TOFI: THE THEORY OF INEVITABILITY

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

TOFI is described on Internet by its author Derek Brockis. It is simple but describes the

universe as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Criticise and please prove Tofi is wrong - unfortunately no one has done so yet.

In addition, Antoine accidently sent this via the report system

That theory is flawed and opens up loopholes.

We can make predictions, but will each prediction be inevitable? No. I can predict that someone will come in my house in 2 minutes and steal my wallet right in front of me. Will it happen? Possibly. Is it inevitable? No. After that 5 minutes is up, the prediction is incorrect. And my wallet won't be stolen in front of me within 2 minutes.


I'd rewrite that theory into:
Everything is probable therefore predictable.

Scorpius. Thanks for questioning Tofi's validity.
Tofi does not say that humans can predict everything. Firstly, we are not clever enough. Secondly, we never know all the facts. If we did, everything would be predictable because it moves in an inevitable way, downto the last molecule.

Referring to your burglar, if 50 hardened crimminals were held separatly outside your house, each with a steel passageway into it, given a million pouds each and promised another million and that they would die horribly if they did not take your wallet, you could reasonably predict you would be burgled

you might say there could be an earthquake. however, you have built an earthquake detector.

THink again - everything moves to an inevitable pattern, even your questioning it Derek Brockis.

Following your premises yes. Following my premises, no.

Semantics...

I still have a problem with the word -- inevitable. From my understanding, the word inevitable describes an event that is impossible to avoid.

In order to assume everything is inevitable, you would have to be omniscient and have god-like powers, to control the universe at your will allowing every event to unfold in what would appear to be a multi-universe.

Sorry, can't see your nome. Thanks for criticism of Tofi. I always inevitably hope that someone will prove it convincimgly wrong. There may be a powerful He, She or It who or which controls our affairs but, according to Tofi, their actions proceed in just as inevitable way as ours do. Even your questioning of Tofi is part of the inevitably proceeding pattern.

I have put 'The Theory of Inevitability' on Internet - you can perhaps find it. I hope it does not apper presumptious. I am genuinely interested in seeing somebody put something more convincing in its place. There is plenty of evidence for Tofi. none for vague religious and ethical arguments against it Regards Derek Brockis

[edit - fixed quote]

After thinking it over, I believe it is indeed true.

If you thought someone was going to steal your wallet, but it is very improbable that it will happen, then it is inevitable that it will not happen.

If you want to go to the park, it is inevitable that you may or may not go.

If your sink is dirty, it is inevitable that it will either remain so or be cleaned.

I hope this is what the theory is meant to say.
If it is, then there is no way to avoid inevitability.

I still believe that the Theory of Inevitability needs to be rewritten. My proposal was and still stands as:

The Theory of Predictability [Probability]:
Everything is predictable therefore probable. ie. Everything is probable therefore predictable.



Seeing as Tifo is saying everything is inevitable. Then both the improbable and the probable should be inevitable. So eventually your wallet will be stolen and won't. But that is not always the case. A man could live the rest of his life without having his wallet stolen and only the prediction that his wallet won't be stolen will only hold true.

Therefore all predictions whether incorrect [improbable] or correct [probable] ("everything") should be inevitable. Semantics as I said - wrong choice of words.

---
I also like to point out that the theory in itself is true ("Everything proceeds to an unchangeable inevitable pattern. When you know enough about any situation its future is entirely predictable". It's just that when you put the word "Everything" and "Inevitable" together then it becomes misleading.

Jay Man 895
Scorpius
Antoine

As good criticism of Tofi as I have yet seen. Thanks. Tofi is such a deep subject that i have never been able to think it through clearly myself - only enough to accept it. Concepts of what we mean by 'correct and incorrect' and what 'time' is escape me.

Believers in Thermodynamic theories say minute particles move so chaotically they are impossible to predict and that even observing them changes their future. I say that however chaotic they are, they are moving in an inevitable pattern and of course observing them changes their future but it was inevitable you would have been observing them in that way at that time.

Regarding predictability and probability, two points. Firstly our assessment of the situation is basically only the movement of particles/waves in our brains and these are moving in an inevitable and predictable way. Secondly, nature is not untidy and probability is only a statement the making of which was inevitable, just as is the outcome of the event about which probability was being assessed.

Will come back on the other points later. Derek Brockis.

[Hello Scorpius. Interesting quote from de Chardin, which in no way contradicts Tofi. However spirtual the experience of the subject might be, it can be proceding to an inevitable pattern.

Inevitability has already been implied by Darwinism and by Determinism. what Tofi in its modest way adds, is the linking of inevitability to predicability.

Your mention of probability, implying it can only be said that something is inevitabiy probable or improbable is interesting. tofi would imply that the statement of improbability is a fact and its exact form resulted from an inevitably proceeding pattern. What is going to happen to the event you are describing as probable or improbable is already part of the inevitably proceding pattern, therefore prob or improb. does not exist other than that it is the movement of the molecules in your brain making the statement. I don't mean to be glib. Just looking - inevitably for the inevitable truth, but my truth does not exist any more than your improbability does. Derek Brockis

Hello JayMan895
It is just as inevitable you were going to say Tofi is true as it would have been if you had said the opposite. You are right, you cannot cheat Inevitability, whether in the positive or negative sense.

