Author Topic: Is the future already written?  (Read 2906 times)

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #180 on: October 04, 2018, 10:18:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't say you were making a strawman argument I said that you were making a strawman of my position.

Just something to correct here. I initially said you were making a strawman because I was referring to the fact that you said that my post was saying the exact opposite of what it was actually saying. Your response was to say that I had made a strawman argument, I then responding by saying that when you are the one saying that I am saying the exact opposite of what I am actually saying that it isn't me who is the one making a "strawman argument". So I did eventually use that term but only by mistake because you incorrectly accused me of it when you were the one making a strawman of my position. I should have said "strawman" there rather than "strawman argument" that time as well as I did initially.

So to correct what I said there: When you misrepresent what I actually said to saying the exact opposite of what I actually said, it is absurd for you to then accuse me of making a strawman argument, when I wasn't the one making a strawman out of your position, or out of any position (I only represented positions correctly, which is why you have failed to show otherwise), but you made a strawman out of my position by saying that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #181 on: October 04, 2018, 12:27:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What do you mean by your first sentence? PRNG don't really have anything to do with 1+1, I think.

And what exactly would the truly identical-ness of the computers add? I mean apart from making it a  metaphore that's not applicable to the real world seeing as true identicalness is also impossible.

I meant that IF 2 computers were precisely identical they wouldn't be able to change their game against each other. 

And my point in several posts has been that true identicalness is not really possible (as you point out) so randomness has to exist.  And any degree of randomness precludes determination of the future.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #182 on: October 04, 2018, 12:53:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Heisenberg "prevents" nothing.  And I would rescue the cat.

Typical gut emotion argument.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline trdsf

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #183 on: October 04, 2018, 01:19:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I mean apart from making it a  metaphore that's not applicable to the real world seeing as true identicalness is also impossible.
That's not always the case.  Certainly on a particle level, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login since there is no known measurement to distinguish the intrinsic properties of any one particle of a particular class from any other particle of that same class.  The only difference between any two electrons, for example, is their position and motion in space and time, which are not intrinsic to the composition of the electron.

That's what led John Wheeler to once put forth a theory that the reason all electrons (and positrons) have so far as any measurement could determine the exact same mass and exact same magnitude of charge is because there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login β€” when moving backward, it behaves as a positron.  Richard Feynman later used the idea of antiparticles as particles moving backwards in time as part of his formulation of quantum electrodynamics, crediting Wheeler with the original idea in his Nobel lecture.

As for how identical two computers are β€” I would be willing to call any two machines constructed from the same components (the same make and model of each component, not just broadly similar) to be functionally identical, at least.  In principle, and absent any unknown manufacturing variance or defect between two parts that are otherwise the 'same', there aren't any differences at the particle level that should be meaningful at the higher level of the machine's operation.

Meanwhile, I'm going to run a few games of chess on my phone to see if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login always calculates the same openings, since there's no question that my phone is in every possible way identical to itself, and that the application is identical to itself, and that I can set the same limit on the amount of time for "thinking" for both sides of the board.  I think that should tell us whether there's any randomization or not.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #184 on: October 04, 2018, 01:22:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If two objects are truly completely identical then they're not two separate objects and they're in fact one and the same object. Is that what you're getting at?

I guess?
I just meant that even two laptops from The same assembly line have miniscule differences.
But i guess, yeah.
I suppose that one could even say no single object is ever The same in two different moments in time, probably.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #185 on: October 04, 2018, 01:24:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Meanwhile, I'm going to run a few games of chess on my phone to see if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login always calculates the same openings, since there's no question that my phone is in every possible way identical to itself, and that the application is identical to itself, and that I can set the same limit on the amount of time for "thinking" for both sides of the board.  I think that should tell us whether there's any randomization or not.

I'd be interested in the result of that experiment.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate."
Isaac Asimov

Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #186 on: October 04, 2018, 01:31:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's not always the case.  Certainly on a particle level, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login since there is no known measurement to distinguish the intrinsic properties of any one particle of a particular class from any other particle of that same class.  The only difference between any two electrons, for example, is their position and motion in space and time, which are not intrinsic to the composition of the electron.

