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.
I think it would just be a huge stalemate. Like, I would probably wait for him to make the first move, and he would do the same thing. However, I think you are wrong, and you would not mirror each other's moves. Basically, as soon as one of you does something he didnt intend to do (i.e slips up, trips, or something), then the fight is now completely dynamic like your friend said./ However, arguably that wouldnt happen, because in that case you would both trip/slip, but I still think that the mind could make different decisions even if it is a clone of the other mind.
On April 10 2011 06:30 eduh wrote: there is a certain randomness to your decision making process, so you wouldnt be mimicking each other.
i disagree, why would there be randomness? when faced with the same situation and the same stimuli, i'd make the same decision every time i'd go with the OP - identical mirroring
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.
yeah I agree with that. I don't really know what else to say; it would be a stalemate.
I'd argue that something as simple as being on the opposite side of the room might make you do slightly different moves. And all it takes is one different move to create a chain reaction of different moves.
There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
I'd pause, stare at my clone, who is staring back, and ask "what are we fighting for?" We'd then both shrug, and then go brew some tea and play video games and argue who takes out the trash next week.
I don't think decision are 100 procent deterministic, it still shows chaotic behavior. Meaning the slightest breeze in the air can change the outcome of the thought drasticly. So since you can't occupy the same space at the same time your thought will be a bit different. Thus not leading to a mirror.
On April 10 2011 06:37 Marradron wrote: I don't think decision are 100 procent deterministic, it still shows chaotic behavior. Meaning the slightest breeze in the air can change the outcome of the thought drasticly. So since you can't occupy the same space at the same time your thought will be a bit different. Thus not leading to a mirror.
except this is a (presumably) symmetrical, closed room, so there really won't be a breeze or anything that really differentiates the 2 starting positions as far as the fighter is concerned.
On April 10 2011 06:37 Marradron wrote: I don't think decision are 100 procent deterministic, it still shows chaotic behavior. Meaning the slightest breeze in the air can change the outcome of the thought drasticly. So since you can't occupy the same space at the same time your thought will be a bit different. Thus not leading to a mirror.
except this is a (presumably) symmetrical, closed room, so there really won't be a breeze or anything that really differentiates the 2 starting positions as far as the fighter is concerned.
Well you always have quantum fluctuations. Since you won't be made out of the same atoms it will be different leading to a desync quickly.
Does he know hes a clone? Because if he knows he will have nothing to lose, therefore engaging in a fight with someone who has nothing to lose is like one of those heroes in an action movie, where they conjure up so much excess strength and adrenaline they would just about kick this shit out of me because I know I have something to lose and fighting with anxiety and timidness is something you'd want to avoid. It would be like Neo from the Matrix vs Mr Anderson from the Matrix. Interesting thought.
It would not be a perfect mirror, that wouldn't make any sense. If I was faced with the exact same situation 100 times in a fight I would not react exactly the same each time. Even if I did most of the time every little slip, mistake, difference in breathing etc. would eventually cascade in to more and more different actions and responses. If I throw 100 right hooks they will not all land in the exact same spot, have the exact same amount amount of power behind them, and so on.
This is easy: Of course you and your clone would be thinking the same ideas. But you most definitely would attack differently then your clone. It's all situational. Since my clone would be standing in a different spot in the room and therefore positioned differently, my perspective of my clone would make me react and attack differently.
Your counter argument. Wouldn't my own clone take into consideration what I'm thinking from the position I'm in. And the answer is no. If it is my clone then I'm not intelligent enough to figure that out since I'm not experienced in fighting.
Even if the small amount of randomness in your brain (the chemical processes that make your decisions does have randomness - learn quantum theory) there is a great probabilty that as the nerve impulse is sent thorough your body telling your muscles to move that some form of randomness is going to alter the nerve impulses slightly. Which will cause one move to be slightly less or more powerful than the other (again assuming you are doing the exact same moves) meaning one of me is going to something a tiny bit different which result in a slightly different reaction which would eventually snowball into a dynamic fight.
As for playing Starcaft against myself I hate PvP too much to let that happen...
If I go for the punch, and I know he's going for a punch, I might fake the punch and block it. But he could be thinking the same thing. I think in the beginning, we're both not going to be hitting each other until we decide to throw away defense. In this case, however, our fists will never bump since my right fist is paired with his left, etc. Due to the Relativity of simultaneity, somebody will end up hitting the other person first and pushing them back so one person will be hit and the other person will not. One person is going to end up in an advantageous person.