Suppose a billlion ton meteor is one billionth of an inch above your head moving towards you at one billion m.p.h. You could say it was inevitable it was going to hit you.

All that Tofi does is to extend that thinking to all events, recognising that the farther away in time and the more complex the event is, the harder it is to predict by human intellligence, which is itself part of the inevitably proceding pattern. Still Listening with interest.. Derek Brockis

maybe the theory works but a bit backwards. like predictions have the opposite effect ie-predcting something make it go away sort of speak ?
and there was the theory about the infinate numbers of monkeys on a infinete number of typewriters typing away eventually produceing shakesphere--LOl

i suppose anything can happen given enough time .

To all the valued commentators on Tofi.

Please ponder 2 points:

!. The woolly thinking of most media experts communicating to us on subjects like genes, evolution and atheism. They tell you the world is entirely materalistic, then go on to use words like 'ought, should and It is important that.'

Just listen to their confusion..

2. Think of the effect it will have on the world - morality, conscience, the concept of free will etc., if Tofi becomes widely accepted. Then think quietly about the fact that whatever is going to happen is inevitable.

Not preaching. Just interested.

Derek Brockis

Hello Rino

The prediction is just another inevitable event in apattern of other inevitable events. It is movement ofmolecules/electrons in a brain, then of typewriter keys. What was going to happen happens wit or without te prdiction event hough, superficially,the prediction can appear to make an event happen or not happen.

re. your team of monkeys, just think how one monkey who noticed that a few letters could be arranged to describe things. he, or she, could speed things up a hell ofa lot. even moreso with music. If one monkey decided it didn't like the racket, you would soon have Mozart. Derek Brockis.

what if a few monkeys are blindfolded and have on hearing protection ?--there is allot of loose numbers in this equation -- yea given enough time and the infinity of the universe

well one thing that I do agree is inevitable is death.

I’ll have a stab at this:

Here’s a question: Are you Antione? Derek Brockis? both or neither? It is inevitable that you are one of these predictions, as there is nothing left to chance and it encompasses all possibilities.

Does this example explain the basis of your theory?


JayMan, to reiterate what Scorpius said; if there is the slightest degree of ‘probability’ involved, then the event by definition is not ‘inevitable’.


In your opinion, how do you believe ‘we would like’ the universe to be?

Given the assumption that we have perfect information about a situation, and all possible variables that could influence that situation, you are creating a closed system that is therefore both predictable and inevitable - provided these conditions are not subject to change. But is the universe a closed system? Can there ever be perfect information about such an open dynamic system that is constantly in flux?

What if an unknown factor appears into this closed system equation? Surely that would then change the initial ‘inevitability’ of it? Predictability uses information from a certain period in time. What if that information was to significantly change enough to affect the initial outcome, or ‘inevitability’ of the event?

For example, if someone said ‘we would have definitely won the game ‘if’ Pete hadn’t broken his leg…’

The prediction at the start, taking account of all information would have been ‘we will win the game’. The outcome is that they lost due to what you could call ‘unforeseen circumstances’ that were not present at the time of the prediction.

Therefore, to fully accurately predict or foretell an event, at the time of the prediction you would need perfect information on what happens from the moment of the prediction right up to the happening of the event. Since we cannot know with absolute certainty what will happen until it does happen, predictability cannot equal inevitability.


If you are to take chaos in a metaphysical context, (which I think we are) is it not the antithesis of law and order, pattern and predictability?


Why would observing them change their future? Why should it be assumed that the ‘observer’ can somehow influence what he is observing, by observing?

I would not say the path in which they move is predictable. If it was, then to classify them as chaotic/random would be untrue. Your theory assumes there must be an observable predictable pattern to everything that happens, even if we can’t see it. That is to say even events that we perceive as random aren’t actually random, but must have a pattern to them. By definition however, ‘chaotic’ movements have no pattern of prediction, and therefore cannot hold true in your theory.

Speaking subjectively, if we can observe no pattern or structure, then by our definitions it is indeed a ‘random’ event, until some time where we can observe a pattern to it. How can you assume there is order to everything when we have no evidence to suggest this? Perhaps random movements are just that; random.

I have more points I could throw in, but let’s deal with these ones for now.

So in conclusion, I would change your theory to this:

‘Everything is predictable, nothing is inevitable – c’est la vie.’

One more question; how is Tofi different to fate?


Tommy – *now with a headache*

Hello Tommy, Padawan,Scorpius, JayMan and others
I am amazed at the attention Tofi is getting. I do feel, however, that as what I honestly think is a fundamental truth spreads it could change the world, even though any changes, or absence of changes, will be part of the inevitable pattern.