That's what led John Wheeler to once put forth a theory that the reason all electrons (and positrons) have so far as any measurement could determine the exact same mass and exact same magnitude of charge is because there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login β€” when moving backward, it behaves as a positron.  Richard Feynman later used the idea of antiparticles as particles moving backwards in time as part of his formulation of quantum electrodynamics, crediting Wheeler with the original idea in his Nobel lecture.

As for how identical two computers are β€” I would be willing to call any two machines constructed from the same components (the same make and model of each component, not just broadly similar) to be functionally identical, at least.  In principle, and absent any unknown manufacturing variance or defect between two parts that are otherwise the 'same', there aren't any differences at the particle level that should be meaningful at the higher level of the machine's operation.

Meanwhile, I'm going to run a few games of chess on my phone to see if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login always calculates the same openings, since there's no question that my phone is in every possible way identical to itself, and that the application is identical to itself, and that I can set the same limit on the amount of time for "thinking" for both sides of the board.  I think that should tell us whether there's any randomization or not.

OK, I'm in awe.  I couldn't have said it so well myself.  Really "couldn't". 

I didn't think about particle level. Nor a single device competing with itself.  If a single device doesn't beat itself at an game routinely, that has to be "randomness".  And if it does, that seems like there is a, dare I say, "Feynmanian" aspect of randomness too (he being a quantum mechanics expert).

It appears that one CAN have it both ways...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #187 on: October 04, 2018, 01:31:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I meant that IF 2 computers were precisely identical they wouldn't be able to change their game against each other. 

And my point in several posts has been that true identicalness is not really possible (as you point out) so randomness has to exist.  And any degree of randomness precludes determination of the future.

How does impossible identitacleness prove randomness? Either you or I are missing something here.
Identical or not, one would have to know all variabels, which might as Well be infinite, to make a 100% prediction. But as i said, just because it's determined doesn't mean we can actually predict. Because i don't think we can know everything to The smaller thing.

And doesn't your first line lie more in line with what i've been saying? What i get from this is that you mean to imply that if you could recreate The exact same conditions, you'd get The exact same result. Which i would agree with, in essence; but it's impossible to recreate The same conditions.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #188 on: October 04, 2018, 01:41:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does impossible identitacleness prove randomness? Either you or I are missing something here.
Identical or not, one would have to know all variabels, which might as Well be infinite, to make a 100% prediction. But as i said, just because it's determined doesn't mean we can actually predict. Because i don't think we can know everything to The smaller thing.

And doesn't your first line lie more in line with what i've been saying? What i get from this is that you mean to imply that if you could recreate The exact same conditions, you'd get The exact same result. Which i would agree with, in essence; but it's impossible to recreate The same conditions.

Because if there is eventually a difference between 2 identical things the cause has to be random...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #189 on: October 04, 2018, 02:22:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because if there is eventually a difference between 2 identical things the cause has to be random...

But there never is anything identical, not if you go into The smallest of details.

Let's say you get four computers playing two games, what i think you'r getting at is that they'd play different games and that difference is due to true randomness. But i would say it'd due to The smallest of differences in The computers and The surroundings and history and what-not, along with The pseudorandom but not truly random programming. The differences in results are because they are not truly identical nor truly identical settings.
Say they were truly identical, i'd expect them to play The same game.

But for such a hypothetical, we don't even need to go to computers.  If we were t have two exact 'you's' and two exact 'me's'. With each of us having The exact same past and influences as our own doppelganger; hypothetically, they'd be saying The exact same thing at The exact same time as we are right now.
It's an impossible hypothetical, but be it humans or computers, doesn't matter ; i think. I see no reason to believe in Some agent free from other influences that can influence The world it's free from.
And while we never may be able to test this, i feel like occam's razor is at least on my Side here.
But again, that's my interpretation.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #190 on: October 04, 2018, 02:31:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But there never is anything identical, not if you go into The smallest of details.

Let's say you get four computers playing two games, what i think you'r getting at is that they'd play different games and that difference is due to true randomness. But i would say it'd due to The smallest of differences in The computers and The surroundings and history and what-not, along with The pseudorandom but not truly random programming. The differences in results are because they are not truly identical nor truly identical settings.
Say they were truly identical, i'd expect them to play The same game.

