The reason being was as follows:
We can treat universe is a closed system with a strict set of rules. The universe exists in a given state. Since the universe can only follow a strict set of rules and has an existing state, logic follows that there is only one possible path for the universe to follow.
I see the metaphorical equivalent of the universe as a pool table with all the balls in motion and no external forces to act upon it.
Problem:
My friends who have a reasonable understanding of quantum mechanics state that the basis of my assumptions is flawed.
Question: Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-19-2010 at 03:30 PM.
Would someone with a greater understanding of quantum mechanics mind explaining the issues with the above assumption?
Quantum mechanics tells us that, in fact, there is a minor chance that the first pool ball will pass directly though the second pool ball. There is no way to measure these two pool balls variables and determine that this is going to happen. In fact, if you did measure them, you would effect the outcome.
But let's say one out of a trillion times two billiard balls collide, one passes though the other. You wouldn't see it very often, but now imagine that you're hitting billions of billiard balls against each other each second, every second. Suddenly, the chance of something completely unexpected and unpredictable happening per second becomes plausible.
Your brain hits billions of billiard balls against each other each and every second. Completely unexpected and unpredictable things happen in your brain. There is no way to calculate when these things occur or what they will ultimately do.
Ergo, free will.
Please note that I don't care if this is observable or not. In fact I don't see that as relevant at all. (Why would the universe care about our ability to understand something?)
I just care about is if the same situation happened exactly the same way it'll be possible to have a different outcome. Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-19-2010 at 05:09 PM.
quote:
Ghost of Forums Past's ass must be crazy:
There is no rule stating as to why the balls would pass through each other or not (that the universe has to follow)? If the same situation happened exactly the same way it'll be possible to have a different outcome? The universe doesn't always follow the rules?Please note that I don't care if this is observable or not. In fact I don't see that as relevant at all. (Why would the universe care about our ability to understand something?)
I just care about is if the same situation happened exactly the same way it'll be possible to have a different outcome.
The balls passing though each other is a bad example, but it's one that is commonly used and fit into your lead-in.
Let me explain.
It's not about understanding it, it's about observing it.
Consider that you can not hear a sound without changing the sound wave's propagation- altering the sound wave.
Consider that you can not see light without absorbing part of it's wave pattern.
In the same way, you can not observe certain vital measures at a quantum level without completely altering them. For example, you may know the speed of an electron, or the position of an electron, but not both. That makes the speed+position vector effectively random. If this information is not observable, then it is impossible to predict- on a sub atomic level- if an electron flowing across your brain is going to, basically, go right or left. You may be able to observe this and see that 99.9% of the time it goes left, but at any point it may go right.
Is there a rule that governs this? How could we possibly find out? You can't read an electron to see what properties it has to discover if there's a correlation between those that go left and a measure and those that go right and the same measure. Effectively, this is the only thing in the universe that physics itself must treat as random.
And if anything in physics is random, especially something at the most basic level as the interaction between an electron and the electrostatic force, then, effectively, everything has some degree of randomness. It is literally impossible to determine what will happen in any interaction with absolute certainty. You can guess, and you can be right up to 99.999999999(this continues for a while, but not infinity times)% of the time, but not 100% of the time.
Free will basically means that someone can make a decision that is not 100% predictable based on known conditions. But even if you knew everything that is possible to be known in the whole universe, you still can't know which direction that electron is going to go, because in order to look at it, you've got to change it's behavior.
quote:
A sleep deprived Blindy stammered:
In fact, if you did measure them, you would effect the outcome.
Minor pet peeve. The act of observation would have an effect on the outcome. The act of observation affects the outcome.
Your argument for Quantum Mechanics is simple, but apt. I just dislike seeing these two words confused. 
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but here's the skinny: The Schrödinger equation was devised by Irwin Schrödinger as a way to determine the probability of finding an electron in any given space with any given momentum, because - as we know from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - it's impossible to know both of those qualities with any precision. Schrödinger came up with the mathematical equation that expresses Heisenberg's uncertainty.