However, I don't think I could bring myself to kill a clone of myself and my clone wouldn't do the same thing and we'd both just be interested to see what would happen if we did fight. The best course of action then is to use our similar minds to play sc2 2v2s and have perfect communication.
In theory you would probably be doing the same moves at the same time, but theory is never exactly right. If your clone strikes with a little bit more of speed then you, it automatically unmirrors the fight, would it for your first backing up less than one centimeter more than his. I don't know if youg et my point, but as the fight goes on, the difference would become more and more perciptible.
What's the motivation for the fight? What's at stake? Are my clone and I fighting for the same reason? If there's nothing at stake, then there's no point. Call it a draw and go have fun. If the clone has more at stake for a victory, then he would be more aggressive. If there's nothing, then we'll be either very defensive or not fight at all.
On April 10 2011 06:49 Kashll wrote: Yeah the people who say they would do the exact same thing don't understand the concept of "environment"
I agree, and I would add that the state of mind can change comething top. Like if I'm feeling a bit happier than my clone, I may find myselft trying less to win than him who would be feeling anger.
You can't occupy the same space, so your space would be different than his. Thus you and your clone would experience different things and differentiate.
Clearly, hot sex (masturbation?) is the only answer.
Ok, seriously, the slightest differences in scenery behind the opponent and the fact that usually when fighting you tend to take an opposite drum beat rhythm against your opponent would cause enough causal difference that I really really doubt you would see very many mirror image moves.
I would argue that unless you are an expertly trained fighter that it would not be perfectly symmetrical. Just like when I play mutliple games of starcraft every one is slightly different. If I go to throw a punch it will be slightly different every time since I have no idea how to punch, meaning my punch and my clones punch would be timed slightly differently with different angles of approach. Once things are no longer symmetrical everything becomes dynamic.
But honestly, I wouldn't fight myself. We'd be the best of friends!
I'd strike up a conversation with myself. When I talk, I've got a very vocal bodylanguage, so I'd simply wait for his position to be different then mine, then launch whatever attack felt opportune. Since we'd be positioned differently due to the differing body languag based on the talk at hand, we'd not fight identically, but rather more dynamically.
After a short fight though, we'd realise so many other people deserve our scorn and wrath, and instead turn into the perfect serial killer, with one of me killing while the other me giving me alibi for the time of the murder.
I can throw a punch and hit slightly different a thousand times in the same spot. Anyone who assumes fighting your clone would make it identical is just an idiot lol.
If you were to do the exact same motions and actions, you would have to be standing in the same place facing the same direction. If you assume a mirrored room, you would hit eachother in the fist and probably back off and perpetually waited for the next move, if you are the type of person to give the first punch. If you are defensive I would guess you would just forever circle each other rolling your fists like boxers.
Personally I wouldn't fight myself, I'm too hot.... hmmm... wierd half-gay (maybe?) thoughts came into my head.
On April 10 2011 07:28 Synapze wrote: I can throw a punch and hit slightly different a thousand times in the same spot. Anyone who assumes fighting your clone would make it identical is just an idiot lol.
First of all, this is all hypothetical, does being right in this situation make you a better person? Second, YOU would be throwing the same punch at YOU at the same TIME. What you described is successively different punches at different times.... aiming for the same spot.
Considering humans constantly learn and adapt, the only time a clone would be "identical" was the instant of its creation, and after that both the clone and the original would begin to stray apart.
Someone might had said this already, but if you were fighting a clone of yourself, it isn't an exact replica in which you would even have the same thought processes. The way we can clone animals is by taking their DNA and creating an embryo in vitro (in a test tube). So lets say you are 20 years old now and you use your DNA to clone yourself. Your clone would reach the age of 20 when you are now 40. Plus, although you may look the same, there may be physical differences. Maybe your clone worked out more than you. The thing I don't like about your arguments are the "exact same thought processes". But, to answer the question (which is the purpose of the thread)...I would win, since I would be older than my clone and have more experience with life in general. ^^
My clone would win, because besides a fight to survive, this would be a fight to validate himself as a human being and as something more than just a copy of me, so he'd probably be more passionate about it =P.
I am pretty sure you would make different moves than your clone. I would also say, that you won't have the same thought process as your clone. I imagine the situation is comparable to two identical twins fighting each other.
basically it's an function=function. The energy would determine who would win. If there is a clear reason we should fight of course. By energy I mean whom have eaten just enough and right food to trigger the adrenalin the fastest. Considering they way my body is made, I go a way more offensive power then defensive. But I guess by complete clone you also mean that we are identical as if I was split the second I entered the room into two beings. Me and my clone.
