Bone577 said:
How is the existence of probability an argument against my philosophy on the matter? I mean, probability is what us mortals use to attempt to predict things. If you really wanted to analyse the probability of lets suppose, a dice being rolled, you would have to consider every minute detail of the dices surface, aerodynamics, gravity, wind, density, weight, the tables density, hardness, material, not to mentionthe way it is thrown. The possibility of variables are near infinite, but the result could be calculated given necessary data is compiled and processing power was sufficient.
Probability in maths is taking away the complexities and trying to guess what may occur based on simplification. In general the dice has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one side, but for a given throw of the dice the probability is 1/1 of falling on the side it happens to fall on.
This idea is supported by time dialation and relativity. The fact that you cannot under any circumstance exceed the speed of light, hence cannot go back in time mean that there is only one path in time. There are no alternate paths like you see in Back to the Future. This means there is only ever one possible outcome.
There is no 'one' path in time. What you are referring to is the passage of time or 'temporal becomming', some sort of time 'pathway'
I think plato summed up the idea pretty well when he eloquently stated 'time is the moving shadow of eternity'.
Time dilation just implies that time will always be different for different observers, and that furthurs the point that there is no 'passage' of time.
We commonly suppose that time passes or flows from the future, into the present and into the past, but this notion is wholly spurious.
- the transience of time is not plausible as one could apply a rate of change to it if time were a movement. we would apparently require soe mysterious meta-time to mesure the rate of temporal passage. It will not do to say that an event recedes into the past at a rate of one second per second; this is like saying that a ruler gts larger to the right at the rate of one centimetre per centimentre, or a temperature to increaes at one degree per degree.
Such a conception of future events, each wating its turn to cross the threshold of he present, may be as old as speculation about the nature of time.
This conception of time as an unfolding manifold of events is responsible for the mistakend view of temporal flow or passage, and hence to say that time pases is to say nothng more exciting than things change.
The belief that there is such a process as 'becoming', or such a phenomenon as temporal passage, is a conceptual isllusion generated by the vivid but misleading spatial metaphors which we habitually deploy to describe the familiar world of process and change. This is the Parmenides' legacy.
a more logical deduction would show that the inconsistencies with time, or should i say 'Space-time' since time is inexorably connected to space (which was also a finding of einteins theory of relativity). 'Time' 'runs' slower on earth than in deep space outside any other considerable gravitational field, as a larger mass warps the space and time around it.
Time is not uniform, there is no 'pathway' of time
so are u still saying that u are a fatalist?