Tofi: The Theory of Inevitability

[Kelvena]

If Tofi is indeed correct what need would one have for stochastics, probability, and the Markov process?

Edited April 30, 2006 by Kelvena

[Antoine]

If Tofi is indeed correct what need would one have for stochastics, probability, and the Markov process?

Kelvena

None

Antoine

[Antoine]

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.

Hello Alien Entity, Waspie Dwarf, Circuit and Kelvena

Four observations:

1. Thanks for your comments. Tofi always attracts so much debate it is surprising the concept has not spread world-wide. Why?

2. When Tofi says 'all events are predictable therefore inevitable' it does not mean that a human being, given a lot of sophisticated equipment, will ever be able to sit down and predict the position of a particular snowflake in a million year's time. What it does mean is that such an event is in principle predictable (and consequently inevitable) if a system were sufficiently advanced, equipped and informed.

The point that what today looks too complicated to predict may not be so tomorrow is often overlooked by chaos theories, Heisenberg etc.

3. There is no conflict between the concepts of random systems and Tofi.

a) The random system is proceeding in an inevitable pattern.

Apparent order can arise from a random system. Suppose a huge reservoir of molecules is reacting at random. Some will react to produce mechanisms which sort other molecules - hence life. The ordered system is behaving in the same inevitable and random way as the random system from which it evolved inevitably. This appears to be but is not a contradiction.

4. Recognise that the decision to question Tofi, the question and answer - for or against are all part of an inevitably proceding pattern and completely predictable.

Please, where is the solid evidence against Tofi. Not seen any yet but can produce a lot for it. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

Derek Brockis.

[Kelvena]

Are you referring to an emergent process? While it is true that an emergent process will lead to organization, it is impossible to tell that from the individual components of the system or from the forces acting on said system. You cannot predict exactly what the system will do or even that it is emergent. For example a collection of hydrogen, carbon, water, oxygen, sulfates and other compounds, ions and elements with a good source of energy (sunlight, volcanism, lightening, thermal power or what ever.) and you know you’d get life, why? Because you are the end result of such a system, when you recreate it you already know, or rather you have a good assumption of where the system will go. No surprise when it produces life. Even then however, one cannot predict the form and the shape of said life, just like if one did not know where the system was going to go before hand one could not predict where they system was going to end up. Another example would be the spots and stripes on the skins of animals; this is an example of a diffusion reaction system. In its embryonic state two chemicals battle it out for dominance on the dermis. There is the pigment for dark coloring and the chemical that erases it; or rather we should say the normal coloring of the animal. These two diffuse across the dermis and when the encounter each other they react, the containment pigment (normal skin pigment) destroy the coloring pigment until the catalysis (not a true catalysis otherwise it wouldn’t be used up) for the reaction is used up. The nature of the diffusion and the reaction is determined by the amount of both chemicals before hand and by the shape of the animal’s dermis. Round embryos have spots, long embryos have stripes; this is why you’ll never see an animal with a spotted tail. The only reason we know that the system behaves in this manor is because we have observed it in the natural world, before hand we had no idea or anyway of predicting this, in addition although we can predict whether it will be a striped or spotted animal we cannot know the exact positioning of the spots, rather we can express a range of possibilities.

As for Heisenberg, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was saying how you can never predict or even know the exact positioning of a particle even with the post precise of instruments.

[Antoine]

Hello Kelvena

I will try to reply to your two points but firstly a comment:

I do not pretend or want to be a defender of Tofi. Firstly, as I see it, my defence, sucessful or otherwise, is always part of the inevitably proceding pattern. Secondly, I do not like the way things are according to Tofi and am hoping to be convinced it is rubbish. Unfortunately, in the 30/40 years since I mentioned Tofi to people, I have not come across a single convincing piece of evidence refuting the thory and it get's boring sometimes.

Your two points:

1. I stress again that Tofi does not imply that, for example, a human will ever be able to predict the pattern of growth of Leopard's spots. It claims only that the growth proceeds to an inevitable pattern, or does not proceed if the leopard is inevitably shot according to the inevitable pattern. Because the pattern is inevitable it is predictable if sufficient information is available. By definition anything which is 100% predictable is inevitable and vice versa and everything is both.