The Schrödinger equation has been verified exhaustively with empirical data coming from accelerators. Not only that, but it has been found to apply equally not only to electrons, but to every elemental particle governed by quantum effects.
What does this mean for you and me? See, Schrödinger's equation predicts probability. We cannot predict with any certainty how any one elemental particle of matter will behave, we can only chart along a bell curve the probable range of results from any given interaction. The more complex a given system, the greater the accuracy with we can predict it's behavior, and the narrower the bell curve Schrödinger's equation will result in. Physicists use this very principle, with great accuracy, to determine the masses of unknown particles being emitted from accelerators.
The macroscopic world, the one we see with our eyeballs, is not an illusion of causality. Rather, nearly the opposite: Causality is an illusion generated by our macroscopic brains. Our world appears deterministic because what we see is an averaging of countless trillions of acausal subatomic interactions. We simply see a very narrow bell curve of probabilities. On our scale, quantum uncertainty has diminished at an exponential rate - infinitely approaching, but never equaling, zero.
The existence of any acausality is enough to preclude the possibility of determinism. The fact that the elemental building blocks of all matter and energy are acausal tosses that idea right out.
How so?
Well, imagine a hockey game, for example. Imagine an ice rink that is a closed system, with players playing infinite games with infinite endurance.
The deterministic view is that, if all the initial conditions were known in total detail, the results of each game could be predicted with utter certainty.
The quantum view, however, is that we cannot possibly know all initial conditions, because uncertainty is an indispensable element of all matter and energy. The rest is classic butterfly effect, with an acausal twist: Several outlier protons decay and emit an electron which softens a patch of the ice just enough to turn a skate and cause a goal to miss. The strong atomic force behaves unpredictably in an interaction between several atoms in the aluminum that comprises the net posts and causes the puck to roll right and into the net instead of left and out of it.
The most modern science points increasingly to a universe in which we are adrift in a sea of probability and uncertainty, with chains of causality only briefly connecting arbitrary events around us.
edit: this does not disprove god, stop reaching. It only disproves the existence of omnipotence in anything that obeys our universe's laws. if god created the universe, it's safe to say that he doesn't need to obey its laws. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 05-19-2010 at 08:08 PM.
Wait, you probably knew I was going to say that.
It was...pre-destined.
So basically I could take a carbon copy of all the energy and matter in the universe and f(x) could equal y one time and not another. This is because the f(x) needs the quantum state of the universe, which is an independent factor?
quote:
Ghost of Forums Past's ass must be crazy:
Maradon, thank you.So basically I could take a carbon copy of all the energy and matter in the universe and f(x) could equal y one time and not another. This is because the f(x) needs the quantum state of the universe, which is an independent factor?
Almost.
It's not independent, it's just impossible to know, so it would be impossible to copy.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Blindy wrote:
Almost.It's not independent, it's just impossible to know, so it would be impossible to copy.
Then we just went full circle. Even if it's impossible to know the outcome, that doesn't mean the outcome isn't fixed. All it means is that we don't know what the result will be. Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-19-2010 at 11:26 PM.
Edit: We've observed that the quantum world is random, and we've learned that we are unable to observe the factors that might be used to deduce the source of this randomness without affecting the quantum world. Blindy fucked around with this message on 05-19-2010 at 11:34 PM.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Look at the big brains on bill!!edit: this does not disprove god, stop reaching. It only disproves the existence of omnipotence in anything that obeys our universe's laws. if god created the universe, it's safe to say that he doesn't need to obey its laws.
This is actually a lovely irony observed: because Maradon has proved that free will is an absolute through randomness demonstrated by quantum physics, he feels constrained against believing in God. I know this conclusion is a bit of stretch but it's still amusing.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Blindy thought about the meaning of life:
The result isn't fixed, and we can't know what the outcome will be. The outcome has a degree of randomness that can never be factored away, and the smaller the event, the larger the degree of randomness.Edit: We've observed that the quantum world is random, and we've learned that we are unable to observe the factors that might be used to deduce the source of this randomness without affecting the quantum world.
