Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.

Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.

I also think it's because horoscope are so vague that it's easy to interpret your life's experiences as being a part of that horoscope.

"How do you devise an experiment that proves that experiments proves things? It's not enough to say that it's an axiom of science, one should at least describe how he handles that conundrum. "

Saying its an axiom of science is the only thing we can do, because there is no way of handling that conundrum.

Say we devise an experiment that proves that experiments prove things. How do we prove that such an experiment is true? We have to prove it with an experiment.
So lets call general experiments A
Lets call the experiment that proves experiments B
lets call the experiment which proved B C

So, in order for A we need B
In order for B we need C
C is an experiment, and hence C=A
Therefore

In order for A to be true, we must prove B
In order for B to be true, we must prove A

Its a circular argument, and hence has no real starting point. Devising such an experiment would be pointless. Therefore, if you wish to accept experiments as a part of the universe, you have to simply accept that A is true, as an axiom.

Similarly, inductive reasoning rests on the same problem. We also generally accept that as an axiom.

@Dael: I believe there is cause for every effect, even at the quantum level. The fact that we are unable to discern or measure that cause does not, in my opinion, negate the likelihood that there was a cause.

walker90234 wrote:"How do you devise an experiment that proves that experiments proves things? It's not enough to say that it's an axiom of science, one should at least describe how he handles that conundrum. "

Saying its an axiom of science is the only thing we can do, because there is no way of handling that conundrum.

So it's a question of faith then. Cool. Personnaly, I'd rather have faith in my capacity to make choices.

I wouldn't say 'faith' is the best term for it. 'Faith' has much different consequences.

Plus, cause and effect is supported heavily by induction.

Induction is the determination of a truth function according to a correlation.

If I question causation, you can't say induction is evidence toward causation, because I'm questioning the existence of that which you try to make your correlation as.

It's the same as someone telling you that imperfections are evidence for the existence of perfections...

oh, I know what you mean.

The problem of induction is that it rests upon itself as proof.

I suppose I was in error then to say that I believe causation an axiom. Instead I believe induction an axiom, and causation a logical result of it.

Yet we do appear to have reached an impasse at this point, and can't seem to convince each other. :/

There's surely more ressources on the question than what can be reviewed in one life, but Ted.com is usually pretty good :

http://www.ted.com/conversations/11947/is_the_creation_predetermined.html

http://www.ted.com/conversations/10270/who_is_right_free_will_or_det_1.html

http://www.ted.com/conversations/8721/do_the_laws_of_physics_necessi.html

Right, I have searched for AGES, but can't seem to find a defence against that.
I conceed