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 -

Tofi: The Theory of Inevitability


Antoine

Recommended Posts

I'm a tad warry of intutionism. Beyond its inability to render certian aspects of analysis and algebra (order theory anyone?), it also has a rather strong ad hoc feeling to it. Until it is proven that the Church-Turing thesis doesn't apply to the human brain, I won't touch it. It is enterily possible to construct a consistant and complete system of mathematics as long as one makes a few basic assumptions about infinity. There are certian aspects of mathematics that I refuse to abadon just because they have no place in the real world.

Indeed. Even if my knowledge of what intuitionism is, is entirely based on your short description in another thread, I dont think it will ever be a useful scientific tool. I just imagine the universe possibly working on such a system, not for it to be useful in anyway in our analysis.

Their wave-functions are mixed. Imagine you've just gotten into a car reck, your car is dented and so is the other drivers. He drives off and you call the police. They find his car and compair his dent to yours. If the pieces fit, then he's the guy who hit you. That's just a classical correlation though, the ones on the quantum scale are much, much firmer. So, when the particles are seperated even though their wave-functions collapse seperatly from each other's, their states post decoherence are still detirmened by each others.

Are you sure it is only a casual correlation? When I read about it a few years back, I was under the impretion that certain properties were not just correlated, but actualy perfectly equivalent 100% of the time (spin i think it was?). Hmm.. not sure.

Oh, one more thing: there is a fundamential limit to the amount of information that can be present in any given region of space. That coupled with the observation limitations of quantum mechanics prevent you from knowing 'everything'. To know everything would require you to have a description of every possible event and object in the universe. As certian things are 'random' it would require more space to describe them than the amount of information they actully repersent (no way to compress their programs or minimize their descriptions). You would require a processing substrate greater than the volume of space you are trying to describe. Observational predictability is out.

That is true. There is also a paradox that pops up, even if its irrelevant: if the "whatever" that contains all the information in the universe exists within the universe, then it must know everything about itself, and everything that stores the information it knows about itself, and that one, and that one... etc, infinity. Not very user-friendly. One way or another, everything in the universe is not gonna be known.

However, that is not exactly what I ment in the first part of my opinion concerning mr tofi. What I ment to refer to was 'knowing EVERYTHING about how the universe works,' and being able to observationaly predict some closed system inside the universe which the "super-computer-of-utter-doom-and-destruction" is not part of. Is the observational predictability of a closed system within the universe, necessarily out?

Edited by SpeedOfDark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Antoine

    93

  • circuit

    13

  • Kelvena

    13

  • Leonardo

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

A slightly stupid question, but one that must be asked none the less: are you reading casual as in casual dress or causal as in cause and effect?

Are you sure it is only a casual correlation? When I read about it a few years back, I was under the impretion that certain properties were not just correlated, but actualy perfectly equivalent 100% of the time (spin i think it was?). Hmm.. not sure.

Ah, but equivalence is still a correlation. As they both ‘shared’ the same wave-function it would be natural for all of their properties to exist in direct conjunction with each others. As I said, correlations on the quantum level are much stronger than ones found at the classical scale.

Is the observational predictability of a closed system within the universe, necessarily out?

Well, from what QFT has predicted and experiment has confirmed, yes. If you can show me a way around the uncertainty principle (grab yourself a nobel prize while you're at it), then of course I’d be wrong. Otherwise….

Edited by Kelvena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slightly stupid question, but one that must be asked none the less: are you reading casual as in casual dress or causal as in cause and effect?

What do you mean? When I read your post or the book like 2 yrs ago?

Ah, but equivalence is still a correlation. As they both ‘shared’ the same wave-function it would be natural for all of their properties to exist in direct conjunction with each others. As I said, correlations on the quantum level are much stronger than ones found at the classical scale.

Kk, Im just used of speaking a correlation when some relation exists, and then about proportional in the specific case where things are equivalent, but I guess it makes no difference.

Well, from what QFT has predicted and experiment has confirmed, yes. If you can show me a way around the uncertainty principle (grab yourself a nobel prize while you're at it), then of course I’d be wrong. Otherwise….

More like, the physics nobel prize for the next 10-15 years! :P

When speaking of philosiphically, I find it important to use science, but not assume it is necessarily correct. Humanity has been sure of many things in the past, which have turned out to be completely false, and its bound to happen again. For example, less than 100-200 years ago, many physics gurus were claiming that physics was about knowing the exact positions/velocities/etc of every particle at every given point in time (all empirical evidence pointed towards this), and that science was going to stop finding new discoveries soon enough. This could not be more falicious. We've been using the scientific method efficiently for half a millenium at most. Is QM the final word? Nobody knows.