The universe either follows a set laws that produce a fixed outcome as a result or it doesn't.
Given X is the absolute state of everything in the universe (not just mesurable stuff- I'm talking everything, even things we don't know exist)...
I've been told that if F(X)=Y happens once it will always happen.
I've been told if F(X)=Y happens once it doesn't mean it will always happen.
It's one or the other.
The ability to deduce the situation is irrelevant in either way. I'm not talking about determining the outcome. I'm not talking about observing the outcome. I'm talking about nature taking its course.
Which is it?
quote:
ACES! Another post by Ghost of Forums Past:
The universe either follows a set laws that produce a fixed outcome as a result or it doesn't.Given X is the absolute state of everything in the universe (not just mesurable stuff- I'm talking everything, even things we don't know exist)...
I've been told that if F(X)=Y happens once it will always happen.
I've been told if F(X)=Y happens once it doesn't mean it will always happen.
It's one or the other.The ability to deduce the situation is irrelevant in either way. I'm not talking about determining the outcome. I'm not talking about observing the outcome. I'm talking about nature taking its course.
Which is it?
You're missing a point: randomness is a law unto itself. That the end result is not fixed IS the absolute law you're speaking of.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Ghost of Forums Past booooze lime pole over bench lick:
The universe either follows a set laws that produce a fixed outcome as a result or it doesn't.
It doesn't.
Instead, it follows a set of laws that produce a variable outcome with a predictable probability.
quote:
Given X is the absolute state of everything in the universe (not just mesurable stuff- I'm talking everything, even things we don't know exist)...
I've been told that if F(X)=Y happens once it will always happen.
I've been told if F(X)=Y happens once it doesn't mean it will always happen.
It's one or the other.The ability to deduce the situation is irrelevant in either way. I'm not talking about determining the outcome. I'm not talking about observing the outcome. I'm talking about nature taking its course.
Which is it?
It is impossible to know if F(X)=Y.
You're making an extremely reasonable mistake, it's one that a lot of people make when dealing with quantum mechanics because it's so incredibly bizarre. Take solace in the fact that it drove Einstein nuts too.
You're confusing what is unknowable with something that is unknown. Uncertainty is fundamental in quantum mechanics, it's not a matter of obtaining some fantastic, perfect, ultimate measuring power.
Unknowable means that if we concoct a new scenario, and it turns out that in our scenario, the mass or momentum and location of a photon is known with certainty, then we can deduce that our scenario is necessarily unrealistic because those things cannot be known. If they were known, our particles would cease to be what they are just as surely as a triangle would cease to be what it is when you added another side.
In your equation, X is not determinable. For anything to ever determine X, it would need to totally rewrite all the laws of physics and reality.
Because X is fundamentally indeterminable, F(X)=Y can never have a predictable value for Y.
In a fantasy ideal experiment where we can run F(X)=Y multiple times identically, the results would depend on the complexity of the function. As complexity increases, the odds that two calculations of F(X)=Y will be the same also increases, exponentially, and asymptotically - it may never be certain.
In the quantum realm, F(X)=Y routinely calculates differently. Mathematically identical particles under mathematically identical circumstances decay into wildly different products, obeying laws of conservation of spin, charge, momentum, and a host of others... usually. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 01:11 AM.
quote:
Quoth Delphi Aegis:
Minor pet peeve. The act of observation would have an effect on the outcome. The act of observation affects the outcome.Your argument for Quantum Mechanics is simple, but apt. I just dislike seeing these two words confused.
Even though he didn't intend it, his original statement still works, in that the observation effects a different outcome. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The more interesting discussion is demonstrating that omniscience and free will can't exist together, which blows a lot of religious thought out the window.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Bloodsage:
The easy answer is that if the universe were entirely Newtonian, he'd be correct. It's not, so he isn't.The more interesting discussion is demonstrating that omniscience and free will can't exist together, which blows a lot of religious thought out the window.
