Space shuttles, Star Wars and BLIMPS?

[Stukov]

No, I read what you wrote. You're explicitly thinking of world historical events in terms of classical physics. Those are the analogies you use, and I haven't misunderstood that.

And we know empirically that that description can't be right.

Why?

Because anything that follows those kinds of rules is predictable.

And we have demonstrated, over and over, that we can't predict world historical events in our own universe, not even a month out.

In fact, not only can't we predict them, quite often our best informed folks don't believe them even after they've happened-- a large constituency didn't believe the Sino-Soviet split was real until many years later.

What this means is that men live in a world where the perceptions of reality, not reality itself, often dominates, and the way that perceptions move in mass societies is beyond our ability to calculate. Isaac Asimov, in Foundation, speculated that this would become something we could calculate, but so far, we can't.

No, the more I read what you wrote, you didn't understand what it was I was saying.

[tricked]

Then you're misreading what I wrote.

If your parents had another child, and that second child was your identical twin -- that's the same kind of contingent improbability that "changing one thing" and having World War II happen the same way implies.

You as an organism are the end result of millions of contingencies, so are major historical events. They wouldn't and can't happen the "same way twice".

Change even the slightest variable in history -- or change nothing and just roll the dice again-- and it would come out differently.

As I say, Fringe addressed this question directly, in a brilliant episode, "The Plateau" (S03E03).

In the episode, Milo causes events by a precise forward calculation of contingencies. Its a fascinating speculation. Its also physically impossible, which makes it brilliant science fiction, but definitely fiction.

Our universe is built on contingencies, that are inherently unknowable, and if repeated twice, won't happen the same way twice. That's true at the most fundamental level-- watch two U238 atoms and wait for them to decay to Plutonium. These events are unknowable, and two otherwise identical systems will nonetheless behave differently.

Change nothing, not the Treaty of Versailles, not the Occupation of the Rheinland, not one variable, and "run" the simulation a second time, and you'd get some completely different result. In fact, the only thing we know for sure is that you couldn't possibly get the same result. That there was some fundamental strategic and cultural tension in Europe after WWI is about all you can say, but not what form the resolution would take. Might have been war. Might have been a social movement. How likely was a South African lawyer to evict the British from India non-violently? That's pretty remote too . . . play out India 1947 a million times and Gandhi is as unlikely as Hitler.

So I'm saying, quite emphatically, that this statement is wrong:



There are no "domino"s. There is no "recipe". World history isn't like a mechanical experiment. Run the scenario a second time, a third time, a millionth time, and you would _not_ get the same result, even if you changed not one starting condition.

Is that clearer?

Okay .... bottom line: I don't agree with you

Your POV about changing one single event in the past and having different overall outcomes being fact .... if it's fact, prove it. Go back in time, change one event, and then tell me how the history plays out. You make the claim, so provide the evidence.

You of course will remind me that we cannot go back in time ... however you might utilize models which, when plugging different elements into it, will show you a different outcome. You will also say, that those events in history are unpredictable and thus unknowable when they will occur ... no dominos, no recipe, etc. You might use models again as evidence.

What I can do, is point to examples of models which HAVE predicted future events. Which you claim is impossible. Not only can I point to models which do it on the macro, world history timeline level (using concepts such as games theory, which I referenced before) .... I can also point to models which will accurately predict the future for an individual on the individual level ... to the degree that we can know 15 minutes in advance to when a person will answer a test question incorrectly and make a mistake (by analyzing the default mode network of the brain, for example). So ... there is evidence which would suggest that what you claim as impossible, is in fact possible to varying degrees on various levels. Hell ... I could even point to subjective and anecdotal paranormal aspects if I wanted to.

So again .... I just simply disagree with your concrete-set-in-stone way of looking at this topic In my opinion, when someone claims something as "impossible" or "unknowable" or simply responds with "you are wrong" .... you should provide evidence to back up your claim. Evidence that cannot be disputed whatsoever. Otherwise, if there is room for doubt .... then your evidence isn't worthy of the absolute terms you are using. It's just as grey as any other theory.

Okay now ... moving on .....

[Ryan Trevisol]

^^ Also, we should all keep in mind that we are discussing a FICTIONAL TELEVISION SHOW, of the Sci-Fi genre, whose tagline for last season was "unlimited impossibilities" . . . so if something appears impossible, that's not a constraint this fictional universe has abided by in the past.

[tricked]

^^ Also, we should all keep in mind that we are discussing a FICTIONAL TELEVISION SHOW, of the Sci-Fi genre, whose tagline for last season was "unlimited impossibilities" . . . so if something appears impossible, that's not a constraint this fictional universe has abided by in the past.

Yes totally dude

Although, sometimes the conversation goes off into real-world scenarios and real-world ideas, where we are no longer talking about Fringe and the fictional world it encompasses. That's where some of this convo headed in this thread ... and thus we started to "debate" where the foundations of our ideas were being taken seriously.

I hate debates lol . Especially ones based on theoretical concepts. We all just run in circles defending our points and no one really learns anything practical by the end of it. I have an analogy I could use to describe them, but it's too vulgar to post . Let's just say it involves a lot of people participating in a specific activity together, without any climax at the end lol

[tatka_sn]

And yet we can't. Go back and read a newspaper from December 2010 and find a prediction of revolution for Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

Hm. Just my two cents to this argument - we (as in a household) have been discussing those possibilities since orange revolution in Georgia, and more then once. Did thought about them even earlier, when there was something (do not remember the name) in Ukraine.
I do not think that professionals in politology/sociology were completely clueless. Not being published doesn't mean it was not predicted.