what do scientists think about fate and destiny

[pitabread]

My intent is you encourage you to be the best. I will not stop

I'm not here for your encouragement and your intent doesn't matter.

It comes across as insincere and weird, if not somewhat insulting.

 

[Davidz777]

(back on subject)

Precognition, time travel into the past or future, are in the realm of scifi imagination. Regardless of arguments provided by philosophers, the ability to know the future is nonsense. Time goes in one direction period, that is reality. And regardless of how much some religious scholars twist and spin scripture otherwise, there is much in the Bible OT that shows God changes his mind. Further why would God even if he could, want to create a universe where all is known? How utterly boring. Oh yeah now I recall why...philosophers in the Middle Ages like a bull dog with a bone decided for the rest of us from most vague Bible scripture that God had to be omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence lest it not really be a god.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Precognition, time travel into the past or future, are in the realm of scifi imagination. Regardless of arguments provided by philosophers, the ability to know the future is nonsense. Time goes in one direction period, that is reality. And regardless of how much some religious scholars twist and spin scripture otherwise, there is much in the Bible OT that shows God changes his mind. Further why would God even if he could, want to create a universe where all is known? How utterly boring. Oh yeah now I recall why...philosophers in the Middle Ages like a bull dog with a bone decided for the rest of us from most vague Bible scripture that God had to be omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence lest it not really be a god.

So what does your definition of God, or a god, entail?

 

[Kaon]

what do scientists think about fate and destiny

if scientists think free will is an illusion

because

scientists say there is no scientific evidence for free will

Academia cannot measure "free will," because will cannot be institutionalized or broken down into pieces that can be put back together. (Technically it can, but it involves processes which would be considered spiritual, or beyond classical academia.)

However, I don't believe we have free will in the sense that we "choose" our destiny. We have all the latitude to respond to what happens to us, but besides short-sighted exhibitions of "will" (e.g. getting orange juice because you are thirsty, or applying to a job and getting hired) we don't have the "freedom" to will ourselves into any reality.

 

[Davidz777]

~

 

[prosperity4all]

I would think fate is self made in the scientists view. ie: self fulfilling prophecies and such. You believed it therefore you created it yourself.

why do you think that?

 

[Radagast]

what do scientists think about fate and destiny

Special relativity implies a "block theory" of time, i.e. the future is 100% determined.

 

[Belk]

Special relativity implies a "block theory" of time, i.e. the future is 100% determined.

Oh? Show us the math that supports this please.

 

[Radagast]

Oh? Show us the math that supports this please.

See here for a fairly simple discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See here for a fairly simple discussion.

The Bob Doyle (information philosopher) calls it an 'unacceptable conclusion'...

"... these philosophers jump to the unacceptable conclusion that the time dimension is like space and so the "future is already out there," any event that is going to happen has already happened. This is the concept of actualism, that only what actually happens ever could have happened..

Just because an event is placed on a space-time diagram, it is not made actual. It is still in the future. Quantum mechanics has eliminated the physical determinism that Laplace's demon might have used to connect present events causally with events in the future."​

Just sayin'.

Although deterministic interpretations of QM would throw a spanner in his works...

 

[Radagast]

The Bob Doyle (information philosopher) calls it an 'unacceptable conclusion'...

So he does, but the argument seems pretty solid to me.

The future must be fixed, because special relativity tells us that for some observers, it is already the past.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So he does, but the argument seems pretty solid to me.

The future must be fixed, because special relativity tells us that for some observers, it is already the past.

It seems reasonable to me too - whether QM is deterministic or not seems irrelevant. But special relativity may not be the whole story.

 

[Belk]

See here for a fairly simple discussion.

Thank you.

 

[prosperity4all]

Thank you.

your welcome

 

[AV1611VET]

what do scientists think about fate and destiny

I would imagine if scientists can't see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it, quantify it, repeat it, or make a mistake with it, it doesn't exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would imagine if scientists can't see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it, quantify it, repeat it, or make a mistake with it, it doesn't exist.

I imagine you'd be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I imagine you'd be wrong.

I would too.

 

[Shemjaza]

I would imagine if scientists can't see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it, quantify it, repeat it, or make a mistake with it, it doesn't exist.

It's interesting hard determinism is a belief held by some varieties of materialist atheists and some Fundamentalist Christians, (varieties of Calvinists).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's interesting that the classical mechanics of Newton's laws are not strictly deterministic, but that some formulations of quantum mechanics are.

 

[Tayla]

Other scientists are atheist and they believe everything is a chemical reaction.

I think they don't know what consciousness is, but they know brain function is necessary to generate it. Therefore, they assume it emerges from brain function. This is true, I suppose, as far as it goes.

Seems to me if something emerges, the possibility for its emergence must have been present all along.