You mean that if a creature is omniscient then it is aware of all the consequences of every possible action it could make? As a result all non-omniscient creatures are following a pre-determined path laid out by the choices of said omniscient being?
Of course, that's based on a logic path I thought of before I found out that reality follows Lovecraftian and not Newtonian rules.
edit: Addendum. All creatures would follow the path laid out by the omniscient creature, not just all non-omniscient creatures.
- If the creatures actions are pre-determined you have a strong argument against free will Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 07:41 AM.
- If the creatures actions are not pre-determined you have a strong argument against omniscience
Also we haven't exactly proved free will, we've just proved that we're not deterministic. You can make a solid argument that those two things are the same, but I don't think you can prove that point.
If physics fails to have complete control over our actions due to randomness, surely we fail to have complete control over our actions, for much the same reason.
Edit: Blindy. fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 07:51 AM.
Which is kinda scary to think about.
Free will: We have complete control over our actions.
Predestination: God has complete control over our actions.
Determinism: Physics has complete control over our actions.
Reality: Nothing and no one has complete control over anything, ever.
In order for my theory to be correct, I'd need to be able to feed the universe a "state" and get one and only one possible result.
- Science is pretty much based off of experiment, observation, and deduction
- According to wiser minds than I, it is observed that you can have a unique state X but have different outcomes. The outcomes are based on probability, not a fixed result. This variation is not due to an error in measurement or external factors but rather the nature of the universe. It appears like a fixed probability on a macro scale because the probabilities are based on bell curves and I am seeing aggregate data.
- As a developer my gut instinct is to insist that the universe follows a rule-set that behaves like a function. This is based on past prejudices and experience. Unfortunately, simply believing something is true does not make it true.
- I'd like to say that the equations are either incomplete or the results are spoiled by an unknown external force, but this would be nothing more than a hypothesis. I need to base my conclusion off observable data, not opinions.
It's not so much unknown, as it is known to be random and indeterminate. Blindy fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 09:15 AM.
quote:
Blindy. said this about your mom:
Well, again, no religion is going to claim that their particular brand of sky fairy(s) are in anyway necessarily corporal or subservient to the laws of our particular shard of reality.Also we haven't exactly proved free will, we've just proved that we're not deterministic. You can make a solid argument that those two things are the same, but I don't think you can prove that point.
If physics fails to have complete control over our actions due to randomness, surely we fail to have complete control over our actions, for much the same reason.
Edit:
Which is kinda scary to think about.
Free will: We have complete control over our actions.
Predestination: God has complete control over our actions.
Determinism: Physics has complete control over our actions.
Reality: Nothing and no one has complete control over anything, ever.
When I was responding to sage's post, I was responding to the idea that free will and omniscience can not exist together.
For that to be correct we only need to prove the two ideas are incompatible, nothing more.
I thought the idea was to say
- Create an argument that says if the universe is deterministic then there is no free will because our actions are preordained.
- Create an argument that says if a being is omniscient the universe must be deterministic.
- Come to a conclusion saying that if a being is omniscient the universe is deterministic and therefore there is no free will if an omniscient being exists and an omniscient being can not exist if there is free will.
This assumes that the sky faerie(s) are only omniscient and nothing more. Religions can claim that their "sky faerie(s)" are not bound by these laws, but that is not relevant for this particular argument aside from the requirement of additional semantics (Omniscient beings bound by the laws of reality). Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 09:20 AM.
You have no a priori proof that the universe is as you think and are instead running off of induced assumptions based off of prior experiences - you don't know that the billiard balls will necessarily conserve energy as you think they will, it's just that as far as you've noticed, they always have
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Steven Steve obviously shouldn't have said:
I didn't read any of the posts in the thread because I don't care that much but just read Hume on causation or read my summary below:You have no a priori proof that the universe is as you think and are instead running off of induced assumptions based off of prior experiences - you don't know that the billiard balls will necessarily conserve energy as you think they will, it's just that as far as you've noticed, they always have
Don't forget to move your hands in an authoritative fashion when you type that so you can get credit for repeating other people.
edit: Thanks for the refrence on Hume. I'll look into that. I started with this (a link a friend sent me) and moved onto this. It was easier reading than I expected.
