Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Antoine

Tofi: The Theory of Inevitability

218 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Antoine

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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 :P :

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 :)

Edited by circuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy

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’.

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

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.

Beliefs can be categorised into 3...

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’?

Please prove the opposite, if you can!

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Same problem about whether or not randomness exists.

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’.

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STIX

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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?

Edited by circuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STIX

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.

Edited by STIX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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?

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antoine

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antoine

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shivel

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

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.

Edited by JayMan895

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robbyliller

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robbyliller

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

believing in tofi means inevitably you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy
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.

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’.

So... if there is no randomness, tofi would be completely correct...

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.

Do people think that there is probability involved with the events happening in our universe?I mean are there things that are purely random?

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antoine

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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

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

Because an atom decays at a random time. It is impossible to predict.

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.

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.

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

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Complexity does not mean impossibility

:)

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).

At least for now it is impossible to predict...

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).

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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).

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...

A random event is, by definition, impossible to predict.

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...

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).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
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.

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.

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

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

i just don't have the knowledge in me to understand that possibility.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
circuit

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.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.