There are so many questions to answer! I have noticed a tendency to interpret Tofi as saying that humans can predict the inevitable pattern of events. and rejecting Tofi because we cannot. It does not claim this. It says that in an adequate system where sufficient information was available all events, being inevitable, are in principle predictable. In addition it says that because all evidence is that all events are predictable they must be inevitable.
Remember also that we are only molecules etc. moving in a complicated system and our observations do not necessarily represent reality.

Just to answer one question. What is the difference between Tofi and Fate. A person will accept that Fate is influencing his/her life but retain the concept of free-will, conscience and religious responsibility. Tofi says that whatever he/she does is inevitable, down to the last detail as does their will and that conscience etc. is proceding to an inevitable pattern. The person was going to do what they do do a billion tears ago.

I have studied all the comments, hope to reply, but unfortunately cannot see proof tofi is wrong, given sufficient thought. Derek Brockis.

Hello Padawan
Thanks for quote
Tofi states everything that happens, down to the smallest detail, is proceding to an inevitable pattern. THe omniscience of people has nothing to do with it. they are part of the pattern, however omniscient.

There is a theory we are all a virtual reality in computers of a master race from our own time that discovered time travel and went to the future and became unbelievably advanced.
Tofi does not rule this out. It simply states that whatever the master race does proceeds to an inevitable pattern like everything else.

Death appears inevitable in a superficial concept. It is inevitable, as is everything else. However, if a new drug stops us ever dying, that would be an equally inevitable event.Whether we all die or enjoy perpetual life is already decided as part of the inevitably proceding pattern.

So in one sense death is inevitable and in another sense it is also inevitable but they are different senses.
Derek Brockis

[edit - fixed quote]

[quote name='Tommy' date='Mar 6 2006, 03:18 AM' post='1091466']
I’ll have a stab at this:

Hello Tommy

Agreed that your identity question demonstrates an inevitability. so does everything else

.There can never be probability. The expression of probability is part of the inevitability.

We would like the universe to be one where free-will exists.

Closed or not, whatever comes into the system comes as part of the inevitable pattern. Tofi does not rule out the existence of an infinite number of universes. It says only that tey are all moving in an inevitable pattern.

I do not understand time nor does anyone else yet. There is no reason to think it disturbs inevitability

The arrival of the unknown factor was part of the inevitable pattern

Any thought about the broken leg or expresssion of probability was part of the pattern.

A system having all information down to the movement of every particle in every brain in the universe could have predicted the result and the prediction itself would be and our comments here are part of the inevitable pattern

You are confusing human capability and concepts of time with a matter of, for want of a better word, atomic physics. The important part of Tofi (spot the deliberate mistake) is inevitability. Predictability is only a concept reinforcing Inevitability and I don't know what it means.

Advocates of thermodynamics claim that observation alters the future of very small particles and use this as evidence against tofi.

I contend that what are described as chaotic particles are in fact moving in an inevitable pattern that is too complicated for us yet to understand. Try giving a stone-age man a computer.

When you study any system, large or small, you find much evidence for Inevitability. Try dropping a stone on a table. Look at various ways through a maze. Look at planetary motion. Look at 1,000 others. Where is specific simple evidence that any system is not moving inevitably?

THanks for your criticism, believe it or not, I am trying to disprove Tofi myself!
derek Brockis.

Derek,

Thanks for your answers. There are several issues I still have problems with, I hope you can address them:

- The relationship between predictability and inevitability
- The concept of inevitability
- Choice & Randomness

To start with, I believe that you can break your theory down even further, to the simple relationship between cause and effect. Is what you are saying any different to saying every action has a reaction? Or that every choice has a consequence? Is your tofi any different to the concept of causality?

The concept of inevitability: I interpreted your definition of inevitability as a path of pre-ordained events that we are destined to walk down, that we could do nothing about. However instead of questioning the concept of choice and free will as you claimed it might, all tofi seems to say is that an action will cause an ‘inevitable’ reaction.

The relationship between predictability and inevitability:


This again is another area I am a bit unsure on. At the start, you claimed -

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

You give equal importance to both inevitability and predictability, implying they exist on a level of interdependence. Now you are saying that predictability is only reinforcing the more important aspect of inevitability. (or was that the deliberate mistake)

All it seems you are really saying is that ‘things happen’. Everything is predictable because it doesn’t have to come true. Everything is inevitable, because it will come true. Maybe it would just be easier to say, ‘everything ‘is’.

hello Tommy.
Firstly may I say Ido not set myself up as a pompous guru on Tofi. I am groping to comprehend its implictions like you are and feel I soon run out of intelligence to think things through.

Nevertheless, I have yet to see arguments that demolish Tofi.
In analysing Tofi it is easy to come up with glib answers

Re. your action and reaction point Tofi allows this, of course. The only thing Tofi adds is that all actions and reactions are inevitable and that there is not an input by a supernatural free will

yes, an action will cause an inevitable reaction and the action itself was inevitable, as was what happened before the action.

The concept of importance does not appear in Tofi. You can define fctors influencing and being influenced to different degrees.