I especially like how the wiki answers the obvious questions around the part of the article where you'll probably think them "yeah but what about... oh."
edit2: To be honest, part of me is wishing someone will come out with an article saying "yeah, turns out we forgot to tack on this to the equation and now it's just a function instead of a probability model." Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-20-2010 at 02:41 PM.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Ghost of Forums Past squealed:
- Create an argument that says if a being is omniscient the universe must be deterministic.
This is easy enough.
Free wil boils down to having choice.
Omniscience can be boiled down to knowing the outcomes of decision points.
You can't have both.
For example: There is a choice between A & B. If an omniscient sky fairy knows with 100% certainty the outcome will be A, then there is no real choice, since choice (and hence free will) implies a greater than zero probability of selecting either option. If we are to have free will, we must acknowledge that the sky fairy cannot know with mathematical certainty whether A or B will be chosen...and is therefore fallible by definition.
On another note, the "yeah, you're only guessing based on experience and limited perception" is a recurring theme in a lot of philosophy. Ultimately not very useful, though, and can lead to unnecessary and destructive relativism.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
This is easy enough.Free wil boils down to having choice.
Omniscience can be boiled down to knowing the outcomes of decision points.
You can't have both.
For example: There is a choice between A & B. If an omniscient sky fairy knows with 100% certainty the outcome will be A, then there is no real choice, since choice (and hence free will) implies a greater than zero probability of selecting either option. If we are to have free will, we must acknowledge that the sky fairy cannot know with mathematical certainty whether A or B will be chosen...and is therefore fallible by definition.
On another note, the "yeah, you're only guessing based on experience and limited perception" is a recurring theme in a lot of philosophy. Ultimately not very useful, though, and can lead to unnecessary and destructive relativism.
Your logic does not follow. There is no causal connection between the simple foreknowledge of an omniscient entity and the will of other entities. Effort made to ensure a given outcome isn't implicit in the knowledge of said outcome. Omniscience has to imply some variety of existence outside of the normal set of constraints to work, just as Blindy suggested. Consider the knowledge Marty McFly garnered in Back to the Future: after he returned to his own time, he knew what would occur in the future; his knowledge didn't predetermine what would happen, he just happened to know because he'd been there. This would be a limited version of an element common to all the omniscient sky (and earth) fairies I'm familiar with: omnipresence.
How are you going to draw causality from the foreknowledge of something that is everywhere and everywhen but does nothing to make anything in particular happen?
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
I'm afraid you'll have to show me a situation where there is a real choice and yet the outcome is foreknown. Foreknown = predetermined, btw.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Damnati stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Omniscience has to imply some variety of existence outside of the normal set of constraints to work, just as Blindy suggested.
omniscient:
- all-knowing: infinitely wise.
If there is something - anything at all - that you don't know, then you are by definition not omniscient.
The are other arguments types of to try to disprove the possibility of being omniscient, but that wasn't the point of sage's exercise. The point of the exercise is to prove that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. On top of that, we are only provided two "givens" for the sake of this argument - the definition of free will and the definition of omnipresence.
also, what sage said. Ghost of Forums Past fucked around with this message on 05-21-2010 at 09:07 AM.
quote:
We all got dumber when Bloodsage said:
Of course foreknowledge predetermines the outcome--that's by definition. If there is a mathematical certainty of a given outcome, then perforce there can be no actual choice (where choice implies a greater than zero chance of any of several outcomes) and therefore no free will.I'm afraid you'll have to show me a situation where there is a real choice and yet the outcome is foreknown. Foreknown = predetermined, btw.
Predetermined has connotations of external forces controlling your actions, and I think that's where people get hung up.
Knowing where someone will be at 9:30 doesn't mean that that person didn't make a decision to be there, but it does mean that they will make the decision to be there.