In an ocean - or a billion oceans- let us suppose an almost infinite (what an inevitable BBC-like illogicality) number of mixed molecules are moving and being struck by lightening. In time they will form every kind of sieve, polymer and isomer, one or more of which will have the property of organising molecules in a direction which will evolve further. Everything remains entirely random but something random has evolved which will proceed randomly until it reaches a dead-end or produces jumbo jets. That is if a meteor doesn't randomly hit it as was inevitably going to happen. We are trying to put names to things using minds, languages and concepts that do not represent the real natures of time and matter. Nevertheless, nothing disproves Tofi.

2. Heisenberg

Heisenberg's claims relatig to thermodynamics that very small particles are changed by observation and unpredictable are reasonable within present human knowledge but do not allow for 3 factors.

1. The decision to observe and the observation of the partcles was itself, as was the answer, part of an inevitable pattern.

2. The fact that human intelligence and equipment cannot look at the situation and predict its future does not mean it is not proceding inevitably and predictably.

3. Compexity, however great, does not mean the system is not proceding inevitably and predictably. Try showing Internet to a cave man.

Please let me know, if I have not properly interpreted your questions.

Derek Brockis

[Antoine]

Waspie Dwarf

I like your thinking expressed in the 'Same Problem - floppy disk' note.

You make the point that bettter tools will improve predictability. Obviously have understood the point that Tofi does not say that humans can or will ever be able to predict all events 100%.

Definition of predictability is difficult. It involves having a proper concept of time.

When you have thought it through, please let me know the answer. It beats me.

Anyway none of this disproves Tofi, if anything it reinforces it

Derek Brockis.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Waspie Dwarf

I like your thinking expressed in the 'Same Problem - floppy disk' note.

I can't take credit for that (well I could but it would make me dishonest), it was circuit that posted that argument.

[Kelvena]

Well, if stated like that I find I cannot disagree. As long as predictions are not down to true 100% accuracy, as long as variation and deviation is allowed, I find that Tofi does not disagree with my knowledge of mathematics, physics or chemistry.

But now I wonder, what is the big deal? He said nothing that violates any laws of nature, at least if he expresses himself in the manner you have, in fact it sounds as though he was making a fairly obvious prediction of how events unfold.

Please explain the controversy to me is it an issue of free will or is it something else entirely?

[circuit]

Well, if stated like that I find I cannot disagree. As long as predictions are not down to true 100% accuracy, as long as variation and deviation is allowed, I find that Tofi does not disagree with my knowledge of mathematics, physics or chemistry.

The controversy is that Tofi makes life seem very dull

There is no room for variation and deviation..or in other words.. everything happens in a completely non random way.. luckily, it appears to be almost impossible to apply this theory in real life, cause it is practically impossible to consider all the necessary amount of involved variables that allow us to predict an event in a 100% correct way.

By this I do not say that by this theory predictions cannot be made in a truly correct way, cause they can (in theory for now).

If you were able to consider all the variables in a system, you would predict it in a perfectly correct way. To consider all the variables seems to be impossible to achieve...but we have been amazed by human technics in the past, so much technology was created that allows us to do things that seemed before impossible...so i leave some room for this to also be, who knows, one day, possible...

If we do not take account of all the variables involved in the system we try to predict, then we are going to commit mistakes, cause there will happen events that were apparently random... but the randomness was just a result of our ignorance about the awareness of those variables inside the very system we are trying to predict.

[Kelvena]

It sounds more like Tofi was saying we can find a range of possibilities, not that we can know the exact future, if he is saying range then there is honestly no point in arguing, unless of course you had an argument with a mathematics professor over the same issues.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Kelvena

[Antoine]

It sounds more like Tofi was saying we can find a range of possibilities, not that we can know the exact future, if he is saying range then there is honestly no point in arguing, unless of course you had an argument with a mathematics professor over the same issues.

Good Evening Kelvena.

Tofi is saying that everything is inevitable therefore predictable nd that everything is predictable therefore inevitable.