I dont know, f(x)=f(x) would be 1=1 there fore mirror. I guess he would win since his cells is newer there fore more durable. But if this is not the case it would be complete mirror. Everything...mirrored.
People need to stop debating if the environment would be different. We are assuming a perfect fucking environment where everything is the same, please stop bringing up the possible of slight environmental inconsistencies. Suspend your disbelief for God's sake, you are already conceding the existence of a perfectly identical clone.
Now if the clone is truly identical to the nanosecond, with the exact same life experiences etc... and the room is exactly the same, then you would both do the same thing for the entire fight.
-- So we are conceding complete and utter sameness with no mistakes... now:
People might say, "But hey - if I throw a punch and then the next day if I throw a punch, they are slightly different". This is true, but you are a completely different person in a completely different situation.
People might say, "But hey - I'm really consistent." That's the point. Both of you are really inconsistent, in the exact same fucking way. You would do the same thing.
It's not that hard of a concept, but close-minded people can easily dispute it infinitely by presuming some environmental anomaly or something or saying how things couldn't really be the same. Suspend your disbelief motherfuckers, and except the hypothetical at face value. Everything is the same. You do the same thing for the duration of the fight with zero differentiation.
If one of you would slip on the floor, the other would too. If the environment is the same, there's no reason you wouldn't be making the same exact mistakes as you are already making the same exact decisions and motions.
Baaah. I tried to cover all the dumb arguments I would get in return, but they will still come.
Anyways, the fight would play out exactly the same for both parties for the entirety of the fight, without fail.
Now the question that comes to my mind .When.was.he.cloned because any things that happened in between the time he was cloned and the fight would influence are fight. He might be less tired or more tired maybe he stubbed his toe etc....
But if it was an exact copy where nothing was different all life experiences were the same not one iota of difference then I would battle it out and late Fate decide .Even as clones someone has to win.
From what I understand there is some uncertainty in the universe. For example having two glasses shatter on the ground under exactly the same circumstances will yield difference scatter patterns. I would reckon that similar not deterministic behaviour would be true for brains so it would be a fight as with any other 2 people of equal strength.
On April 10 2011 07:29 Wonderballs wrote: If you assume a mirrored room, you would hit eachother in the fist and probably back off and perpetually waited for the next move.
Technically if you hit with your right hand, he will hit whit is right hand, which will be left to you, so your fists won't collide except if you try to hit the middle of his face.
honsetly, i would just attempt to fool him, i would slap myself across the face and my clone would be looking back at me with a WTF face
If your clone has the same thought process, he will therefore punch himself in the face as well so it would be, in that case, mirrored.
The way I thought about it was by imagining a fighting game and just putting up two computers using the same character and AI against each other. I'm pretty sure they don't both end up doing the same moves and trading hits. The 2D fighting stage is pretty much perfectly symmetric too. Easily testable with mugen...although I don't have that installed right now ;P
If the clone is a perfect, exact copy of you - he has to have absolutely the same experience and memories along with all other attributes.
However, when you would meet the clone - this would change the moment you started to talk. You couldn`t possibly say the same things at the same time because then there would be no conversation (unless you had some messed up attributes) Since the moment when the conversation started, you would become more and more different because your experiences would become more and more different from that point.
If we were to assume that your attributes would make you attack the clone without saying anything, which means he would do the same, then it would propably be a fight resulting in mutual death or a one that would never end, because your and your clone`s movements would be exactly, 100 % the same. None of you would be able to react to anything differently because all your thinking, emotions, perceptions, desires, movements and everything else are absolutely 100 % the same.
Imagine that you started the fight by using your left leg to kick him - he would do exactly the same. If he would predict that kick and react to that - so would you. If you kicked each other simultaneously, you would fall, get up and continue in the exactly same way, if you would ... he would ... and so on.
The only scenario where you could become different - is when you started to communicate with each other in some way. It could be talking, making gestures or anything else.
However, even that is not true because you could never communicate. You would come with exactly the same ideas at the same times, you wouldn`t be able to say anything that would be any different from what your clone would say.
You would never become any different if you were 100 % exactly the same and your position in environment would be 100 % the same.
The clone would be like you in the mirror.