Having absolute knowledge of the future means that people's decisions and actions are inevitable. If that future requires me to decide to go out, even if I feel like I have the decision not to go, in fact the state of my mind is or will be loaded in such a way that the decision to go is inevitable. If there is any chance that I might choose not to go out, then you do not have absolute knowledge of the future.
Although it would be possible to have knowledge of the probable future without eliminating the concept of free will. But absolute knowledge of the future does, in fact, mean that we merely have the illusion of choice.
Absolute foreknowledge precludes free will. Being really, really good at assessing probabilities does not.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy had this to say about pies:
Predetermined has connotations of external forces controlling your actions, and I think that's where people get hung up.Knowing where someone will be at 9:30 doesn't mean that that person didn't make a decision to be there, but it does mean that they will make the decision to be there.
Having absolute knowledge of the future means that people's decisions and actions are inevitable. If that future requires me to decide to go out, even if I feel like I have the decision not to go, in fact the state of my mind is or will be loaded in such a way that the decision to go is inevitable. If there is any chance that I might choose not to go out, then you do not have absolute knowledge of the future.
Although it would be possible to have knowledge of the probable future without eliminating the concept of free will. But absolute knowledge of the future does, in fact, mean that we merely have the illusion of choice.
This is still presupposing an external force loading a given state of mind. I don't see any rational way to connect the knowledge of a being that exists outside the constraints of the known universe to the will of beings that live within those constraints. Tying the knowledge of a deity to the will of lesser beings is bit like saying that the ultimate outcome of a movie/book/game/whatever is predetermined because the viewer/reader/player/whatever knows what's going to happen; it's a fallacy because the knowledge comes out of observing something created before it was observed. A deity, in essence, reviews all times and places as though they were in the past because a deity exists in all times and places simultaneously (in the case of deities who are both omniscient and omnipresent; I don't know of any that are one without the other off-hand...perhaps Odin?).
The argument would certainly be valid if the premise was based on a human-level entity that knows the future with mathematical certainty through what amounts to prognostication; if the being exists only in the now and knows with mathematical precision what will happen in the future, it certainly does amount to predestination. That's not the issue at hand, though. The problem with this particular matter is the one is trying to argue the impact of an all-powerful, all-knowing being who is present everywhere and everywhen on free will from the perspective of a creature that fundamentally cannot wrap its mind around that kind of scale.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
The movie characters may appear to make a decision, but in reality their next act is scripted. The character's decision is only an illusion.
If God knows what you are going to do, then that is what you are going to do.
You may think you are making a decision, but in reality you will do the thing God knows you are going to do, because if you possibly could do something else, then God does not have absolute knowledge of the future. Your decision is only an illusion.
Your fundamental mistake, other than arguing from emotion and might-be, is that you're trying to say that knowing the outcome somehow must plant the idea in someone's head or control their actions externally. That does not follow.
What it is, though, is that knowing the outcome requires that that outcome be the only possible outcome, which means there can be no free will. Free will is, by definition, the freedom to choose between various outcomes.
So, to prove your point, please give us an example where the outcome of a situation is known in advance and yet the actors in that situation still have freedom to choose.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
As I said before, the only way your argument works if you center it on a being that possesses omniscience but not omnipresence. This isn't a matter of arguing from emotion, this is just the way the major sky fairies work. Monolithic creator deities, according to their followers, -made- the rules and, thus, can readily bend, change, or break them at will; trying to fit them within a human paradigm just doesn't function.
Put another way, no amount of us knowing how history played out changes that the people in it had free will in what they chose. We know how William Wallace's life played out in a general sense because he was genuine historical figure, not because Mel Gibson directed one hell of a movie about him going by a heavily dramatized script. We know what happened at Agincourt and Waterloo because these are past events and we are able to look back on recorded history; this doesn't imply that choices of the people in that time were made for them because people in the future are capable of looking back. This is fundamentally the position of any given omniscient sky fairy; they don't predict what will happen, they know because, in their existence, it's all happened already.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