But ofc, assuming QFT is correct, I can see all albsolute predictability spiraling down the drain... And I dont really see it getting disproved any time soon... but still.

Edited by SpeedOfDark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand this theory, its trying to be clever.

However. To me I see a flaw in the way one side of the argument suggests

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.

The flaw I see with this is the perspective. You say humans would not be able to "see" it all but that is not proof that it didn't happen. I agree with this but then again from what perspective could we say it is inevitable or even a PATTERN for that matter.

The word pattern and inevitable and predictable suggest that some perspective Holds. If the perspective never holds then there is no way to either prove or disprove the theory. If you can't attempt to disprove the theory then the theory is false to begin with.

In other words:

A cow stands................then it stands, or falls or dies or lives or move or whatever............

That is predictable and inevitable.

If however the "perspective" moves before the rest of the options have played out then there is no patter, neither predictable or inevitable.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall does it make a sound?

Predictable and inevitable to whom? To itself? Then awareness? Where does the statement eventually be able to be said.

As it is, the statement is floating in nothingness. So to me it is neither true or not true. There the statement is true. I would say this. Or not.

But the perspective is frozen for a moment to allow the scenerio to unfold. If there is no perspective to allow the scenerio to unfold there is no confirmation of the theory.

It is a truth, and therefor can no longer be a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Antoine replying to Sccorpius posting of 3 Mar 2006

I too have a problem with the word 'inevitable' when pondering Tofi. Weare all trying to express concepts through inadequate languages and mathematical systems.

One simple way to illustrate ''inevitability' is:

If you make a decision, what you will decide is already fixed before you make the decision. For example you may decide to buy one of 17 makes of new car. What your choice will be was already decided a million years ago.

your mind goes through the motion of making the decision but that is all part of the inevitably proceding pattern. You may have a better idea. Regards DerekBrockis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:yes:

Antoine replying to Sccorpius posting of 3 Mar 2006

I too have a problem with the word 'inevitable' when pondering Tofi. Weare all trying to express concepts through inadequate languages and mathematical systems.

One simple way to illustrate ''inevitability' is:

If you make a decision, what you will decide is already fixed before you make the decision. For example you may decide to buy one of 17 makes of new car. What your choice will be was already decided a million years ago.

your mind goes through the motion of making the decision but that is all part of the inevitably proceding pattern. You may have a better idea. Regards DerekBrockis

This is complete nonsense. By whom was our decision made a million years ago? If we were told what car we werew going to buy ahead of time, we could easily change our mind, choose a different car, therefore totally violating this theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:yes:

This is complete nonsense. By whom was our decision made a million years ago? If we were told what car we werew going to buy ahead of time, we could easily change our mind, choose a different car, therefore totally violating this theory.

Good evening RamboIII

Of course Tofi is nonsense but it is inevitable nonsense. Also to state something is nonsense without convincing evidence that it is nonsence leads to the inevitable conclusion that the claim of nonsense was made because of absence of evidence that it was nonsense.

Anyway, to deal with your two points:

1. Decision Maker.The decision on which of the 17 makes of car you choose a million years later was not made by anybody. It was made by the inevitable changes of the positions, strengths etc. of waves, particles and other physical entities over the million years from the starting point of the deliberation arriving at he state where no other event could happen than that decision in a mind representing an inevitably proceding complex computer to purchase that particular make at that point in time.

2. Mind change.You could, of course, change your mind as many times as you like but all the changes would accord with the inevitable patttern of events proceding from the moment the universe was created or even before that. You cannot cheat Tofi - negatively or positively. I wish you could but my wish is as inevitable as your choice of car. Regards Derek Brockis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's most likely inevitable that it will never be proven true. The logic behind it seems valid enough for now though. Although I don't think it can be used on humans, as I think our consciousness is not physical, and that true free-will exists because of this. Our choices are only somewhat influenced by the "programming" of the brain. Note I said INFLUENCED, not forced upon us.

Good Morning Zero of Deism

I agree with you that Tofi can never be proven true.