Regarding your range of possibilities, let us assume a ship leaves harbour. The range of possibilities includes that it will sink, be captured by pirates, sail- off to an island paradise and many other possibilities, including it finishing its voyage without event.

Tofi says that the one - or more - of these possibilities which occurs is already decided before the ship leaves harbour, before it was even built or the earth cooled down. An inevitable train of events is occurring including your question, my answer and the ship's fate. Tofi does not imply that humans are clever enough or can ever possess enough information to predict the ship's fate. It does imply that every system is in principle predictable, given enough information. Tofi states everything is inevitable therefore must be predictable and that anything that is 100%predictable must be inevitable. Derek Brockis.

[Antoine]

Hello Tommy and Circuit and others.

Delighted to see that Tofi is at last receiving the depth and scope of criticism needed to establish whether it is truth or rubbish.

To comment on the points raised will take time and thought:

a few points:

It is not always recognised that the decision to investigate and consider Tofi is part of the inevitably proceeding pattern and that the result is inevitable.

There is no contradiction between Tofi and randomness. An apparently ordered system arises from a random one and remains random itself however orderly it appears to be.

Tofi does not imply that humanity will ever be able to predict perfectly only that everything, being inevitable, must in principle be predictable.

Our concepts of time and change are probably remote from reality, therefore judgements of Tofi and anything else are suspect. Nevertheless, the massive balance of evidence remains in favour of Tofi.

Derek Brockis

[Antoine]

[Hello Alien Embryo.

Please may I go back to your 8 Dec 05 comments - ( I find Tofi ideas often take some time to mature)

1. You believe Tofi to be true. Over 35 years ago I came to the same conclusion but have carried on doing what I was inevitably going to do anyway.I have never seen convincing evidence Tofi is untrue.As you imply, you cannot escape Tofi in either a positive or negative sense.

2 ‘Someone going to steal your wallet.’ Whatever you think, your thought was inevitable and was merely the random motions of sub-atomic particles.. whether your wallet is going to be stolen or not was decided long before the earth formed.

3. It was inevitable you would find yourself in the park desiring situation. Any contemplation follows an inevitable pre- decided and predictable pattern as does your final location in or out of the park.

4.Dirty sink. Whether the sink will be cleaned or not was (or is, if your sink is still dirty) already decided. Remember it might alternatively have been inevitably decided that that sink is going to have a bomb hidden in it or be chosen for a Martian landing. The fact these appear unlikely events is irrelevant.

Your comments do reflect what Tofi is meant to say. You are right you cannot escape it. However, those unaware of it are behaving in just as inevitable and predictable pattern as those who are aware. They can’t escape being unaware of it but are as ruled by it as are the aware ones, who could not escape being aware of it. Derek Brockis

[circuit]

those unaware of it are behaving in just as inevitable and predictable pattern as those who are aware. They can’t escape being unaware of it but are as ruled by it as are the aware ones, who could not escape being aware of it

Based in that statment, that i "can" agree to be correct (at least for now), do you think tofi will ever bring any good thing for science or help humanity in any kind of way?

I mean, other than getting others to understand this theory, and make them "aware" (no matter if it was or not inevitable), will tofi ever be able to be applied in our benefit?

I don't mean that "making" others aware isn't enough...if tofi is to be correct, at least it makes us understand ourselves a little better..

[Tiggs]

Interesting.

Chaos Theory states that everything is not predictable as small pertubations in initial input result in large differences in output.

Take for example, measuring a coastline. If you measured it with a 1 metre ruler, you'd get a different answer than if you'd measured it with a 30cm ruler, because you'd take more of the curves into account with the smaller ruler.

Now take that concept down to the Quantuum level, where the very act of measuring the value results in a change to the value that you're measuring.

Inevitable, Yes. Predictable, Not always, for us humans, as it's sometimes impossible to take measurements to the degree of accuracy required, depending on the system involved.

Ask a weatherman.

ps. As, by definition, Quantuum is the smallest discrete package of matter, it will always be impossible for us humans to measure it without change, as there is nothing smaller we can deflect off of it which will not alter it.

pps. Of course - if you were God, and you could take quantuum measurements without disturbing the quanta, and (being omnipotent) had the processing power to simulate the future interactions, then, yes - everything is inevitable and predictable.

ppps. Since, however, none of us are God...

