Quote:
Originally Posted by duga
Yes, but the whole point of bringing it up is for the human element of choice. If we were at equilibrium with our environments as animals are (they react purely on instinct and if the environment changes and they are unfit for it, they go extinct), then we, too would most likely have gone extinct by now. Our environment IS proceeding towards equilibrium while we are fighting against it. The unlimited aspect I mentioned is where free will and choice comes into it. We are constantly attempting to overcome our environment, making ourselves more fit even though our genetics can't do it. If we lived in Tuna's universe, this would never happen.
|
Do you mean equilibrium as in where no further reaction is possible? Or dynamic equilibrium (where a reaction is reversible, resulting in an ongoing two way reaction but a steady amount of reactants/products
Even animals aren't always in Dynamic (?) equilibrium with the environment. They can change their own environment (overfeeding etc) to a point where it can't recover until they adapt or die out. One could argue we are doing the same to the planet.
In order to reach equilibrium, the contents must constantly change until the equilibrium is reached.
Tuna's universe is one where we can predict exactly what is going to happen based on all previous factors and all existing conditions of the entire universe.
If that was possible, then it would possible to know exactly how humans have/will overcome their environment, but the fact that it could be determined wouldn't prevent the outcome.
But you're saying if everything could be perfectly predicted, it would result in...a dynamic equilibrium (everything remaining constant/being cyclical)? If that's the case then I disagree.