You think that true free will exists but that our choices are somewhat influenced by the programming of the brain. This means that all concepts of right and wrong and religious principles are invalid because you cannot reasonably hold a person responsible for his actions when his decision making mechanism is influenced by factors beyond his control.

regards Derek Brockis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, the determinism I know is that, at any given moment in time, a deterministic system allows for the prediction of it's state at that time.

Please correct me if that is not the determinism you are positing.

In the case of radioactive decay, while you can predict how much material over time in a given sample will emit alpha particles, it has yet to be proven you can predict which atoms will decay. If this violates your edict of observational prediction then I haven't any other means of testing your theory (which, if it excludes radioactive decay, doesn't include 'the universe' anyway :P ) so I'll leave it there.

I get the feeling you are trying to trap me with a definition of random (as I never used it in my post) so I will ask why you need random defined?

It's late over here (or rather very early), so I'm off to sleep. :sleepy: I'll pick this back up tomorrow if you're online. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Evening Leonardo - in your posting of 13 November 2006 you mention the word Random and the difficulty of defining it.

THis is typical of all items considered while contemplating Toti. We poor humans are in the same stage of development as an ape lookoing at a computer. We do not yet have the language or mathematics to make a correct statement on any issue. By the way, what do we mean by 'Correct'?

Such cosiderations apply particularly to the 'Predictable 'lement of Tofi. firstly humns will never be in a position to make a perfect prediction, even though every event is predictable and secondly we do not yet uderstand what prediction is.

As you infer, Random is difficult to define, although everything else is as well, because of the limitatons

A hopeless try to define 'Random' - just groping for enlightenment.

It does not exiat.

Everything is Random and yet nothing is Random. All particles, waves, time, universes etc, operate in immesuarable, complex and unguided ways, the net result of which over almost infinity of time is that ordered structures evolve entirely by chance. Nevertheless, the apparently random action is in fact is a pattern folowing which which makes every event inevitable. Events are apparenty random at their start and apparently organised at their fiinish. This pattern formation occurs at the instant a major event like a big bang, or other event and from that moment the organised pattern commeces to procede.

Sorry, all this is rubbish but whatver else is stated, however erudite, will probably not be convincing evidence aganst tofi. Regards, Derek Brockis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antoine,

I wasn't considering the difficulty of defining the word random. In my discussion with Kelvena I presented the case for radioactive decay as an example against determinism as it is, to the best of our knowledge, completely unpredictable.

The point being, in a deterministic universe if you can observe the effect you can predict the cause. But this is not the case with radioactive decay as the cause is unpredictable.

It's all very well to state we do not understand predictability, and I'm not saying you're incorrect. However, in alluding to 'higher knowledge' that is beyond our understanding you have left the realm of theory and have passed into belief.

Like many who promote these beliefs, there is a tendency to lament our poor knowledge and understanding of the universe as a justification for why these 'theories' are correct. If we are so lacking however, how did we 'poor humans' conceive such a magnificence as TofI in the first place? Often the reply is 'enlightenment' or 'rediscovered knowledge of the ancients'. I don't believe in the latter and believe the former is simply what we otherwise call progress.

However progress has no meaning or benefit unless it is applicable in the real world. Show a case where TofI could actually increase our understanding/provide some benefit and it may garner more credibility.

Your TofI should be BofI in that you Believe in Inevitability, but can never prove it. This is not a theory (assuming you consider this a scientific theory) as science is quite strict on what constitutes a theory.

As a belief you have every right to think the way you do and no-one can gainsay you that right. However because it is a belief everyone else has the right not to believe. I respect your belief in the system but do not believe it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this theroy is true in that quantom mechanics sates that sbuatomic paiticles do come in and out of excistance so there for if quantom mechaics is true than the theroy is to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All rules are made to be broken, some bent, some curved around while more rules come in to subsitute it to be broken to find another!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the while there is always a way that you can change and shape the rules around yor desires!!!!!!!!

The rules of inevitability is nice but it probably runs with the Law of Attraction that say like thoughts attract one another!!!!!!

DhA...OraCle

-Randy W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that ur therou is the best thing since sliced bread and that it agrees with chaos theroy to .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antoine,

I wasn't considering the difficulty of defining the word random. In my discussion with Kelvena I presented the case for radioactive decay as an example against determinism as it is, to the best of our knowledge, completely unpredictable.

The point being, in a deterministic universe if you can observe the effect you can predict the cause. But this is not the case with radioactive decay as the cause is unpredictable.

