What would happen if you fought your clone? - Page 19

On April 10 2011 06:35 aokces wrote:
Every time you punch, you end up hitting your clone's fist. Ow.

On April 12 2011 05:29 SharkSpider wrote:

That's generally why quantum theory is hard to understand, to the extent that you can work with it without really knowing what's going on. (I'm nowhere near understanding the theories to their fullest extent, but a lot of the early discoveries were fairly simple) The first reaction is "well if it's random can't we go see what it is?" The problem is that doing so fundamentally changes the way we see things work, and not in the sense that putting a thermometer in your mouth slightly changes your temperature.

The classic example is the double-slit experiment. (Very simplified) A bit of an overview is that electrons are particles, but when we shoot them at double slits they diffract just like photons do, so they act as a wave. This is wierd, so we shoot them one at a time, and they still diffract. Yes, one particle exhibits properties that do not exist unless you have a wave. So scientists are all wtf, and set up a checker to figure out which slit the electron is going through, and all the sudden it starts just going through one or the other, no diffraction. The leading explanation is that something in the universe was contingent on this particle going through one slit, so it was forced to take on non-random properties in order to go through, but that in the prior situation, there was no data available in the universe as to the location of the particle, so it was literally treated as a field of 'where it might be' and this field exhibited wave properties when the board had to figure out where the electron ended up after going through the slits. Basically, the fact we can garner is that if the universe knew where the heck this electron was, it would not diffract. Therefore, since it did diffract, we take that the universe did not know where this electron was.

It's a bit wierd to think of the universe as having imperfect data about things, but that's what everything we know suggests. The good news is that they exhibit such an intuitive probabilistic behavior that things make sense as soon as you go to a macroscopic scale. I'm not sure if you can throw out causation because of this, because whenever something causative comes in to play, the random elements are forced to exist within a realm of uncertainty that allows the causative act to proceed as usual.

I wouldn't deny the work of the world's best scientists and mathematicians offhand like that, though. Measurments associated with theory-building experiments are as precise as humanly possible, and beyond the realm of typical error, given the number of times people have checked them.

On April 12 2011 05:29 SharkSpider wrote:
That's generally why quantum theory is hard to understand, to the extent that you can work with it without really knowing what's going on. (I'm nowhere near understanding the theories to their fullest extent, but a lot of the early discoveries were fairly simple) The first reaction is "well if it's random can't we go see what it is?" The problem is that doing so fundamentally changes the way we see things work, and not in the sense that putting a thermometer in your mouth slightly changes your temperature.

The classic example is the double-slit experiment. (Very simplified) A bit of an overview is that electrons are particles, but when we shoot them at double slits they diffract just like photons do, so they act as a wave. This is wierd, so we shoot them one at a time, and they still diffract. Yes, one particle exhibits properties that do not exist unless you have a wave. So scientists are all wtf, and set up a checker to figure out which slit the electron is going through, and all the sudden it starts just going through one or the other, no diffraction. The leading explanation is that something in the universe was contingent on this particle going through one slit, so it was forced to take on non-random properties in order to go through, but that in the prior situation, there was no data available in the universe as to the location of the particle, so it was literally treated as a field of 'where it might be' and this field exhibited wave properties when the board had to figure out where the electron ended up after going through the slits. Basically, the fact we can garner is that if the universe knew where the heck this electron was, it would not diffract. Therefore, since it did diffract, we take that the universe did not know where this electron was.

It's a bit wierd to think of the universe as having imperfect data about things, but that's what everything we know suggests. The good news is that they exhibit such an intuitive probabilistic behavior that things make sense as soon as you go to a macroscopic scale. I'm not sure if you can throw out causation because of this, because whenever something causative comes in to play, the random elements are forced to exist within a realm of uncertainty that allows the causative act to proceed as usual.

I wouldn't deny the work of the world's best scientists and mathematicians offhand like that, though. Measurments associated with theory-building experiments are as precise as humanly possible, and beyond the realm of typical error, given the number of times people have checked them.

On April 27 2011 09:20 Thor2277 wrote:
I feel like i can't have a clone because theres not too much opposite about me, other than clones are suppose to be the exact opposite of you. Maybe my clone would love heights and enjoy kicking puppies.....What a whack clone

On April 10 2011 06:25 Xanbatou wrote:
So I was recently having a discussion with one of my friends. It started off as what you would do if you were in a small room with a clone with no artifacts except for one light source in the very center of the room. We started talking about fighting your clone and then we started arguing about how the fight would play out:

Since you are perfect clones of each other (i.e. same physical and mental attributes), you would have the same exact thought processes. My friend argued that the fight would be somewhat dynamic and, although you would have the same fighting style, you would be doing different moves at different times and therefore you would be reacting differently.

I argued that, since you have the same thought processes, you would both choose to not only open the fight with the same exact move, but you would also open the fight at the same exact time. You would then both see the same move and respond in exactly the same way and you would end up mirroring each others moves.

I thought this was an interesting question and I was wondering what TL would think.

EDIT: To be more specific, the room in question is a perfectly symmetric room in every aspect. In fact, to make it even more symmetric, maybe instead of a single light source at the center of the room, the entire ceiling actually emits some low level light. Basically, the room is designed so that two people in the room will experience the same exact stimuli.

EDIT2: By clone, I don't mean the modern conventional definition. I just mean some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically. Also, this clone is created the instant you enter the room, so it has all your memories up until that point.