Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, more or less. Pertaining to the survival theory it does make sense. But unlike organic substances, similar materialistic elements may have the exact same properties. Even if we were able to do the exact same thing exactly, the diffrence is when we do it. Or if time plays no role in it, then the problem could be where. If you know what I mean! Even if we did commit the exact procedure, there's a really high chance of different parallel forces to be acting on it. Even a slightest change drastically changes the entire result. But if the exact same thing WERE to happen then it is possible to get the exact same result. This thread reminds me of the 'Laws of Time' that I wrote an article about once.

And Mustang, you are right exactly. Prediction matters only by intuition (with respect to the observer) or data calculation. However, results gaining by sentimental action or human nature has little to do with the true nature of universal chance. Although, you are quite correct, since every action (whether intentional or natural) leads to reactions; and every reaction makes multiple reactions and that makes change to happen so drastically that it is almost impossible to get a second chance the exact way.

And Askling, mrgreen this isn't what you can call something difficult. All you need is logic and simple basic physics. 3nodding

Of course, like I already said, the situation must be EXACTLY the same, on a smaller-than-molecular level. If that were the case, the same results would always happen since every state of energy and every force is the same.

Don't you just love Graham, De Broglie, Schrodinger and my all time favorite, Dear ol' Heisenberg. I'm going to have to side here with calculating probabilities and with them physicists.

Reminds me of a song though (yes I do watch anime):



It botters me that she says "h over 2 pi" Isn't it supposed to be "h over 4 pi"?

Not exactly. The statement itself contradicts. However, Jad's theory does invoke curiosity for further research.

Some truth but you are missing the point.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be expanded a lot but in its simplest form it refers for position and momentum. In non-technical terms it means that the more precisly you know one quantity, the less precisly you can know the other one.

The implication of this is that it is possible to know the initial state of any system. Since any future states depend on the "actual" current one you cannot really calculate the future form it.

You can do probability distributions for the present state (I think this is what you were talking about with the quanta combinations) but this just lets you know the most likely present state (normally a range). Although for short term stuff you can be pretty accurate in the long term models for predicting complicated phenomena (like weather) tend towards chaos and innaccuracy.

In reference to the initial statment made by elmon

"There is a flaw in this reasoning: according to some scientists, there is a certain degree of chance on quantum level, but I take this as a lack of knowledge and understanding."

You may be correct in that this is a lack of knowledge and understanding but correcting that would take a new theory which would disprove large portions of quantum physics (which despite making no intuitive sense does in fact have a huge amount of experimental and observational evidence to back it up). I think it is more likely that any theory that comes about which drastically broadens our horizons will not falsify what we already know but rather show the limits in conception of it (example would be Einstien's special relativity as an expansion on newtons laws of motion, technically newtons laws are wrong (they lack one term but it is so small as to be ignored unless objects are moving near light speed) I think any theory which disproves something with as much evidence as quantum physics would have a similiar agreement with the cases we have been able to observe so far.)

I just don't believe that there isnt anything like free choice etc... smile

Actually that is what I am saying... You can't predict the future, so there is uncertainty. Which leaves room for free will, where as pure calculation and predetermination don't.