|
On April 12 2011 03:56 bigbeau wrote:i believe in determinism. and i havent exactly been hiding that fact for the last 2-3 pages lol. the most accepted line of thinking says nothing about what is true or not. i also dont believe in god. Show nested quote +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. i think for the argument that he would also think he was the real one, although if he didnt then yeah i would agree that it would make the fight different
Yeah, and determinism doesn't also say anything about what is true or not. It's just another way of aproaching the facts.
//tx
|
i dont understand what youre trying to say? that determinism is just a theory? or that it is false? my only point was that at one point everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe and was flat. it didnt make them correct. it also didnt make them false. theres no correlation between the most widely held belief and the truth.
|
On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx
Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment.
|
I'm just trying to say that the same way people were wrong hundreds of years ago, determinism might be wrong.
I'm just saying that both me and you could be correct. Maybe they'll act the same, but maybe, they won't. I think they won't, but I'm open to the idea that they might. I just wanted to see if you could also accept that they might act differently, even though you believe they won't.
//tx
|
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will
|
Assuming my clone and I are "exactly" the same meaning all ten trillion of our atoms are in the same spot, with the same initial velocities and energy levels, also all the attoms on opposite sides of the room are mirrored. Basically every single atom and particles that make up each atom are clones of each other...
then I would still beat my clone in a fight.
|
On April 12 2011 04:14 Tschis wrote:
I'm just trying to say that the same way people were wrong hundreds of years ago, determinism might be wrong.
I'm just saying that both me and you could be correct. Maybe they'll act the same, but maybe, they won't. I think they won't, but I'm open to the idea that they might. I just wanted to see if you could also accept that they might act differently, even though you believe they won't.
//tx
considering that it is just a theory, im always open to change my mind if there is a valid proof of the opposite. and theres a theory called compatibility which combines both free will and determinism. but i dont think that makes any sense
|
I would lose 
|
On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment.
By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them.
//tx
|
My clone would be like, "Do you *really* want to fight? It'd probably hurt us both." And I'd say,"Ehh, nah, rather watch some SC2 or something." Then my clone would say, "Cool, I just got some beer on the way over."
|
On April 10 2011 06:30 iNcontroL wrote:
I'd win.
On April 12 2011 04:17 nttea wrote:I would lose
nttea, are you an angry ultralisk?
Just asking.
|
On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 03:37 Mythito wrote: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. oh so after explicitly telling me randomness didn't exist you're conceding it's possibility? considering that quantum physics is an unfinished science, i see no point in arguing that point one way or another. so philosophy shouldn't exist at all? youre one of those people that is clueless not only in the argument but of the fact that youre clueless. i said there are some interpretations of an incomplete science that state that randomness can exist in a singular natural action. so yes, there is a possibility that randomness exists. but the flying spaghetti monster can also exist. and i would have no problem stating that it doesnt.
yeah but one is a mathematical possibility and the other is a pop culture phenomenon. you also probably think that you 'know' the big bang happened exactly how it's theorised with no variation. no, it's a possibility but it also probably didn't happen exactly how we think it did, so how can you say "randomness doesn't exist" with such certainty?
basically, don't jump into a conversation with some fact that scientists are still discussing the viability of.
and i meant that theres no point arguing one way or another because i assume there are no quantum physicists in this argument so none of us are qualified to argue the interpretations of a result in that field.
and also philosophy isnt a science. it uses logic not empirical data
did i say philosophy is a science? you people need to learn to read better. let me reiterate again:
you: "if a science is unfinished we cannot theorise about the science"
me: "that is what philosophy is"
you: "philosophy is not a science"
see how that doesn't make sense?
|
On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will
Not randomly in a meaning out of our control.
Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6.
For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question.
A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them.
//tx
|
If it was truly random, then that would make free will even more distorted than determinism ever did.
And so what if there is only 1 possible outcome in a choice. Just shows that I wanted a quarter pounder more than I wanted a big mac when I was at mcdonalds yesterday.
My clone would agree with me btw.
|
On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx
In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that.
As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways.
Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side.
Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight.
|
On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx
So then it is still determined only we don't know the variables yet? I don't think anyone claims that we can be aware of all the internal and external variables at play in any given moment.
|
On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:
A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them.
//tx
i like this.
|
On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx
I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however.
Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot.
Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave.
On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight.
While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave.
wait what? what the fuck have you contributed? all you've done is say "YOURE WRONG, THIS IS FACT", whereas i've given my opinion and explanations, pointed out flaws in your argument, and shot down your supposed facts. you are the one who hasnt contributed, and you are the one who needs to leave. and die. no one would care anyway.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation.
Wrong conclusion.
We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
