Author Topic: Is the future already written?  (Read 2732 times)

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #195 on: October 04, 2018, 11:19:37 PM »
Heck, for even more mind-blowing quantum shenanigans, even multiple futures doesn't imply indeterminism. In the Multiple-worlds hypothesis, every possible way the universe could have evolved is as real as any other, as quantum indeterminacy is replaced by quantum multi-deteriminacy. You eating eggs for breakfast is just as real as the you that ate cereal this morning, and as such, the future where you eat toast tomorrow will be as real as the one where you will eat a bran muffin.

It's not deterministic in a classical sense, as at any one event, there are multiple ways to proceed. It's also not indeterministic, either, because only one outcome is possible β€” all ways to proceed are followed. So, what are we to make of that?
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline trdsf

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #196 on: October 05, 2018, 12:07:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd be interested in the result of that experiment.
Draw by repetition on the 50th move.  A very computerized result, I think -- a human player who wished to continue play would not have blindly repeated the same moves three times in a row.  The computer did, of course, because it played the move with the highest calculated value and couldn't "see" that it was in a loop.

That said, it was probably a drawn position anyway, but I'm not analyst enough to know that with any certainty.  White was down to three pawns, the bishop on black, and the queen, and Black was down to three pawns, a knight and the queen.

I'm going to have to change what I was doing and instead run games on Stockfish my desktop; Droidfish is a remarkable chess system for a phone, but it eats batteries and clock cycles mercilessly.

Unbeliever, I'll send you the list of moves by PM.
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 Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #197 on: October 05, 2018, 04:04:34 AM »
Multiple Universe interpretation of QM, is naturally beloved by statisticians ;-)  When I role dice, all 36 possibilities (for 2 dice) happen simultaneously, I just don't have the god-like omniscience to see that directly ... unlike a QM theorist ;-))  When Dr Everett came up with this variation of Feynman path integrals, his career was over.  But pop-science continues the meme.
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

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #198 on: October 05, 2018, 10:48:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

All of the details. :D but therein indeed lies the problem.
In any case, I'm still not a step closer to seeing how any of this proves true randomness nor how it is in favor against determinism.
As I'm sure I haven't been able to get you a single step closer to seeing things the way I see them. Which is funny, because we seem to agree on a lot of basic principles, but draw opposite conclusions from them.
I suppose it's all difference in paradigmes, really. We could probably continue to go in circles for days and weeks to come. And I doubt either of us will come to change his mind.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Online Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #199 on: October 05, 2018, 12:35:46 PM »
Thought experiments tend to give the participants a headache.
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

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #200 on: October 05, 2018, 01:31:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Draw by repetition on the 50th move.  A very computerized result, I think -- a human player who wished to continue play would not have blindly repeated the same moves three times in a row.  The computer did, of course, because it played the move with the highest calculated value and couldn't "see" that it was in a loop.

That said, it was probably a drawn position anyway, but I'm not analyst enough to know that with any certainty.  White was down to three pawns, the bishop on black, and the queen, and Black was down to three pawns, a knight and the queen.

I'm going to have to change what I was doing and instead run games on Stockfish my desktop; Droidfish is a remarkable chess system for a phone, but it eats batteries and clock cycles mercilessly.

Unbeliever, I'll send you the list of moves by PM.
Got it, but haven't had time to play through it yet. Sometimes a draw is the best that can happen in a drawish endgame, since the player who tries to win it often loses instead.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 01:33:28 PM by Unbeliever »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Thinking, analyzing, inventing are not anomalous acts; they are the normal respiration of the intelligence."
Jorge Louis Borges, in Pierre Menard

Offline trdsf

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #201 on: October 05, 2018, 03:35:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Got it, but haven't had time to play through it yet. Sometimes a draw is the best that can happen in a drawish endgame, since the player who tries to win it often loses instead.
I'm not really convinced that it was a drawish endgame.  I don't know whether a bishop and queen is better, worse, or par with a knight and queen.  It just fell into that loop so quickly, and couldn't look far enough ahead to see if there was a better play long-term.

I suppose when you're 50 moves in and there's neither a mate in sight nor a clear advantage either way, a draw is a sensible call.
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 #202 on: October 07, 2018, 03:14:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All of the details. :D but therein indeed lies the problem.
In any case, I'm still not a step closer to seeing how any of this proves true randomness nor how it is in favor against determinism.
As I'm sure I haven't been able to get you a single step closer to seeing things the way I see them. Which is funny, because we seem to agree on a lot of basic principles, but draw opposite conclusions from them.
I suppose it's all difference in paradigmes, really. We could probably continue to go in circles for days and weeks to come. And I doubt either of us will come to change his mind.