It's all very well to state we do not understand predictability, and I'm not saying you're incorrect. However, in alluding to 'higher knowledge' that is beyond our understanding you have left the realm of theory and have passed into belief.

Like many who promote these beliefs, there is a tendency to lament our poor knowledge and understanding of the universe as a justification for why these 'theories' are correct. If we are so lacking however, how did we 'poor humans' conceive such a magnificence as TofI in the first place? Often the reply is 'enlightenment' or 'rediscovered knowledge of the ancients'. I don't believe in the latter and believe the former is simply what we otherwise call progress.

However progress has no meaning or benefit unless it is applicable in the real world. Show a case where TofI could actually increase our understanding/provide some benefit and it may garner more credibility.

Your TofI should be BofI in that you Believe in Inevitability, but can never prove it. This is not a theory (assuming you consider this a scientific theory) as science is quite strict on what constitutes a theory.

As a belief you have every right to think the way you do and no-one can gainsay you that right. However because it is a belief everyone else has the right not to believe. I respect your belief in the system but do not believe it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening Leonardo, mdhmdh and mystic1987

your lively comments on Tofi are very encouraging. They show the increasing interest in it.

Believe it or not, I am trying to disprove, not to proe Tofi but in the 40 years since I tought of it (not the first to do so, I am sure) I have never seen conclusive evidence against it.

By 'Higher Knowledge' I do not mean spirtually higher. I just mean the increasing knowledge which humanity gains with progress.However, this will always be limited.

Regarding use or benefit from tofi, why should it be any use or benefit? Tofi just exists. it 'is'. It has no purpose to serve humanity.

The illogicality of calling Tofi a 'theory' if it is not one does not matter. The illogicality was inevitabe. Indeed, it can be somewhat whimsically argued at the most ;ogical thing you can do is to do sometng illogical because tat is what you were going to do anyway.

Refering to the non --predictability of radioactive decay, 'to the best of our knowledge', there is no doubt that if our kowledge was sufficient - which it perhaps never will be - radioactive decay would be predictable because it is folowing an inevitable path.

Having 'Right to believe' is, like everyhting else, only a pattern of elektrons, waves etc. in time and space. It is already inevitably decided which you will choose - to believe or not to believe, that is the question but it is already answered.

Not being pompous - just groping for the truth. Derek Brockis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antoine,

You do not require evidence against TofI, because there is no evidence for it. It is a belief and so requires no evidence either for or against.

As I stated before your belief is inviolate. I'm not so much interested in TofI itself, just why you think it exists and why you believe in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tofi says nothing about human nature at present. Not untill we discover the true nature of consciousness.

If it turns out that the brain is is all there is to "us", then yes, Tofi does affect us. Untill then, Tofi is just another way to argue that we don't have free-will.

Edited by Zero of Deism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random is rather simple to define. An object is random if there is no way to minimize the data that describes it into a theory. From this you can also define what ‘complex’ is. A measure of something’s complexity is the length or amount of information (bits) contained by its smallest possible minimized description. The larger the smallest possible description is, the more complex the object under consideration is. Now, if you accept this definition then you must also accept an immediate corollary: A thing is random if its smallest possible minimized description is equal or greater than the data that can be garnered from it. It is random if its complexity is equal in length to its data.

A (slightly) more formal way of describing random is an object whose data cannot be compressed. Say you want to have a computer generate a certain output. That output is essentially random if there is no way to write a computer program that is smaller than the output.

When I say output, object or data I don’t mean just some arbitrary event, I mean any possible event or thing that can be described by this theory. For example, the theory of gravity. You take an inverse square law, a Lorentzian metric, define tensor or two and viola you can describe any event within the macroscopic domain that is affected by gravity. (black holes are both macro and micro!) You needn't examine every case. Now, take this and compare it to something like the way a drunkard walks across a room. There is no general theory that will describe his path, you have to describe every individual case. It’s random because the only way to describe it is to reproduce the event, verbatim.

I’m not going to repost what I said before, but basically there really is a fundamental limit on what can be know. QM predicts and experiment confirms, we cannot know certain aspects of reality on the quantum scale, not because of a lack of the correct theory or tool, but because knowing these things would defy fundamental laws of the universe. In addition, there is also strong evidence that suggest that only so much can be know within a certain amount of space, i.e there may be a limit to the amount of information that can be stored within a finite region of space. So, every thing may be predictable, but from the conclusion of Leo and my discussion above, you can never prove it, you can never know it.