Of course everything is. It may exist in more wonderful forms than we imagine but Tofi simply says all the forms move in an inevitable pattern.

No, that was not the deliberate mistake.

no problem in saying anything. A few elektrons moving in the brain and the speech muscles are following the inevitable pattern.

The idea of inevitability is not new. See implications of Darwin and Determinism.
The observation that the nearer the event is in time, that the biger it is and that the more you know about it te more you can predict its future is a simple truth. Carried further it implies 100% predictability can be arrived at.
The little bit of original thought I dare to think I might have created 30 years ago is that inevitability proves predictability that predictability proves inevitability and the link between the two. Regards Derek Brockis

[
Hello Padawan, 35rino,Scorpius, Tommy and others.
TOFI< TOFISM and TOFIST - a general answer to so many questions:

Beliefs can be categorised into 3.

1. The devout religious catholic, moslem etc. who believes in his God and obeys his church 100%.

2.The atheist or similar non-believer who neverthless claims a conscience, believes free-will exists outside a material world and in concepts such as right and wrong. Communists are the most confused. They deny God, suppress religion but demand obedience to a vague abstract doctrine.

3. Those who believe the universe is entirely materialistic.
For example, Tofi is the Theory. Tofism is the faith based on it and a Tofist is a person who practises that faith.

Arguers against Tofism often say 'If you accept Tofism nothing matters. You might as well get drunk and do nothing'.
It isn't like that. Whether you decide to be a drunk or a prime minister or both was decided a billion years ago. Your apparent decision was already part of the inevitably proceding pattern. Please prove the opposite, if you can!
Derek Brockis.

this post was inevitable.

So is was/is the fact that you are reading it right now

it's a simple theory

Hello Circuit
Yes you are right it is a simple theory.
It is inevitable some people are reading Tofi and inevitable some are not. If you say you disagree with Tofi your statement is part of the inevitably proceding pattern as is any subsequent statement that you were right or wrong. We will have(have?) to change
our concept of correct and incorrect, when we can think it and 'time' concepts through, which is not yet.

You can extend your point to cover the apparent contradictions of Tofi by Heisenberg and quantum mechanics researchers. Their decisions to study were inevitable as were their methods and results. The apparent fact that observation alters the future of small particles apparently unpredictably does not necessarily disprove Tofi ie. that they are in fact moving to an inevitable but complicated pattern.Also, our concepts of 'correct and incorrect' and the limitations of our languages to express such concepts mean that we canot be sure we are defining the situation correctly, whatever 'correct' means.

I do not know the answers. Only that there is massive simple daily evidence of the validity of Tofi and no cohesive convincing evidence against it.

Derek Brockis

[edit - fixed quote]

Re.the posting about the typing monkeys and the inevitability of them typing everytthing if given enough time, this point is smilar to the debates about the odds against life arising are about the same as the chances of building an aircraft from an explosion in a scrap yard.

The point is that in reality a sorting or filtering mechanism of some type arises from the random situation and, over vast time scales, creates everything to an inevitable pattern, however complicated.

Argument about Tofi seems to be fading. Pity.I am still waiting for any convincing evidence against it.

Tofi - The Theory of Inevitability.

Everything is inevitable thereore predictable. Evrything is predictable therefore ineivitable.

For details see website. Derek Brockis.

i should have added this to my earlier post.Things are has they are. There is a clear relation beetween inevitability and predictability.

Consider a simple box and a normal ball (small). Consider there is nothing more in the universe, just the box and the ball, there is no table where the box stands, no nothing. Just the box. Now consider that the ball is placed above the box, near the side of it. (check this image to visualize :
example image )

Now you have a universe that is composed by a ball and a box. this is the universe in its very beggining, i don't know if someone created it (god, someone else), if it allways existed in time or if it just poped out of nowhere, but honestly i don't care.

Now that you defined the universe imagine you press the play button on the very universe and phisics now exist, the ball falls like in the image (A) and because it hits the side of the box and it was placed slightly to the inside of the box (i don't care why it was placed like this. it just was) it starts to roll into the box and hits the ground, rolls and hits a wall ( B ) of the box it turns and continues in this infinite sucession of events. Now imagine you press stop. You smash everything and get another box exactly like the one we had and another ball, exactly like the one we had and place them exactly in the same position they were and drop the ball the same way. Has the universe has not changed, and lives by the same rules, it all happens again, not because it is fate, not because it is predictable just because it is just the way it has to happen.