But for such a hypothetical, we don't even need to go to computers.  If we were t have two exact 'you's' and two exact 'me's'. With each of us having The exact same past and influences as our own doppelganger; hypothetically, they'd be saying The exact same thing at The exact same time as we are right now.
It's an impossible hypothetical, but be it humans or computers, doesn't matter ; i think. I see no reason to believe in Some agent free from other influences that can influence The world it's free from.
And while we never may be able to test this, i feel like occam's razor is at least on my Side here.
But again, that's my interpretation.

Well, that's the first problem with talking about "identical".  How detailed can you define it?

But it was an "if" question, hence completely theoretical.  So "identity could exist. 

We humans can't even be identical in our own minds, so there isn't much we can say about human players at all.  We change second by second.  There is some part of "me" that has changed just by 10 typing these words, 2) having a cat jump on the table, and 3) listening to music.  Among so many other things, most of which I am unaware.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline trdsf

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #191 on: October 04, 2018, 03:35:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd be interested in the result of that experiment.
The first run went with an uncommon variation on the French Defence (1. e4 e6), responding with 2. Nc3 -- it now calls the opening the Sicilian, Taimanov variation.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #192 on: October 04, 2018, 04:03:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The first run went with an uncommon variation on the French Defence (1. e4 e6), responding with 2. Nc3 -- it now calls the opening the Sicilian, Taimanov variation.

I think e5, but it sure doesn't look Sicilian to me.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #193 on: October 04, 2018, 07:26:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess?
I just meant that even two laptops from The same assembly line have miniscule differences.
But i guess, yeah.
I suppose that one could even say no single object is ever The same in two different moments in time, probably.

Heraclitus updated.  Computer memories are frequently zapped by random cosmic rays, changing a zero to a one or back again.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline trdsf

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #194 on: October 04, 2018, 09:40:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, our perspective is irrelevant here. I'm talking of metaphysics, not epistemology. Whether we can know the character of the future or not is simply irrelevant.
I don't care about metaphysics.  I care about the demonstrable.  Future events are only probabilistic, not demonstrable.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My point was that your "whole point" contradicted itself. You said that we use "the" to refer to what is definite but that "the future" is "definitely not definite."
No, my point stands: there is definitely no definite future.  There are only possible futures.  Some are more probable than others, but β€” and apparently I need to help you out with basic English here β€” they are definitely (that is, by definition) not definite (that is, there is uncertainty about whether they will come to pass or not).  They are probabilistic.

Are there any other meaningless word games you want to play, or do you understand me now?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems now you are saying that there is no "the future" because we do not know what it is... there are only possible futures.
Exactly.  That has been my point all along.  There are only a multitude of potential futures.  What actually happens cannot be known until it does happen, and referring to 'the' future when you cannot say what that future is, is semantically sloppy.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But again, this is not the case, because whether we can know the future or not is completely irrelevant and even if we could never predict any of it whatsoever even in the tiniest bit and even if it was completely metaphysically impossible to predict any of it whatsoever even in the tiniest bit... that doesn't whatsoever change the fact that our knowledge and prediction of it is completely seperate to whether it actually exists. If there is a future at all then there is an actual future. "The future" refers to the actual future... not a mere possible future. The fact we can't know the future doesn't make it non-actual.
No, you miss the point.  Until events happen, they are only possible.  And whatever eventually actually does happen remains only possible until it actually does happen.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is, again, irrelevant. Whatever actually comes to past is the actual future.
Which we cannot know in detail until it happens.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And this is why my semantics are superior to yours... because the actual future will actually come to be whether you like to refer to it as the actual future or not.
No, no, and no again, no.  When I refer to future events, that necessarily includes events that eventually come to pass.  I just won't dignify them with 'the' until they are a definite event.  I don't place limits on future events because I cannot know what they are in detail.  You presume definite events that you cannot possibly define except in probabilistic terms.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My only criticism of you so far is actually that you're not pedantic enough.
I do believe this is the first time I've stood accused of that.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:55:06 PM by trdsf »
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk