Is the future inevitable?

Do we have a reasonable case that all variables have an equal influence?

This makes no sense Phat. All variables cannot have equal influence - a force 10 gale has more effect than a squirrel, but what has that got to do with anything?The question I asked you was do you think that where a sycamore seed lands is predetermined?If no, then you have your answer.If yes, my next questions are how and why? (And you realise that if the seed's landing point is pre-determined and therefore unchangeable, your concept of free will is defunct.)

Well, I go by my slogan---I think that chance has no power to change anything....thus I believe God did it all and that all is pre-determined. So yes, I'll give up my illusion of free will for the moment. Now, however, I'm stuck with trying to explain how God has to micromanage every detail of every variable in order to create the situations that exist---and I'll admit that it all sounds unreasonable.
AbE: I even searched our database and found this discussion!
Chance moves in mysterious ways.
Thread ▲ DetailsEdited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

What's the point of a slogan - especially one that's just plain wrong? You believe in god because you have a slogan? Yikes, are you sure? That destroys the whole concept of sin. Well that's the easy bit - he can do anything, no problem. That's the point of a god.

The number of variables is of no relevance to the question of determinism. If there are billions upon billions of variables to consider, the result would still be predetermined if the processes that decide those variables and the way they interact are deterministic. All that matters is whether the world actually is deterministic at a basic level, and if it's not then the result is no predetermined, regardless of whether there are a billion relevant variables or only one,

Sure. But the fact that there are billions of variables which all interact just demonstrates how rediculous the concept of pre-determinism is.

How? If you mean it makes prediction difficult, then no argument, but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the universe is deterministic, as you just agreed.

Substitute difficult with impossible and I agree. (re. sycamore seed dispersal) Well obviously I agree. But it does rather point to the scale of the problem.It may be simpler just to say that if there is any element of probability involved, then it can not be a deterministic system.

Probability only refers to our ability to predict an outcome. That we see the universe as a set of probabilities has no impact on the fact that matter behaves in a perfectly deterministic manner. The only way that it is not a deterministic system is if matter does not behave in a consistent manner. Unpredictable does equal undetermined.

If we're not careful, this will decend into war of definitions.The original question was if two universes came into being in identical states, would they remain synchronised (I'm paraphrasing.)The answer is that if the universes are like ours - probabalistic - then they will go out of synch.

Also known as a conversation or debate. The answer is that if the universes were identical then they would not go out of synch. The other answer is that it is impossible to actually have 2 things that are absolutely identical because if you did then they would be the same thing.

That's not the case. If there is probablility in the systems, they will inevitabley lose sync.I could choose to do something or not on the toss of a coin - there would then be a 50% chance of the two worlds differing. If I do it 1,000,000 times it's a certainty that they will (unless you feel the need to be pedantic about it there still being an infinitesimally low probability that they will not.) Eh? It's already been said that electrons are identical. Is there only one of them then?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

George Carlin seemed to think so..
The Big Electron

Would you prefer 'conguent' to 'identical'? Wasn't all the talk of quantum physics and hidden variables supposed to demonstrate that they would, because particles behave non-deterministically at a quantum level?

1. Only science can answer the question of whether the Universe we inhabit is deterministic and whether we ourselves, and other living sentient beings, have the ability to overcome such determinism
2. The answer to the question will not and cannot have any effect on our sense of personal responsibility

One doesn't seem to have happened yet; and two makes it a pretty low priority.