Is the "life" of the ball predictable? yes, indeed it is. We know all the variables we know the rules. Just do the math. People do this everyday when they work in a computer, the computer is a closed system (at least tries to be), when i am developing a computer program i know what variables exist and when they change and why they change. Given an input i can tell you for shure what the output will be (at least if i was a good programmer i should be able to:) ). The system is closed (or seems to be). So is our universe because it is where we live in. It is closed, just because in this teory, the universe we consider is everything, and i don't think there is anything that is not included, when we say everything. Giving that we can know all the variables we could predict things. Of course it seems impossible to know all the variables, but that is a problem of developing the right technics, in theory if we know all the variables we can analise, cause we know the rules and predict. The problem is that in the example of the ball i could predict the future of the balls life cause i was not inside of the system. In our world we are variables of the very system we are trying to predict. Just by thinking on the ways to predict the future we (variables) change and consequently alter the universe (system) around us. It was inevitable that we did what we did, and that we (as variables) thought about tofi and tryied to predict things. But the future would only be predictable by who is not a variable in our system. We are like the ball, i don't know who put the ball and the box in the place, i don't know who pressed play:)

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE
i think is true, but i think to aply this as the variables of the very system that we want to predict is only possible in small systems (aparently) closed inside our very big system. So that we as variables alter them the least possible not to change their beahaviour.

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE
i don't really get it... i supose its true with the same comment i made to the other statment. but i don't really think it is of much importance this statment for the theory.

hope i helped with my inevitable ideas.

sorry for the inevitable errors... my english used to be a lot better

Derek I’ve been meaning to reply to this thread, just been a bit busy lately. I want to address the third point I made earlier, about choice and randomness which I didn’t really get around to last time.

I think it’s important to say your tofi effects are two fold: it is saying that -

a. you will reach ‘an event’ in the future;

And b. given enough information in the present, you should be able to accurately predict exactly what that event will be.

Tofi is saying that you can use the present and the past as a line of best fit almost, and follow the pattern to accurately predict future events. The main problem I see is that tofi does not acknowledge the concept of randomness, which for all intents and purposes would render the theory rather useless.

My point is this: even a purely random, chaotic event would have an ‘inevitable’ reactionary effect, but not a predictable one.

Does tofi assume that there is no such thing as free will? We still have to make a choice for any action/inaction taken. It may be inevitable that ‘a reaction’ will result from this, but not an inevitably predictable one.

To say that there is no such thing as free will is to assume the functions of the brain work in a predictable way. I just don’t believe that this is wholly the case. Decisions no doubt are heavily influenced through external factors, such as upbringing, education and life experiences that leave an imprint on the way we think and why we act the way we do. But I also believe there is room for a degree of ‘chaos’ within this internal process of ‘decision making’.


Just to come back to this point; I disagree in part. I think that we would like the universe to have pattern and predictability to it. A universe that can be quantified and measured, observed and studied to be explained away. We want to know how big it is, precisely when did it start, where is it going and why. But while most experiments take into account a certain ‘x factor’ to them; saying that we can never be 100% sure of the results, there is no room for this with tofi. It’s certainly an abstract model based on one major assumption; that there is no such thing as randomness.


I don’t fall into any of your 3 categories. Just because I don’t accept tofi, or obey a god and their church 100% doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the possible existence beyond a material, physical world. Does that make me quite literally ‘unbelievable’?


But this is not about proof. As you have just said, it is about belief! Belief in a abstract concept that has a paradoxical consequences and a major assumption to it.

Also according to your theory, I don’t know if you’ve previously mentioned it elsewhere, but if it were true, then if you could take a snapshot of existence exactly how it is now, then you could theoretically trace back in time how everything came to be. Could you argue it goes both ways?

A think that the very basis of tofi is exactly that.. there are no random events. Randomness does not exist, there are only events that appear random cause we do not know all the variables at all time.


If there is no randomness then events would be predictable if we consider that there can be a way to see all the variables (and not be a variable ourselves).


Same problem about whether or not randomness exists.



The education you have received, the very one that brought you to webboard and to reply using the words you used and to have the ideas you have is (was) a predictable event cause it was caused by all the events that preceded the ones that gave you the education. The education you received dependend on the education your parents received and all the external factors of the world surrounding them when they grew up, just like happened to the parents of your parents and their grandparents and so on.... just a big series of events. And indeed we are built of atoms, molecules, predisposed in a determinated way, our brain waves are controlled by chemical reactions inside our body, and by the perception of the world around us, and by the external factors surrounding us, but the chemical reactions have nothing random, nor the world around us. So... if there is no randomness, tofi would be completely correct... i think on tofi for quite some time and never liked the idea of it but i still see nothing that proves it wrong. But sometimes i just rather not think that things are like "tofi" says they are

I don't think that "everything" is inevitable... but there may be one inevitable future for the universe and it is this future that shapes the present...


I think randomness does exist to some extent... but there are universal limits which nullify this randomness on cosmic scales.

Ultimatley you cannot prove this "tofi" as correct.

even though, you say, you cannot prove this as correct... can you prove it as incorrect?

What do you mean that randomnes exists to some extent?

No, I cannot... but it hinges on the idea that "EVERYTHING" is inevitable... which relys on the assumptions that the universe we exist within will hold every single possibility in some point of time and that it is infinite, am I right?

What if the universe we exist within is finite? surely then "everything" could not exist within it because the nature of everything is infinite.

Idealy we would find a new name to term this "universe" as there could be (and most likely are) other "universes" out there.