[Toronado]

"There is no contradiction between Tofi and randomness." - Derek Brockis

TOFI is incorrect because, for TOFI to exist there must be a condtradiction between TOFI and randomness.

By definition Randomness is: "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."

And the definition of prediction is: "To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge."

and how do we gain that knowledge? Knowledge: "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study."

If something is random then it is thereby impossible to gain knowledge on. It has no pattern for which to observe and categorize for the use of at a later time. There also is no point to gain knowledge of something that we can't control, beyond the fact of truth that we can't control it. Randomness is impossible to control because we don't have any patternistic variables to change and thus change the outcome. So knowledge on randomness PAST the fact that it is random is impossible.

Which brings me to the fact that if we have no knowledge of randomness, then it is impossible to predict. As you can see from the definition we need prior experience or knowledge with something to categorize it into a pattern that we can relate and act upon. For there is no point to predict something if we aren't intentioned to change it.

This, in turn, leads to the fact that TOFI cannot exist if it can't fulfil it's own standards

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

but according to what i have just said, randomness is unpredictable and according to TOFI therefore is NOT inevitable because of it's unpredictability, and this contradicts the idea that EVERYTHING is inevitable.... because randomness is a "thing".

And i have yet to see a link between Inevitability and predictability. Simply because predictability requires knowledge on something, and something is impossible to predict if you have no knowledge on it. Randomness I have shown to be impossible to ever gain knowledge on therefore we can't predict it and therefore (according to TOFI) it is not inevitable. But we all know that randomness exists, so it MUST have been an inevitability, unless it was evitable and was possible to avoid... which would have required that our universe to have some sort of intervention to help place it here.

[Antoine]

"There is no contradiction between Tofi and randomness." - Derek Brockis

TOFI is incorrect because, for TOFI to exist there must be a condtradiction between TOFI and randomness.

By definition Randomness is: "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."

And the definition of prediction is: "To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge."

and how do we gain that knowledge? Knowledge: "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study."

If something is random then it is thereby impossible to gain knowledge on. It has no pattern for which to observe and categorize for the use of at a later time. There also is no point to gain knowledge of something that we can't control, beyond the fact of truth that we can't control it. Randomness is impossible to control because we don't have any patternistic variables to change and thus change the outcome. So knowledge on randomness PAST the fact that it is random is impossible.

Which brings me to the fact that if we have no knowledge of randomness, then it is impossible to predict. As you can see from the definition we need prior experience or knowledge with something to categorize it into a pattern that we can relate and act upon. For there is no point to predict something if we aren't intentioned to change it.

This, in turn, leads to the fact that TOFI cannot exist if it can't fulfil it's own standards

EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE

EVERYTHING IS PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE

but according to what i have just said, randomness is unpredictable and according to TOFI therefore is NOT inevitable because of it's unpredictability, and this contradicts the idea that EVERYTHING is inevitable.... because randomness is a "thing".

And i have yet to see a link between Inevitability and predictability. Simply because predictability requires knowledge on something, and something is impossible to predict if you have no knowledge on it. Randomness I have shown to be impossible to ever gain knowledge on therefore we can't predict it and therefore (according to TOFI) it is not inevitable. But we all know that randomness exists, so it MUST have been an inevitability, unless it was evitable and was possible to avoid... which would have required that our universe to have some sort of intervention to help place it here.

Good Evening Toronado

Thank you for your two points on randomness and predictability. I wish you had delivered a knock-out blow to Tofi but I think not.

I always have it in mind we are operating with languages, logic and time concepts that are inadequate, so all deductions are suspect and unreal.

A point against your clash between randomness, order and inevitability. A sea full of atoms and molecules all moving at random and being struck by lightening will from what was unordered create life which will procede in an orderly manner. Nevertheless, the whole system was, is and continues to be random.

Re your clash between prediction and inevitability I agree that the concept of prediction is hard to grasp - I can't do it. It is all part of an inevitably proceding movement of particles in a time system of which we do not have a correct concept.

Consider a thin glass bottle on a one mile wide anvil upon which a million ton steel weight is falling. It is reasonable to day that the bottle will inevitably be broken.

Consider a feather falling from 50 miles high. It will not be possible today for a human to predict within one inch where it will hit the earth.

What Tofi says is that because it is obvious that the more you know about an event and the shorter te time scale is, the more predictable the outcome is, ultimately complete knowledge and a short time scale leads to 100% predictability, which means inevitability because it is 100% certain the event will happen.

I feel I have not quite answered your question! - but have tried. Will think again. Derek Brockis

.

[Toronado]

Well first, i think someone might have said this before but it's impossible to gain 100% predictability of something, no matter the shortness of time or the amount of information you have... because the sheer act of prediction changes the outcome. According to chaos theory, if you were not predicting the outcome of inevitable then you would have been somewhere else and thus changed the flow of molecules in the universe. Which would eventually lead to bigger changes in the world around you and thereby changing "said" event. It would most defintely happen that way too, because prediction comes BEFORE the event. Giving the time neccesary to change the event. Maybe not in the case of your glass on anvil, but surely in the case of the 50 mile high feather. That would have been given sufficient time.

It's funny because TOFI seems like it works on the Chaos Theory, where one action SURELY leads to another action and so on and so on... and you can't stop it... because as you try it adds more action to the flow. Therefore everything is inevitable and given enough information about the actions you can predict them right?

No, because the Chaos theory works forwards, and you cannot predict things that have already happened. If i wave my hand and it stirs the air and that air does this... and goes over here, and leads to this... and whatever... We are already one step behind, because i am telling you this after i've already done it. By the time you even gather the first slightest bit of information about something to predict it you've already set another action into motion that wasn't part of the first path and then you need to start gathering more data all over again for that prediction and that new path, and so on and so forth. Thus whatever will happen happens and you can't know it was going to happen because you didn't have enough time to calculate the exponentially growing different paths that came from trying to predict what would come of your predicting.

Second, If something is inevitable why is it necessary to predict it?

So if you can't predict an event... then it's not inevitable, which is what TOFI says.

Just a side note as you were wondering before why people don't pay this much attention. First, this doesn't help anyone because it's unnecessary to predict inevitable things, AND it tells us things we already know. We can make predictions given enough information. It doesn't tell us HOW we are to do it... we are to assume that one day it will be possible for 100% prediction i suppose, a way to predict without that prediction affecting the event we are trying to predict... but like i showed, there will never be a way to accomplish that.

So it doesn't help us any, and at this point it's a guess. Just like me pointing at that girl on the side of the road and saying "She's got black hair". It's true, but it doesn't change or help anything. In this case though TOFI is both useless and not true.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Toronado

[Antoine]

Well first, i think someone might have said this before but it's impossible to gain 100% predictability of something, no matter the shortness of time or the amount of information you have... because the sheer act of prediction changes the outcome. According to chaos theory, if you were not predicting the outcome of inevitable then you would have been somewhere else and thus changed the flow of molecules in the universe. Which would eventually lead to bigger changes in the world around you and thereby changing "said" event. It would most defintely happen that way too, because prediction comes BEFORE the event. Giving the time neccesary to change the event. Maybe not in the case of your glass on anvil, but surely in the case of the 50 mile high feather. That would have been given sufficient time.

It's funny because TOFI seems like it works on the Chaos Theory, where one action SURELY leads to another action and so on and so on... and you can't stop it... because as you try it adds more action to the flow. Therefore everything is inevitable and given enough information about the actions you can predict them right?

No, because the Chaos theory works forwards, and you cannot predict things that have already happened. If i wave my hand and it stirs the air and that air does this... and goes over here, and leads to this... and whatever... We are already one step behind, because i am telling you this after i've already done it. By the time you even gather the first slightest bit of information about something to predict it you've already set another action into motion that wasn't part of the first path and then you need to start gathering more data all over again for that prediction and that new path, and so on and so forth. Thus whatever will happen happens and you can't know it was going to happen because you didn't have enough time to calculate the exponentially growing different paths that came from trying to predict what would come of your predicting.

Second, If something is inevitable why is it necessary to predict it?

So if you can't predict an event... then it's not inevitable, which is what TOFI says.

