Darth Dane

The game gets more interesting (and unpredictable) if the players decide to bet on the game. How much will be bet? How will each player handle him or her self? Poker faces? Bluffs?

Why would it become more unpredictable?

It gets more interesting still if the skill level of the various players is unequal.
It gets still more interesting if one or more of the players owes a lot of money to someone, and/or knows how to cheat.

As we see in Reality.

And, your entire 'destiny' thing is contradicted (and outcomes become possible which your scenario does not predict) if some of the players arrive to the table carrying concealed handguns...

Guns are part of the cards you have available on your hand, so it is already part of the different manifestations that are possible.

So Maybe "God" wants to play all the games God possibly can, and this could explain deja vu, as some parts of the game maybe occur at different stages of one game. and then suddenly you re-cognized a previous game.


In any case. it is all just a game




DD - Love Spliff

Darth Dane

Changing the laws of physics at will are we?


"Ye are Gods of the most high..." Psalms 82

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Matthew 21:18


That seems to be a card we can play.





DD - Love Spliff

auto-da-fe

Even taking into account betting, guns, knives, nuclear bombs, meteorites, black holes, and the rapture, there are still only a finite number of possibilities available. Yes the number is incomprehensibly high, but finite nonetheless. This would lead one to think of destiny in a sense. Destiny can be defined as a predetermined future, and although the different possibilities exist, which one manifests itself is in no way predetermined. Free will exists in which path you take that leads to one of the different (yet finite) possibilities.

There isn't anyway anyone alive today (by any means) could calculate all of the different possibilities, simply because they may not be aware of all the possibilities. Yet in abstract, it is theoretically possible to do. Obviously this would not hold up in a scientific forum, however, this being philosophy and all, we can say that there are little to no "infinites". I realize that the possibilities of infinites have been discussed before, but I still am not convinced that it is possible to have an infinite. Therefore, although you can predict all of the different possibilities, that does not mean you can predict which will occur and with what frequency.

Normal

1. There are infinite degrees in a circle.
2. An electron can be in any position in it's orbit around the nucleus, each position representing a different possibility.
3. There are infinite possibilities.

Of course, you can bring in Planck's constants, but that doesn't help you

Ensign Steve

I thought there were 360 degrees in a circle.

Why not?

Darth Dane

There is an infinte number of radius-lines(what do you call these in english?) from the center to the edge.





DD - Love & Laughter

Ensign Steve

Okay, I understand what you are talking about. How come Planck's constants don't help, though? I know it was Normal who posited that and not you DD, but this one is for anyone who wants to answer? How do you know there exist infinitesimally small angles, and that there is no angle so small it cannot be bisected again?

John Page

Hey Ensign:

I just want to make sure I'm understanding the debate. DD is saying you can keep dividing angles so they become "infinitesimal" and Normal is saying Planck's constant defines the smallest unit of reality so you can't.

IMO the never-ending dividing of angles is a theoretical exercise only.

Cheers, John

Ensign Steve

Are you sure? I thought Megadave said there are little to no infinities. Then Normal gave an example of angles in a circle as an infinity and said you can't use Planck's constants. I asked why not. Then DD clarified a semantic issue I brought up from Normal's post about defined degrees (360 per) vs. theoretical possible angles. Then I asked either Normal or DD to answer my question of "why not?" on Planck's constants. I'm not trying to pick a side on this debate (yet) but I'm really curious as to why Normal discounts Planck's constants.

Me too. I tried it with a coffee filter once, I couldn't even fold it six times!

Darth Dane

The Planck constant faces one problem.

If I line up up lets say a trillion^trillion small pieces of "wood" with this distance Planck is supposed to be, we see that we may have centimter worth of "wood", but if there is no distance between a Planck and a planck, how can I see it?

Everything is a point on a scale subject to change and control





DD - Love & Laughter