Randomness mostly existing on the quantum level... some would say there are resonant fields controlling the randomness... but I am skeptical.

Also, what of free will? Can our actions be completley random?

Ablsahs

controviening?

like pulp on a cheese wheel?




Obviously my thoughts are limited to my knowledge and my words are limited to my language... But then again, particles don't think or talk, do they?




I like the idea that there is an Omega point to this universe... that it was created to satisfy some type of inequality... or, even more profound, maybe it is a system created to satisfy itself... then even though events can be random, they become limited to themselves as the universe expands - ultimatley leading to this satisfaction.

No, everything that is going to happen happens just because it has to happen, everything that happens is inevitable cause there was no other way that it could possibly had happened. Not every single possibility at some point is something probable. But the things that happen aren't just probable, they are inevitable, and if you we're to know every single variable of our system at a determinated point in time,you could predict things that will happen on the future, because things happen for a reason, they follow rules. You grab a ball and a long wooden piece. You put the wooden piece in a vertical position. you throw the ball at it and hit the wooden piece at a determinated point with a determinated speed. If you repeated the experience, with the exact same ball (like it was before you threw it the first time), the exact same wooden piece (like it was before it was hit the first time) the same weather conditions, everything equal, and you hit the wooden piece at the same exact point, at the same exact speed, how could the wooden piece fall differently? wouldn't it just fall exactly the same way? Can't you explain in a scientific way why it fell that way? isn't it always just the computation of laws the universe lives by...? even if the laws change in time, cant you understand how they change?

Would it be different if instead of a wooden piece you had a person? you hit the person with the ball, but she doesn't just fall, she moves the arms when it is hit, the person puts the hands in her head when the ball hits her and then it falls. The way she moves, the way she reacts, the way the electrical impulses reach her brain telling her she was hit by something won't be the same? she was hit exactly the same way... the thing is.. you have to have the person exactly has she was before she was hit the first time. The person humor must be the same,the heartbeat, the chemical reactions inside her, basically, the electrical impulses flashing around her brain and all the things that make her a living being needed to be the same, or you would have a different experiment. Everything needed to be exactly exactly exactly the same.

If i throw a ball at you and hit you. The second time i do it, your reaction will be different. Cause the first time you were hit everything changed in you, the electrical impulses your brain received telling that you were hit by a ball made you think that i threw you the ball, and showed that it hurted, from that point you have a new judgment about me, your brain reacts in a different way when you see me, and the second time i throw a ball at you you will blink more, you will fear it cause you are not the same person that was hit by the first ball.. even if i am the same person, and i have the same ball, and the same weather conditions and i hit you the same way.. That is of course, if when i hit you the first time you won't come after me and hit me instead then maybe.. i wouldn't throw a second time

Hello Fellow Chatters

I have put Tofi on 2 forums now and thought the same thing was happening both times. A small group vigorously and intelligently debating its validity, calling it wisdom or rubbish - in about equal quantities - then loisng interest.

I put Tofi on two websites and there has been some, but very little, interest over about 6 years.

I am puzzled. It seems to me that the simple statement Tofi: 'Everything is inevitable therefore predictable. Everything is predoictable therefore inevitable' is so basic to human philosophy and behaviour that it would be prominent and that its validity or otherwise would receive much and continuous public attention.

At a time when people round the world are happily killing each other for much more flimsy philosophies,I am puzzled why it does not receive that atention

Not disappointed, not wanting to prove it. simply puzzled.

however, the recent vigour of discussion of this chat group leads me to wonder if Tofi is not, in fact, taking-off to the exent Iwould expect

Either way it is inevitable. Thanks for taking Tofi so seriously Antoine.

Hello [Quote---)

You analyse the reactions of a person at whom a ball is being thrown. Like everytiing connected with Tofi the thinking soon goes beyond what we poor humans can cope with but, nevertheless, nothing ever arises which disproves Tofi.

The unfortunate, or fortunate - she may like it - lady at whom the ball is being thrown will of course behave differently according to thousands of factors and her behaviour will be ruled by the random movement of elektrons and other paricles and waves we do not yet know about in her brain sorted out by various filtering mechanisms evolved over billions of years.

You can definitely predict that young ladies playing with young boys of the same religion and locality in a tennis court will react differently than a group of nuns facing an angry mob armed with cricket balls. The point is that the shorter tthe time scale and the more you know, the more obviously predictable the event is and that, in principle, there is no limit to this. It follows that ultimately everyting, however complicated, is predictable, therefore ienevitabe and vice versa. Hence Tofi. Antoine.

Hello Quote and Circuit.

You debate to prove Tofi correct or incorrect.

You cannot do either.

The point is that wherever you turn there is massive circumstantial evidence for Tofi. Drop a brick and it will fall. The sun will rise tomorrow - thre is no meteor near it.

None against Tofi - simply stating ttat things are too complicated is unacceptable as evidence.. So is to say 'I can't believe things are like that'.

You may not like it but Tofi is the way things are. Antoine.