Just a side note as you were wondering before why people don't pay this much attention. First, this doesn't help anyone because it's unnecessary to predict inevitable things, AND it tells us things we already know. We can make predictions given enough information. It doesn't tell us HOW we are to do it... we are to assume that one day it will be possible for 100% prediction i suppose, a way to predict without that prediction affecting the event we are trying to predict... but like i showed, there will never be a way to accomplish that.

So it doesn't help us any, and at this point it's a guess. Just like me pointing at that girl on the side of the road and saying "She's got black hair". It's true, but it doesn't change or help anything. In this case though TOFI is both useless and not true.

[Antoine]

Good Evening Kelvena.

Tofi is saying that everything is inevitable therefore predictable nd that everything is predictable therefore inevitable.

Regarding your range of possibilities, let us assume a ship leaves harbour. The range of possibilities includes that it will sink, be captured by pirates, sail- off to an island paradise and many other possibilities, including it finishing its voyage without event.

Tofi says that the one - or more - of these possibilities which occurs is already decided before the ship leaves harbour, before it was even built or the earth cooled down. An inevitable train of events is occurring including your question, my answer and the ship's fate. Tofi does not imply that humans are clever enough or can ever possess enough information to predict the ship's fate. It does imply that every system is in principle predictable, given enough information. Tofi states everything is inevitable therefore must be predictable and that anything that is 100%predictable must be inevitable. Derek Brockis.

[Antoine]

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

Hello Toronado

Re. your comments of 22 May.

I find it hard to think through several comments, so my replies may be incomplete.

The main plank of Tofi is that everything happens in an inevitable sequence. The predictability bit follows because anything following an inevitable pattern is inevitably predictable. I think I might delete predictabiity. although, in my opinion it is valid, it causes confusion.

There may be three points of perspective that are against your arguments.

1. Predictability is looked at too much from a human point of view. In fact it is only movement of elektrons etc. as part of a total inevitably proceding system.

2. Our concept of prediction does not meet the facts.To bet on a horse which loses is described as a wrong prediction.In fact the result was an inevitable one, the bet and the result were equally inevitable. It is the time scale and other dimensions which at the moment are beyond human comprehension and no doubt oter cocepts also. However, none of this alters the inevitability of all events..

3. The fact that observing something changes it does not affect the inevitability of the observation and all consequences.

4. A thing can be useless and a fact.

5.i have lost your posting so will hve to come back on this one.

Thanks for criticising Tofi so carefully.

Derek Brockis

[Toronado]

TOFI shows no proof that observing it doesn't change it. I did show proof that it does, the chaos theory... a small action creates much larger actions later.

Plus, you can't base a truth on something you can't even comprehend at the moment. You have been saying that certain things are out of reach of our understanding at the moment. Well, then you can't have a 100% accurate truth until you can prove everything about it. That's why it will remain a theory, and that's why it has no big impact.

Inevitability works in itself, what i was saying earlier about predictability was. If something is Inevitable (sure to happen 100%), then why do you need to predict it, you KNOW it's going to happen. Prediction is always a guess. If something is inevitable and you don't know it's going to happen what is still the point of you predicting it? It's going to happen anyways... according to TOFI.

Basically, i think the inevitability is correct. THINGS are going to happen. 100%, whatever happens, that's how it was going to happen, because if it wasn't going to happen that way... then it would have happened another way. The predictability thing though, beyond our grasp right now. I wouldn't even include that.

[Banshee_ubp]

now would this theory explain deja vou idk how to spell it but i have had some experiences with it. Givin i donot know when i have it or its just a dream, but i do recognize it when it happens and its usualy not things i regulary do or people i usualy see.

[Toronado]

Deja Vu, is when your brain processes information twice. It feels like it happened a long time ago because you have to think about the concept of time, it's not something that your brain recognizes naturally... so it can't tell when it processed it first, so it feels like a long time ago. Not really though.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Toronado

[Banshee_ubp]

But what happens when u see something in your sleep and then it may happen in time as when you saw it. The action would happen when you were awake so you may be able to change somethings but not many until you recognize that what you have seen is connect to a dream you have had in some time.