Destiny Theory

Lutra

Lutra

Spreadsheeter by day, Random Ladderer by night.
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Top Community Contributor Alumnus
Well this is my first post, I'm interested in Philosophy. This is one of my mini-theories, all names included in this theory are all chosen by me...without much thought. If you can argue or suggest anything that contradicts, makes the theory incomplete etc. It will be much appreciated.

Destiny Theory

​
The Mind can warp time through the use of its three storages and three manipulators. Have you ever believed something is going to happen and it does, this is a synchronisation of the future manipulator and the future storage. The past works similarly, we store the past and we can manipulate the past but we chose not to because it seems illogical. The present storage is the storage of the action. The present manipulator is the action. We are all in the present so the action becomes second nature to us. These three storages and three manipulators, are run by a program, I call, Destiny. All manipulators and storages are operated by the mind in the present.
Past Manipulator= Buchla Action
Past Storage = Memory
Present Manipulator = Action
Present Storage = Action Absorber
Future Manipulator = Dream
Future Storage = Premonition
 
If this theory were true and you would be the one discovering it, when did we make a choice not to manipulate the past (because it was illogical) when we weren't aware of it?

I'm inclined to believe something like this because I notice a LOT of deja vu's and in general seem to be able to predict everything anyone tells me less than a second ahead, but the latter may be to blame on the way the brain and the ears/human hearing function works.

Why would we store the present though? Wouldn't you store anything in either past or future, considering anything that would be considered present would be in the manipulator? Perhaps I'm missing something there though.
 
In all seriousness, I think you need to read more. Your ideas are little more than skeletal at present and I cannot begin to take it seriously. There are simply too many holes to know where to begin with a critique. Good work though, it shows you are trying to think.

Welcome to Smogon.
 
Hmmm I think your theory is true because martin luther king said he had a dream that all men are created equal and then shortly after black people were equal.
 
True, I haven't read much at all. I think there has to be a storage to be able to manipulate, so I was using mostly logic to create the theory. I have not yet figured out a way to explain present storage. I think we must have some power to manipulate, because we have the power to change our lifestyle for the good or bad, depending on how negative/positive we think. Yeah, I certainly need to elaborate more on this, so more questions would be helpful, thanks for the replies.
McGraw said:
In all seriousness, I think you need to read more. Your ideas are little more than skeletal at present and I cannot begin to take it seriously. There are simply too many holes to know where to begin with a critique. Good work though, it shows you are trying to think.

Welcome to Smogon.
Click to expand...

​
 
It would be helpful if you expand a little on how one would go about 'past manipulation', because such a thing is intuitively impossible and saying it without any sort of explanation won't help people take you seriously.

I have a small little theory explaining how dreams can predict the future, but it is purely an idea and is not based on any hard evidence whatsoever. I think that there are a lot of events that are affected by one another, but this is only apparent to your subconscious, hence the dreams. For example, breaking the law and going to jail are intuitively linked, but breaking the law and the weather the next day aren't, but could be, but this link is only apparent to your subconscious.

The only reason I even think of this is an attempt to explain some of the dreams I have. I don't expect anyone to take the above seriously; I just seized the opportunity to express something that is very hard to explain IRL.

On a final note, my Physics teacher told me once that a theory is only any good if you can use it to prove something that isn't already confirmed/disproven. That is, there's not point making a theory to explain something you already know about, unless you can make predictions from it. Ever since, I measure any theory by this statement, because it does make a lot of sense to me.
 
Read a bit more philosophy, specifically some Bertrand Russell. Philosophy is not just about a theory that can "explain everything", it's about proving this theory in a more-or-less scientific fashion.
 
a theory is only any good if you can use it to prove something that isn't already confirmed/disproven.

At the risk of semantics, Theories don't prove anything, and as for the idea of "confirmed" truths, I feel tempted to bring up Copernicus.

A theory is valid if you can consitently predict observable results with it.

As far as the TCs theory, it seems more like you wanted to cook up a nifty idea more than you needed something to explain all your dreams coming true. Are you actually basing this off anything besides maybe a few conincidences? I'm a pretty grounded dude I guess so to me this reminds of the thought of "time doesn't exist, we just percieve time passing" or something (which I don't really roll with since what we consitently observe is what i consider reality I guess. I hate Descartes for that)

basically what you're saying is that
-we can change the past but our mindset rejects this ability (Does this aspect of the theory have any practical applications?)
-We can predict the future, the future changes simply based upon our prediction (or vice versa?)

If all of these elements are run by a redetermined program, where does it come from? within a collective conciousness or what? if we can change any point in "time" with out minds, cant we erase thsi program?
 
Thank you for the good responses, I didn't actually aim for it to be proven/disproven when I created it, it was quite a while ago. I just based it around Logic, if the present constantly changes, then I thought logically, the past and the future would also. It sort of explains how people can see the future, it is a very opened minded idea. But afterall, an Idea is neither wrong or right. So it is very interesting to see your interpretations on this matter. If you follow logic, you realise anything is possible, because we can only base our knowledge on the present and past, just because it happens then, doesn't mean it won't change. So I was looking for good interpretations and it is also interesting to see people who want to put about their own theories.

Oh and the question about erasing. I 'll show you this, it might explain a little.

Time Dimensions
Dimension 1: Clock Time (Linear Time)
Dimension 2: Light Time (Circular Time)
Dimension 3: Moment (Hyper Time)
Dimension 4: Destiny (Mega Time)
Dimension 5: Fate* (Giga Time)
Dimension Infinite: Universe*

Destiny is just one of the infinite dimensions of time, which the Universe ultimately controls.
I haven't studied philosophy as I'm 15 and haven't gone to Six Form College or whatever you call it in the US. So I don't really know about many philosophists, I'll try to look them up. And Indeed we can apply this theory, for instance, if you think positive and feel grateful, be optimistic, you get the results you want, and plus, I don't see how it couldn't work. I believe in the system where the belief of the mind creates the universe.
 
I haven't studied philosophy as I'm 15 and haven't gone to Six Form College or whatever you call it in the US. So I don't really know about many philosophists
Click to expand...
Philosophers, for one. And for two, here's a rundown of the basic influential Western philosophers and their most influential book (copypasta from an old syllabus):
-GALILEO (1564-1642) The Assayer
-DESCARTES (1596-1650) Meditations
-BERKELEY (1685-1753) Three Dialogues
-HUME (1711-1776) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
-KANT (1724-1804) Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics
-MILL (1806-1873) Utilitarianism
-RUSSELL (1872-1970) The Problems of Philosophy
-AYER (1910-1989) Language,Truth and Logic
-(MODERN PHILOSOPHERS)

If you want to skip any, go ahead and skip Galileo and Kant. The rest are fairly important. For example, Berkeley is the founder of Idealism, Mill is the founder of Utilitarianism (lol book title), Russell is the progenitor of pseudo-science.
 
uuum umm platosocrates? Hume is a nub.
edit: aristotle!! locke
nietzche, schoppen, KIERKEGAARD and heidegger (sartre/camus) you cant just ignore existentialism

edit: how's this for a philosophy: you suck!!!!!!!1
 
Plato and Socrates are obvious as hell. Not worth mentioning.
Hume needs to be noted, ur a nub.


EDIT: I'm not ignoring existentialism, its that there's no point in the OP trying to comprehend that without understanding the basics of proofs and systematic doubt and such. Or maybe you're in the same boat as OP lolzlolz.


EDIT2:Solipsism: "Since you're a figment of my imagination, I'll just consider you the personification of all my feelings about bad posting."
Nihilism: "Fuck you."
Moral-sense view: "Fuck you (but in a nicer way than Nihilism)."

Seriously, there's a reason why philosophy needs science before it needs more bullshit ideas.
 
Thanks Pneuma, I am going on holiday soon to Egypt, so feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I want to make an interesting point about this storage and manipulation.

Tonight I watched a David Icke DVD with my dad. Just a few weeks ago, I was looking on Wikipedia and I saw how many economic unions there were. European Union, African Union, you name it. I realised that these unions were going to form a world union. These powerful superpowers will use unity to bring about a control of the world in the few. You've probably heard this before. But I wrote it down because I had never realised how this "New World Order" would precisely form, using Geography as an easy means. Anyway, I had written it down. On the video, it must've been 30 minutes through. David Icke was explaining about these different economic communities, unions. He explained about the pyramid of control, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with, a hierachy. This is an example of not only me being attracted through the law of attraction, which is particularly detailed in the secret, if you've ever seen it; but also the power of destiny, I either knew it was going to happen(I had actually wanted to watch it for a long time) or I allowed it to happen through the manipulation, this is a key example of what I mean.

As I emphasize, I am a big believer of anything is possible, so in some ways I believe everything or nothing. I think I still tend to look at things in black and white, I'm very logical, I think I should develop theories which are less structured and more diverse. I'll be coming up with plenty of theories, so in the mean time, cya.

Edit: I just realised what Cookie Crumbz theory is about, events and how they lead to each other through possibly the subconscience. I think a lot of people would believe in that, Cookie, I do. I've created a theory on how choices lead to events which is similar, but doesn't involve the mind. Great Idea.
 
your whole idea of people 'seeing the future' is kinda ridiculous. i mean there are billions of people on this planet, and an unfathomable amount of 'future predictions', whether theyre subconscious or conscious. the way the human mind works, those subconscious predictions are likely to become conscious if they actually happen, and stay subconscious if they do not. thats why its likely to seem that you actually have a rather decent record at predicting the future.

excuse my horribly arbitrary number, but even if a thousand people predict some things and they all come true, it may seem nifty, but when you realize that there was potential for billions of people to predict billions of things, it seems less interesting.

all that isnt even taking into account the fact that 'predicting the future' is often vague as absolute fuck; the reason people buy into horoscopes and fortune telling and junk like that. if you set up a prediction where youve got a range of possibilities when you're gonna be right, and you/others are not even going to remember (or possibly even consciously recognize) that you made that prediction if youre wrong, its gonna seem like youre telling the future.

i may not have been able to accurately express my opinion on this matter, but i assure you, it makes sense in my head :/
 
I understand your view of us just emphasising it because it came true, but what you have also got to realise is that there must be so many times that we don't realise it. So we could be predicting the future without realising it, all of the time. It links in with the law of Attraction, I think there should be a thread about that, because it is a very interesting theory which is proven to a degree.

​
 
You should also read 1984 and Brave new world, while not philosophy in the traditional sense there are many references to these books and the ideas presented in them.
 
Jakilutra said:
I understand your view of us just emphasising it because it came true, but what you have also got to realise is that there must be so many times that we don't realise it. So we could be predicting the future without realising it, all of the time. It links in with the law of Attraction, I think there should be a thread about that, because it is a very interesting theory which is proven to a degree.
Click to expand...

but if we dont realize it, then how can we even prove to anyone, let alone ourselves, that we predicted it in the first place? thats nonsense
 
I remember reading in a sci-fi book once where they claimed the human mind is actually a quantum-flux field of some sort, not a chemical memory machine we see it now. its fiction anyway.
 
I think you just described the basis of philosophy.
Glen said:
but if we dont realize it, then how can we even prove to anyone, let alone ourselves, that we predicted it in the first place? thats nonsense
Click to expand...

​
 
If you want to skip any, go ahead and skip Galileo and Kant. The rest are fairly important. For example, Berkeley is the founder of Idealism, Mill is the founder of Utilitarianism (lol book title), Russell is the progenitor of pseudo-science.
Click to expand...
Kant is widely regarded as the greatest and most important philosopher since Aristotle.
 
Every philosopher is regarded as the greatest and most important philosopher depending on the country you live in. Berkeley, father of idealists has a huge following, as does Mill's utilitarianism and Russel's realism as well as Neitzche's nihilism, etc.

In terms of what Kant added to the current understanding of philosophy, not much. He rebuked some of Hume and was in turn rebuked by a number of people. His universalization method was then proven unfounded.

That's not to say his books aren't interesting or he's a dumb guy. I still listed his book. Read him last.
 
I'm sorry, but I really have to take exception. He certainly contributed more than Berkeley's Idealism, which has never really been taken seriously by anyone, not least because of some very basic confusions in the so-called 'Master Argument' of the Principles, and not to mention his dogmatic reliance on God as the deus ex machina.

To limit his significance to "rebuking some of Hume" is misleading at best. The key work is not the Prolegomena but the Critique of Pure Reason, a work which every significant philosopher since has had to account for. Kant's Idealism was constantly engaged with by Fichte, Schelling and Hegel (whom your list curiously omits) and largely assumed by Schopenhauer. Heidegger and Sartre are unthinkable without Kant and Hegel, especially Sartre. If we're just talking about influence, then the period in 'continental' philosophy from Kant to today can, and has, been called Post-Kantian. The 'Copernican revolution' in shifting the focus of philosophy from the epistemic relation between a Cartesian subject and the independent world of material things to the Kantian critique of cognitive normativity constitutes the single most significant philosophical advance since Plato, it really does. Learn what 'transcendental' means in the Kantian sense, and see why Descartes, often called the father of modern philosophy was ultimately superficial. Even if one were to deny his positive doctrine (which the mainstream of contemporary philosophy, admittedly, seemingly does) Kant brought into sharp focus the intractable pseudo-problem of the epistemic gap between subject and object And while I personally believe Heidegger is the more perceptive and fundamental thinker, denying Kant's incomparable place in the history of thought speaks only of a lack of knowledge.

In fact, and this is really not meant to be offensive or arrogant, your list of key works appears to be a list of significant but easily-read books - perhaps suitable for a pre-undergraduate course. Indeed, yes, read him last, after you understand some of the key themes in philosophy. But don't dismiss him because you are yet to read him.
___________________

Anyway, Jakilutra, as has been said, its good to think about these things, but your ideas cannot really be taken seriously. Try reading Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. I think you'll find it interesting, and if you do philosophy at college, you'll have a head start on the others. Special bonus.
 
In fact, and this is really not meant to be offensive or arrogant, your list of key works appears to be a list of significant but easily-read books - perhaps suitable for a pre-undergraduate course. Indeed, yes, read him last, after you understand some of the key themes in philosophy.
Click to expand...
Please note who the list was given to, that will fix a lot of misunderstanding ITT.
 
Oh yeah, that's true. Sorry. Still, its not because Kant isn't important that he shouldn't be reading Kant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top