OK, A friend wrote a single-digit number on a piece of paper at his home.  Your move in a game depends on that number, but you have to move not knowing what that number is (it only effects a value of strength in an attack or defense) and you choose your move by a similar number you write down that *I* don't know until we each choose a move.  And we each move a piece.

And only THEN do we call my friend and ask him the number to apply to our battle.

Tell me how THAT is not random.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #203 on: October 07, 2018, 03:41:23 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, A friend wrote a single-digit number on a piece of paper at his home.  Your move in a game depends on that number, but you have to move not knowing what that number is (it only effects a value of strength in an attack or defense) and you choose your move by a similar number you write down that *I* don't know until we each choose a move.  And we each move a piece.

And only THEN do we call my friend and ask him the number to apply to our battle.

Tell me how THAT is not random.

That would not be random. That would be irrelevant.
Or could you run that one by me again. I don't understand what you would imply the written numbers to do, after we've made our moves.
Or are we not talking chess anymore?
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Online Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #204 on: October 07, 2018, 04:12:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That would not be random. That would be irrelevant.
Or could you run that one by me again. I don't understand what you would imply the written numbers to do, after we've made our moves.
Or are we not talking chess anymore?

Chess is highly structured.  It isn't random, it is pseudo-random.  A game where every piece could move in one jump to any square, that would be closer to random.
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 Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #205 on: October 07, 2018, 04:19:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That would not be random. That would be irrelevant.
Or could you run that one by me again. I don't understand what you would imply the written numbers to do, after we've made our moves.
Or are we not talking chess anymore?

I wasn't talking chess at all.   was setting up a situation where one person wrote down a number at random and 2 other people had to react to it in a game where it mattered but neither knew what the number was.  And I then asked why that wasn't random.

If you want a more detailed description, lets say you and I are playing Gettysburg by Avalon Hill where angles of attack matter.  And a third party decided (not knowing anything about the game) made a random number choice that effected the outcome of a small battle by determining whether I made a full frontal attack on your unit or a flank attack.

How is that not random?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Cavebear

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #206 on: October 07, 2018, 04:20:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Chess is highly structured.  It isn't random, it is pseudo-random.  A game where every piece could move in one jump to any square, that would be closer to random.

It wasn't chess and I never said it was.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #207 on: October 07, 2018, 05:07:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wasn't talking chess at all.   was setting up a situation where one person wrote down a number at random and 2 other people had to react to it in a game where it mattered but neither knew what the number was.  And I then asked why that wasn't random.

If you want a more detailed description, lets say you and I are playing Gettysburg by Avalon Hill where angles of attack matter.  And a third party decided (not knowing anything about the game) made a random number choice that effected the outcome of a small battle by determining whether I made a full frontal attack on your unit or a flank attack.

How is that not random?

Well as we were talking chess right before, I hope you can see the confusion.
But now I think I understand. It's like the game of 'Risk', with added die-rolls or numbers chosen by people that are not privy to the game and not influenced by us.
Still not true randomness. I fully agree that from our limited point of view and for all intents and purposes it acts as random and we can in casual conversation say it is random. But when we call them ask the number, their answer would always have been the same. The number they decide in that moment and that situation is determined by accumulated stimuli they never even registered as they took them in throughout their entire lives, their whole basic biological make-up and the situation they've been placed in at that moment. Look at it this way. Let's say your guy adds 'five' to a move. Just because you don't actively control your friend doesn't mean your friend  is non-determined. You and him would always have found yourselves within the exact same position and he would have always responded 'five'. It's just because you don't understand and can't comprehend the full influence of everything that made you ask him to help you with this game at the exact moment and way you did nor what influenced the inner machinations of your friend's mind, doesn't mean there wasn't any influence.
And don't get me wrong. If you'd called him a moment later, he might have said 'minus 3' or whatever. But you never would have done that, because you weren't on the path to call a moment later. You were on the path to call him that exact moment in time.

Let me adjust the line of a movie I just watched and ask you a hypothetical.
You got a type Cave? Let's say it's green eyes and black hair. For the sake of argument that's your type.
Do you know why you are attracted most to that type? Did you choose it? No. You can't find a definite reason why you prefer green eyes and black hair on a girl. But is it random? No.
It's formed through accumulated stimuli you gathered throughout your life, without even knowing you registered them when you did.
And those subconsciously registered stimuli create a preference that will influence you, however slight and however unnoticed, subconsciously, throughout your entire further life. Which in turn will make you experience different stimuli than if your preference had turned out differently.  Which put's you on a further path alltogether and so the cycle continues.
And it is my idea that this cycle goes all the way back to the singularity in which time and space were created in the first place. We just don't experience it like that. Which is a good thing, imho.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 05:23:08 AM by Mr.Obvious »
"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 #208 on: October 07, 2018, 05:40:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well as we were talking chess right before, I hope you can see the confusion.
But now I think I understand. It's like the game of 'Risk', with added die-rolls or numbers chosen by people that are not privy to the game and not influenced by us.
Still not true randomness. I fully agree that from our limited point of view and for all intents and purposes it acts as random and we can in casual conversation say it is random. But when we call them ask the number, their answer would always have been the same. The number they decide in that moment and that situation is determined by accumulated stimuli they never even registered as they took them in throughout their entire lives, their whole basic biological make-up and the situation they've been placed in at that moment. Look at it this way. Let's say your guy adds 'five' to a move. Just because you don't actively control your friend doesn't mean your friend  is non-determined. You and him would always have found yourselves within the exact same position and he would have always responded 'five'. It's just because you don't understand and can't comprehend the full influence of everything that made you ask him to help you with this game at the exact moment and way you did nor what influenced the inner machinations of your friend's mind, doesn't mean there wasn't any influence.
And don't get me wrong. If you'd called him a moment later, he might have said 'minus 3' or whatever. But you never would have done that, because you weren't on the path to call a moment later. You were on the path to call him that exact moment in time.

Let me adjust the line of a movie I just watched and ask you a hypothetical.
You got a type Cave? Let's say it's green eyes and black hair. For the sake of argument that's your type.
Do you know why you are attracted most to that type? Did you choose it? No. You can't find a definite reason why you prefer green eyes and black hair on a girl.
It's formed through accumulated stimuli you gathered throughout your life, without even knowing you registered them when you did.
And those subconsciously registered stimuli create a preference that will influence you, however slight and however unnoticed, subconsciously, throughout your entire further life. Which in turn will make you experience different stimuli than if your preference had turned out differently.  Which put's you on a further path alltogether and so the cycle continues.
And it is my idea that this cycle goes all the way back to the singularity in which time and space were created in the first place. We just don't experience it like that. Which is a good thing, imho.

Are you arguing from what you actually think, or just for the sake of pushing an arguement?  Because I'm not.  I'm serious here. 

You argue that "the number they decide in that moment and that situation is determined by accumulated stimuli they never even registered as they took them in throughout their entire lives, their whole basic biological make-up and the situation they've been placed in at that moment".  That is nonsensical.  If you are arguing that I somehow know that the number my friend would guess, let us say he asks and neighbor who asks a neighbor, etc to name the number.  Eventually, some level of uncaring guesses has to make the number outside of my influence.

All you are saying is that some number used in our game was predestined.  You'll have to prove that, and you haven't yet.

Your argument about the looks of a woman I might be attracted to is not relevant.  I have no physical preference.  For what it is worth, I think attitude and interests matter more, but as I remain single through preference, even THAT doesn't matter.

Even my cats have been random, by happenstance.  I doubt if there is any normal color of cat I haven't had and didn't love dearly.  You really don't understand that people can make random choices do you.  You just assume it as part of the belief structure.  I don't have patterns.

I have some favorite colors, if that helps you any.  Dark green is nice.  Dark Red is also nice.  I like black.  I also like celery, light bamboo, and Robin Egg Blue.  Rouge is interesting.  Does that mean anything?

I note your arguemnet that all my decisions go back to the singularity.  Congrats, you are a Universal Deist...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Online Baruch

Re: Is the future already written?
« Reply #209 on: October 07, 2018, 08:46:58 AM »
I have to agree on this current argument, with Cavebear.  Taking things back to the initial singularity is not empirical.  You can go back to the 3.5K radiation, but I would be challenged, even with omniscience, to derive the current situation from that.  Causality as commonly thought, is a primitive idea, not consistent with QM or Relativity.  Reality isn't a pool/snooker table.
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

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk