Lots of misconceptions about physics and mathematics here.
how do you explain
deja vu's, i think it is a collision between parallel universes, same goes for the mandela effect, and do you think someday we could transport to those PU'S?
Here are the two options from my perspective. Either we have all a common natural phenomenon resulting from our neurophysiology that erroneously leads us to believe we have lived a present moment in the past, or the laws of nature are so arbitrarily anthropocentric that "collisions of parallel universes" (whatever that means*) somehow only coalesce into a random primate's brain. The former is very intuitive and we actually have proof that the brain commonly plays tricks on us. The latter is philosophical woo at best. Occam's razor slices in favour of the naturalistic viewpoint.
*By definition parallel universes cannot influence one another, since that would make it part of the joint universe of them both. I'd have to review some other definition of "parallel universe" to make sense of that. (Which is unwieldy in such a murky and philosophically charged concept such as that.)
Theoretically speaking, the travelling from the future to the past 'already happened'. So there was nothing to break in the future. It was always the way it was - so to speak.
Yeah, you're referring to closed loops. Those bring out other types of problems. See
causal loops. Basically, you bring into reality objects with not defined origin.
For example: you are going to buy tortillas (dont know how to say in english) and your fate is to die hit by a car, all the events are leading you to that event, there is no way to avoid it, unless you can see the future, wich is impossible.
SO, the destiny of every life its already programmed, scientifically of course
No. Fate is another philosophically charged concept. You're talking about fatalism, which imposes yet another needlessly anthropocentric bias onto natural laws. In its common usage, fatalism posits that certain events are already predetermined and that agents in the system
may act freely between these events but that they are powerless face
those particular key events.
Now I subscribe to a hard form of determinism, simply because it doesn't need to invoke a supernatural entity or phenomena to transcend the natural progression of reality (cause and effect). Free will necessitates it. Fatalism, or "destiny", also does. I feel no need to
ad hoc some concept to justify moral responsibility, which brings me neatly to...
I find the whole concept of Destiny to be rather depressing actually... If we are all "destined" then it means that NONE OF US HAVE FREE WILL. That is a terrible concept and is a great excuse for escaping the consequences of your own actions. Oops, looks like I am destined to kill that person! Oops, looks like I am destined to be a junkie! Seriously, the concept of destiny is so psychologically damaging that it should be erased from the human psyche...
I think I already made clear between the concept of determinism and destiny/fatalism. Only the former is (generally) opposed to free will. But in any case, this is a weak argument because moral* responsibility is still dependent on the agents within a determined system insofar as the path taken can lead to statistically less evil deeds. You can look at a system which obeys the laws of cause and effect, and "opt" for future paths that lead to less incentive to commit crime and more incentive to respect human rights. Essentially you are affecting the environment in which human behaviour emerges and is borne from. Sure, a guy killing someone would be determined from the offset, but the incentives are in place that he does it
despite his best interests. So it's a less likely occurrence within a determined reality.
Think of it like this: everything is determined but as of yet we have no way of knowing the outcome. Ignorance of the future is key. Therefore the best we can do is construct a system where that uncertainty is more tightly controlled for less undesirable outcomes.
*I am a moral nihilist, so "good" and "evil" are not meaningful concepts to me. But I will grant the existence of morality for the time being to get my point across more pragmatically.
Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set.
Again, a common theme around these sorts of conversations among laymen is the "anthropocentri-zation" of natural laws. Observation only means "interaction with," it has nothing to do with the colloquial term of the word. You could be a blind person with no way of seeing the phenomena, but observation only requires
interaction with the physical system. Indeed, an inanimate object can observe a system in this sense. It just means that at some point the physical system is closed, and then it is suddenly open to another system.
Unless I have misunderstood something, the results of the two slit experiment would still be the same regardless of if it was observed or not. Observing the phenomena doesn't change the way it behaves.
No, the wave collapses to the outside observer when it is interacted with (i.e. observed) so nature just "snaps" into one of the possible outcomes. That is what putting a detector in one of the slits means. It means a device that interacts with the photon, which has it have a different behaviour.
Do you have some data / research to back this quote up. I immediately thought of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which is similar to the observers effect, in that you can't predict both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time (more or less), thus negating your point above.
You can predict them both to however accuracy you want at the cost of the other. The uncertainty principle just plays with the fact that (in layman's terms) if you see a wave in space oscillating from one point to the other, you can obviously see its frequency, but its position can be anywhere in that oscillating line. Now, if you shrink that wave down to just a single point in space, you lose knowledge about the frequency because it wouldn't make sense to calculate a frequency of a single data point. It boils down to that interplay between wave and particle. This says nothing about predicting the evolution of a system, in which case quantum mechanics would be worthless if it couldn't predict anything.