What would happen if you fought your clone? - Page 16

On April 12 2011 02:55 bigbeau wrote:
mythito are you aware that 1+1 = 2?
thats not an assumption...just because i phrase it that way doesnt mean its an assumption.

On April 12 2011 03:02 QooQ wrote:
Assuming that the room is in perfect symmetry, you and your clone are standing in a symmetrical location and stance relative to one another and your clone somehow has the same exact thought pattern as you do, there is still one factor that will make it a dynamic fight rather then a mirror image. You state that this clone was spawned the second you walked into the room, although has the same experiences and such as you do.

However, you have just experienced a feeling, maybe something that made you happy or sad and the chemical reaction in your body to create that emotional sensation is still somewhat active, whereas to the clone it is a mere memory. He was just spawned. If I come across something, I do not feel the same about it directly after it happens as opposed to when looking back at it as a memory. So you have yourself, which has an emotional advantage or disadvantage, opposed to your clone in an essentially neutral state. This will dictate each other's decision making. Idk about you, but I seem to be much more dangerous when I am angry then when I am feeling okay. So my conclusion is the element of emotion overrules logic pattern enough to alter it.

Trying to further this by saying the clone spawned prior to entering the room is pretty pointless and you might as well be asking how would it play out if you were trying to punch yourself in the face.

There are two fundamental sources of practical quantum mechanical physical randomness: quantum mechanics at the atomic or sub-atomic level and thermal noise (some of which is quantum mechanical in origin). Quantum mechanics predicts that certain physical phenomena, such as the nuclear decay of atoms, are fundamentally random and cannot, in principle, be predicted (for a discussion of empirical verification of quantum unpredictability, see Bell test experiments.) And, because we live at a finite, non-zero temperature, every system has some random variation in its state; for instance, molecules of air are constantly bouncing off each other in a random way (see statistical mechanics.) This randomness is a quantum phenomenon as well (see phonon.)
Because the outcome of quantum-mechanical events cannot in principle be predicted, they are the ‘gold standard’ for random number generation.

On April 12 2011 03:10 Rtran10 wrote:


If you both are identical. There would be no way to determine who was the clone and who isnt. You may have the perception that you walked into the room, but he would also have the same perception.

There is no way that you can say that you have just created an emotion when you walked into the room that the clone would not feel himself.

On April 12 2011 03:13 bigbeau wrote:
'One measures some physical phenomenon that is expected to be random and then compensates for possible biases in the measurement process. The other uses computational algorithms that produce long sequences of apparently random results, which are in fact completely determined by a shorter initial value, known as a seed or key.'

its only random because the algorithm that is similar to the 'pseudorandom' numbers is caused by nature and is extremely difficult or impossible to generate. for example, flipping a coin. if you flip a coin there is a 50/50 chance of getting heads (ignoring the weight thing that makes it a little off). so if i flip a coin from x height with y vertical force with z rotational force and w horizontal force. and you knew ALL the variables and you replicated it with a machine, would it not result in the same thing?
now the fact that a human is flipping it is what makes it appear random. the synapses firing inside our head telling our muscles to move are not accurate enough to replicate the same variables twice akin to the punching bag example earlier.
'However, physical phenomena and tools used to measure them generally feature asymmetries and systematic biases that make their outcomes not uniformly random.'
For all our purposes, these 'random numbers' result in true randomness only because we cannot predict the outcome, not because they are truly random.

Since you are perfect clones of each other (i.e. same physical and mental attributes), you would have the same exact thought processes

As I see it, not being able to predict an outcome just means that we are unable to do so, not that causality somehow decided to stop working.

On April 12 2011 03:29 danl9rm wrote:


This is not true. Twins that have the same DNA don't even look exactly the same, much less have exactly the same thought processes. Therefore, the rest of your post doesn't make sense.

Now, if you said, "You fought your clone which supernaturally had exactly your same thought processes," that's something else. But, then it's also not as cool, because you're limiting each person in the fight to having "exactly the same thought processes."

On April 12 2011 03:30 bigbeau wrote:
so far the only thing that is supposedly random is atom decay according to some interpretations of quantum physics.

considering that quantum physics is an unfinished science, i see no point in arguing that point one way or another.

On April 12 2011 02:16 bigbeau wrote:



the only reason he might not feel the same way is because you are in different positions in an asymmetrical room. which is not the case in the OP

On April 12 2011 03:37 Mythito wrote:



oh so after explicitly telling me randomness didn't exist you're conceding it's possibility?



so philosophy shouldn't exist at all?

This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined.

On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:



thats exactly what im saying.

On April 12 2011 03:56 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
I would know that I AM the real one, and therefore he would know that he's the fake. This subtle inconsistency would make us fight and think differently.