I know this. I only wished to say what I meant so no one could say "There is a way to get around this situation.", I suppose I didn't say it quite the way I wanted.

You are right, however, if there is probability involved then the situation is in no way inevitable.

I have two questions.

First:

Do people think that there is probability involved with the events happening in our universe?I mean are there things that are purely random?
Cause if there are such things, and i'm not saying there aren't then there is no tofi worth proving cause it would be just wrong.

Second (Assuming you say no to the above answer)

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

Do you agree with these statements?

For example in the firsts statement, what if you are part of the inevitability (your actions are needed for things to happen has they are suppose to happen) Couldn't it be inevitable that you can't predict things? I'm talking about the fact that we are the very variables of the system we are trying to predict. By predicting it (as it was supposed to happen) we are just following the path that the invevitability has set for us.



I hope i'm not making this discussion go back in time...But i'm having some trouble following a path in this discussion...

thanks

antoine im srry but tofi doesnt exist, now ur gonna quote this and say "the questioning of tofi is inevitable" and yet saying this, saying that everything is inevitable means that it is inevitable that we are all wrong and noone ever will truly understand everything. tofi is really just someones sad attempt at bringing understanding into their life because they lack it in other areas. or they were just very bored. in summary; not everything can be inevitable because that is reduntant, saying that would mean that tofi not being inevitablely right would be inevitable and so on. its similar to the opposite day effect. you cant say "its opposite day" becuase if it was opposite day and u said that it would mean it wasnt opposite day.

So people if u believe in tofi listen to wat youd be saying

believing in tofi means inevitably you are wrong.

Hi Circuit, I don’t deny that you can break life down into a series of events; I just don’t believe that your past can predict your future. I would stick with ‘nothing is inevitable until it happens’.


Firstly, that ‘if’ is a huge assumption to make. Why do you assume there to be a pattern to everything when by your own accord we cannot observe it? If we cannot observe something then we are open to speculate on it. Yes, there ‘might’ be a pattern, but I don’t see why would assume there to be one.

Secondly, this also assumes that the universe is only made up of that which is knowable, and nothing else. Again how can we know or assume this to be the case? By fulfilling both these assumptions, you are conditioning the argument to suit the theory, so yes it would work.


I believe that the future cannot be predicted to the degree of inevitability, regardless of how much you know in the present or the past. Therefore yes, at some level I believe randomness does exist. It’s a nice theory though Derek; definitely thought provoking!

Surprisingly few people are interested in Tofi and similar theories, eg Determinism. Tofi is not widely debated, even though the world’s most important question must be whether God and free will exist? Football receives a thousand time as much attention. By the way, this is perhaps another small item in the mass of evidence for Tofi compared with religious ethics.
Could it be that there is some mechanism in the subconscious that discourages us from freely and seriously considering Tofi?
Darwinism says that all life is motivated to survive in the environment. People accepting Tofism are likely to be more fatalistic and contemplative but less aggressive than those fanatically supporting conventional religions. Therefore, at first sight, Tofists are less well equipped for group survival, unless it is true that the meek shall inherit the earth. Is it possible that we are programmed by evolution away from a Tofist philosophy.

Viruses evolve to be efficient at killing their hosts but to survive one would think they would do better by making their hosts healthy. The survival mechanism is very subtle and sometimes apparently contradictory. For example, the meek may invite less retaliation than the aggressive and therefore be more likely to survive.

There can be two reasons why Tofi ,or something like it, is not attracting and has never attracted massive world attention from people trying to analyze scientific questions and moral convictions. One reason could be that our minds are subconsciously biased against The other reason is that, as eruditely described by one chat group member, Tofi is bunk. Which or neither? Alternatively, it could be that football really is more important than God and free will.
Derek Brockis

TOFI is a nice little theory as it is virtually impossible to prove wrong. What ever happens you just need to say "that was inevitable". Because it has happened it is impossible to prove that it wasn't impossible.

However these two statements:

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

are demonstratably wrong.

Randomness and chaos both exist within the universe. Hence not everything is predictable.

An example of a random process is radioactive decay. For a radioactive isotope it is possible to give a half-life (the amount of time that the isotope will take to decay to half it's original mass). But a half-life is just an average. For a large mass it is fairly accurate but once you get down to small masses it is inaccurate. Why? Because an atom decays at a random time. It is impossible to predict. If you have 1 atom of Plutonium you will never be able to tell when or even if that atom will decay.

Chaos is another process which renders events unpredictable. A good example of this is the 3 body problem of astronomy. The Keplers Laws of Planetary motion and Newtons Laws are all fully understood hence it will always be possible to predict where the planets will be in the future right? Well actually no. It is easy to calculate how 2 bodies gravationally interact with each other. However when there are 3 or more bodies involved (ie in the real universe) the problem becomes chaotic. It is too complex to calculate. Astronomers calculate the positions of the bodies in the solar system 2 at a time. This gives a very good approximation over the short term, hence astronomers can calculate an eclipse of the sun in 100 years time with a very high degree of accuracy, but ask them to do it for 8 millions years from now. They will not be able to do it. Over long periods of time the motions of the planets are not predictable.

