15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User talk:Syamsu/Anticipation (view source)
Revision as of 10:28, February 9, 2010
, 10:28, February 9, 2010Created page with ''''Anticipation''' is the concept that an object is governed by deciding from the alternatives in it's future. Anticipation and decision has the opposite time principle from c...'
'''Anticipation''' is the concept that an object is governed by deciding from the alternatives in it's future.
Anticipation and decision has the opposite time principle from cause and effect. Where in cause and effect the past determines the present, with anticipation and decision it is the future that determines the present.
In common practical use anticipation applies to the ability of a thing to turn out one way or another through choice. The alternatives are in the future in respect to the decider. What does the job of deciding can only be known subjectively and is commonly referred to as spiritual. The spiritual is understood to be things like "love", "hate" etc. Things which are known to exist by deciding that they are there, not by measuring them.
There is a distinction between alternatives that are calculated with a predefined goal, and alternatives that exist in the future. For example when a chesscomputer calculates alternatives for the best move, then the chesscomputer is forced to do the best move without any possible of realizing an alternative, and therefore it cannot choose. In science these two different principles are referred to as "weak anticipation" (calculating alternatives), and "strong anticipation" (having alternatives in the future) [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AIPC..517....3D D. Dubois 2000]).
==religion==
The common use of anticipative principles in religion is the choice of God to create the universe, the final judgement of God between heaven and hell, and the choice of people to believe in God or not (faith).
==science==
Most all scientists only use the concepts of "weak" anticipation, and deny that there are alternatives in the future (see [http://http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/dcdennett.html Daniel Dennett]). However, in 2006 American scientists demonstrated ( [http://http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=170 Hosten & Kwiat] 2006) that they could search a database of 4 elements by only possibly running a search algorithm. Meaning a decision was made to run the algorithm or not, and the decision turned out that the algorithm didn't run.
Anticipation and decision has the opposite time principle from cause and effect. Where in cause and effect the past determines the present, with anticipation and decision it is the future that determines the present.
In common practical use anticipation applies to the ability of a thing to turn out one way or another through choice. The alternatives are in the future in respect to the decider. What does the job of deciding can only be known subjectively and is commonly referred to as spiritual. The spiritual is understood to be things like "love", "hate" etc. Things which are known to exist by deciding that they are there, not by measuring them.
There is a distinction between alternatives that are calculated with a predefined goal, and alternatives that exist in the future. For example when a chesscomputer calculates alternatives for the best move, then the chesscomputer is forced to do the best move without any possible of realizing an alternative, and therefore it cannot choose. In science these two different principles are referred to as "weak anticipation" (calculating alternatives), and "strong anticipation" (having alternatives in the future) [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AIPC..517....3D D. Dubois 2000]).
==religion==
The common use of anticipative principles in religion is the choice of God to create the universe, the final judgement of God between heaven and hell, and the choice of people to believe in God or not (faith).
==science==
Most all scientists only use the concepts of "weak" anticipation, and deny that there are alternatives in the future (see [http://http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/dcdennett.html Daniel Dennett]). However, in 2006 American scientists demonstrated ( [http://http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=170 Hosten & Kwiat] 2006) that they could search a database of 4 elements by only possibly running a search algorithm. Meaning a decision was made to run the algorithm or not, and the decision turned out that the algorithm didn't run.