Edited by Kelvena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Kelvena and others

Replying to comments on 'Random' and Tofi

I suggest that the reason there is difficulty in defining what Random means is that in fact the state does not exist. We are trying to define something from a human point of view with limited and prejudiced knowledge.

Random' is merely a term forapparently irregular motion, selection etc. which is in fact proceding inevitably but in accordance with rules we do not yet understand.

We say that radioactive decay is random. we say many other events are random, then say that other events are not random. It is illogical to draw a clear distinction between the states of 'random' and 'not random'.

I could define a state called 'Twixram', meaning one between random and not random. This would not mean that such a state exists, only that the electrons, waves etc in my brain had moved to produce such a definition.

The fact that almost unversally human beings are using te term 'Random' to define events for which the pattern is not understood does not mean that the term 'random' means anything.

I sugest hat apparently random events are in fact moving to an inevitable pattern in accordance with Tofi.The pattern may be a complex one.

There is evidence that randomness does not exist in that ordered systems - life, planets etc. develop from apparently random situations. There is no firm evidence that any situation is ramdom. We persist in using the term because it is convenient to do so and we do not know any better.

It is possible to build an edifice of theoriess - as you quote - on the concept of randomness but that does not mean that te basis on which the edifice is constructed is valid.

Thanks for comments.Derek Brockis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antoine,

If your belief tells you there is a pattern to everything you will 'see' a pattern, or you will assume we 'don't yet understand the pattern'. Others who don't have this belief will not necessarily agree with you.

Your belief is an interesting one as it appears to leave little room for tolerance of other beliefs where this 'inevitability' does not exist. I wonder if it should be in the 'Science and Technology' forum, but that is down to the moderators to decide.

Thank you for sharing your belief. It is good to learn what others believe as it brings us a better understanding of each other. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all contributors

Many comments about Tofi have now been made on this forumi over a long period.

Some are obviously from learned people with a high degree of mathematical and physical knowledge. Others show a great deal pf common sense. A few just shout 'rubbish' or 'nonsense' without tabling any evidence, which is itaelf evidence for Tofi.

There is not a single comment that can be accepted as conclusive or even significant evidence Tofi is wrong. Admittedly there is nothing conclusively proviing it is right.

I respectfully table that the amount of interst and storm of comment over such a long period is itaelf significant evidence of the validity of Tofi.

ALL EVENTS ARE INEVITABLE THEREFORE PREDICTABLE. ALL EVENTS ARE PREDICTABLE THEREFORE INEVITABLE.

I admit that the definition of what is meant by 'predictable' is difficult but this does not affect the basic concept of inevitability.

Unfortunately, Tofi still stands.

Derek Brockis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictability says that you know what’s going to happen next. Inevitability says that what going to happen next is predetermined, whether you knew it or not.

I’ll agree that everything is inevitable, but it is impossible for it to be predictable. This stems from the foundations of quantum mechanics. We’ve beat this horse dead, so I won’t bother quoting anything. BofI is the best option as you can never prove that all is predetermined at the most basic scale of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Evening Leonardo - in your posting of 13 November 2006 you mention the word Random and the difficulty of defining it.

THis is typical of all items considered while contemplating Toti. We poor humans are in the same stage of development as an ape lookoing at a computer. We do not yet have the language or mathematics to make a correct statement on any issue. By the way, what do we mean by 'Correct'?

Such cosiderations apply particularly to the 'Predictable 'lement of Tofi. firstly humns will never be in a position to make a perfect prediction, even though every event is predictable and secondly we do not yet uderstand what prediction is.

As you infer, Random is difficult to define, although everything else is as well, because of the limitatons

A hopeless try to define 'Random' - just groping for enlightenment.

It does not exiat.

Everything is Random and yet nothing is Random. All particles, waves, time, universes etc, operate in immesuarable, complex and unguided ways, the net result of which over almost infinity of time is that ordered structures evolve entirely by chance. Nevertheless, the apparently random action is in fact is a pattern folowing which which makes every event inevitable. Events are apparenty random at their start and apparently organised at their fiinish. This pattern formation occurs at the instant a major event like a big bang, or other event and from that moment the organised pattern commeces to procede.

Sorry, all this is rubbish but whatver else is stated, however erudite, will probably not be convincing evidence aganst tofi. Regards, Derek Brockis.

Link to comment
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.