Of course none of this dis-proves TOFI. If I keep my atom of Plutonium for 5 million years and it doesn't decay the TOFI believer will just tell me that was the inevitable result.

Remeber though, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it is true, after all can you prove that I don't have an invisible, silent, none smelling, massless friend?

Probability is I shouldn't get involved in this: I reckon I've rattled too many cages already, but what the heck.
Let me say first that as skepticism is defined, I am likely one of the world's most skeptical people, and though many of you will say I'm nuts, I am not only skeptical of many of the items brought up on this site, I am skeptical of 'science', not news to many of you. I have my reasons.
Let me say secondly that there is one aspect of the universe that has not been addressed here: Does the universe exist, in fact, the way we sense it? If it does, then the question of inevitability is worth mention. If not, then the question is moot.
Examine, for instance, the 'philosophy' that maintains that there is no matter, all is sticky energy, and as such, perception of same is consistent with an indeterminant universe, since the subjective observation of same depends on what 'we' wish, or think we will, see. If the universe is observed in a strictly objective fashion (that is, with NO thought or mental pattern making it recognizable), then will it be what we think we have? To answer this question, one must have actually done the exercise. Having done the exercise, one finds that it is NOT as we materially picture it: in no way is it the same. Further, as practice makes perfect, the less the description, the more alien the universe becomes to what we think we know.
To accomplish this is a bit difficult, but not unattainable, just takes time and study. Once it is accomplished, you will see that what you 'know' is not at all actually true: at the same time, you will recognize that seeing the universe in this manner is, in fact, truth, and not as we normally view it.
Which makes the entire question-answer fruitless. One recognizes that time does not exist except as a reference; that all possibilities coexist at once and eternally; that there is a "God" (or whatever you wish to name it); that all things are equal, being formed of the same emanations from "God"; that mankind will never, so long as we insist on being material beings, figure out the universe, since it will constantly change to our collective will; and finally, as a mind (spirit, soul, whatever), you cannot die.

I wonder how people are so certain about such statement. I would like to be too...


At least for now it is impossible to predict... but some years ago we wouldn't even dream that an atom was compose of electrons and neutrons and all those fancy things we know now... but at the present time... yes... apparently impossible to predict... are there proofs it will always be impossible to predict? if so i take my stand back.



Complexity does not mean impossibility

sorry for this post... i now i'm not adding anything new... maybe just making the argument harder.. this was defenitly not a very good day

In the case of chaos yes it does. The 3 body problem can be shown, mathematically, to have no exact solution. Chaotic systems are so sensitive to small changes that it is impossible to measure them accurarely enought to provide an exact solution (the Earth's weather system is another example).



A random event is, by definition, impossible to predict. If Quantum Mechanics is correct (and so far it seems to be) then radioactive decay must be random (not my area of expertise but I expect it has something to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

Same problem... just cause the system is so sensitive to small changes it does not mean that in the future you won't have the knowledge to deal with those small changes..A few years ago (there i go back in time again:) ) we had floppy disks that allowed us to store 1.44 MB in a single floopy, and the drives used to do that are inacurate and its technology was unable to deal with the small changes in the floopy it self to store more data.. but has tecnology evolves, we learn how to deal with the small changes... we become more acurate and what seemed to be a too complicated system turns to be a not so complicated system nowadays... nao we can store in a CD over 640MB and a lot more in a DVD... what did we do? we changed the tools we were using to store data... in physics and maths we also have tools, i admit they aren't so easy to change like in a computer but ... well .. once in a while some brilliant mind gives you a new tool... and things that were impossible then turn to simple problems with simple solution... Take fermat problem... over 300 years to be proved ..but it was...it took us 300 years to get a tool that was sharp enough to solve it, but that tool showed up...


by definition tofi is write if i say that by definition it is and tofi will be wrong if instead of that i say that by definition it is wrong... definition only settles that something is that just because "i" say so. Random events are completly random in theory, so by definition they are random...it is easy to deal with it that way.. but if they are really random or just thing you can't in a "easy" way predict... that i leave some doubt.. i don't reject the possibility that something purely random exists in the universe... i just don't have the knowledge in me to understand that possibility...


Indeed not my area either... Heisenberg seemed to be a clever guy.. maybe he is right

As I said chaotic systems can be shown mathematically to have no exact solution. It doesn't matter how sensitive your measuring device is it will not be sensitive enough.



Only if you are writing (or in your case is that righting) the dictionary



So are you saying that you don't know what you are talking about but that's not going to stop you arguing? Interesting tactic.

i really hate this kind of forums.. this just seemed an interesting post... arguing here hardly gets us anywhere


i'm sorry about my tactic... your right.. i'm glad someone here knows what they are talking about.. i'll just step out...


thank you..

I thought it was an interesting tactic because most of us aren't honest enough to admit we don't know what we are talking about. Keep arguing for what you believe my friend.