Mechanics.
Don't get me wrong, math can be a very useful tool, but it is not an accurate representation of reality at a fundamental level and it can never be used to explain it.
Again, you are asserting this, however that may or may not in fact be the case. Are you familiar with the Physicist Max Tegmark of MIT?
We already know that an electron doesn't exist as a "point...single tangible object"
This "cloud" interpretation actually supports my position. Physicists are basically admitting "well this thing isn't really a particle, but since we are raging atomists we are going to pretend it's a particle, but really we know it can't be in one place, nor two places at once because the whole thing is actually a field"
We already know atoms are electrical and consist of positive, neutral and negative electrical charges, and what determines an atoms properties and stability is the balancing act between these charges. Everything else (gluons, quarks etc) is theoretical conjecture made up by mathematiciians attempting to explain nature using an unnatural system of human schizophrenia.
You're such a loser Naruto, we can literally detect particles like quarks and measure them you idiot. Remember the fourth great ninja war? You witnessed "particle style jutsu" first hand remember? You are such a failure as a human being, how did you ever become hokage you incompetent halfwit? Stop watching pseudo science youtube videos and read a book for once you sub-sentient dweeb.
If I wanted to kill myself I would climb your ego and jump to your IQ.