The paradox here is, that even if all your attributes are 100 % the same, you are not exactly the same because you are standing in different locations, even if those locations are 100 % the same, relative to each other.
Thats why you must also assume that the entire universe is split in the middle of the distance between you and your clone into two sides that are 100% the same or that there is nothing else besides the room that OP mentioned.
Then the clone is like you in the mirror except that everything, every single possibility of anything that can happen or not happen, yields the same, 100 % exact results for both of you.
There is no other possibility if you and your respective environments are 100% the same.
Edit: [spoiler]The poster below, mentioned the randomness factor, which challenges the above analisis because if you had the attribute of making a random decision, movement or anything else that is random - then the random movement of you and your clone might differ, given that there is something else besides the room, that influences the randomness factor differently for you and your clone and thus, make your actions different.
Though, that can only be true if there is such a thing as random event. In the known world, everything has a cause (though some quantum phycists would argue but they don`t have a proof that I would be aware of). If there is not and the environments for you and your clone are the same - you will not become any different.
me and my clone would realise that either one of us wont make the first move since we choose to analyze each other first. then both will make the random decision to just go for it and after 5 mins of stalemate, realise that there is no possible way of out-smarting each other.
therefore me and my clone will shake hands and start brainstorming on how we can conquer the world, 1 clone at a time
Assuming in a perfectly symmetrical room with no objects and both of our goals is to defeat the other with the exact same mindset, the fight would start off exactly the same.
Then as the tiny little variables occur (with a slightly different thought process since our thought to action process happens within nanoseconds), and add up, the fight would become more and more dynamic. Thus the end result might or might not be a tie.
The major difference is that as you fight, you learn and your clone of your past self before the fight started is a copy of you from that time. It's like fighting your past.
Unless your clone can learn and reason too O.O ...m confusing myslef lol
On April 10 2011 07:41 jcroisdale wrote: Now the question that comes to my mind .When.was.he.cloned because any things that happened in between the time he was cloned and the fight would influence are fight. He might be less tired or more tired maybe he stubbed his toe etc....
But if it was an exact copy where nothing was different all life experiences were the same not one iota of difference then I would battle it out and late Fate decide .Even as clones someone has to win.
When we assume that we'ld be fighting just a clone it would be all meaningless, anyways. Clones just have our DNA, that doesn't make him any equal actually, it all depends on our personal life experiences how we turn out to be. DNA even has triggers which can be turned on and off by certain pre-natal or early childhood influences, so even having the same DNA basis doesn't guarantee people to be perfectly similar genetically. Scientists managed to clone a mice but make the clones having different fur colour for example.
Now assuming I'ld face a perfectly similar copy of mine instead of a clone, I'm not sure what would happen. Deep down our bodies still maintain a lot of biochemical reactions which are basically controlled by chance, so there is a "basis for unequalness" even in two perfectly equal bodies. So, this could mean that the mood, feeling and decisionmaking could be just slightly different early on, and then both versions of the body would find themselves in slightly different positions and so on, until they act pretty differently instead of doing the exact same movements.
Now the question is if it actually works like that. Because even when working just by chance, the biochemistry still is working on a large scale with an incredible number of molecules. This means that ultimately the chances turn out to be statistically stable values (just like when you roll a dice 6 times you won't expect to roll each number from 1-6 in exactly 1 case each - but when you roll 1,000,000,000 times, you will expect very precisely each number to be rolled 1/6 of the times.
Still, I think that these ever so slight difference will result in just slightly different behaviour. And as slight differences will accumulate over time as both react on each others movements, it will end to be a very different fight on each side after a little while.
I think in the end this is just coming down to whether or not you believe that decision making is inherently deterministic or probabilistic. I think deep down, it'll be quite different for either camp to convince the other half. I personally side with it being probabilistic.
I think I'd start with a low punch followed by a jaw-punch, to which I'd respond by blocking the first and kicking me in the balls, I'd counter by grabbing my leg and pushing myself away, and proceed to kick me in the chest. Since by now I'd be on the ground, I'd attempt a low-kick and then grab me from the neck, Id punch desperately while trying to pull me off from myself, then, I'd be tired and ask for a break.
Well, since I´m a horribly unfit pansy, the fight would consist of helplessly flailing around with arms and would pretty much have a completely random outcome. I also would probably hurt myself while hitting me.
Considering that, Me and I would probably just don´t fight at all.
I would manipulate my clone into playing SC2 for me and become rank #1 and compete in tournament's let him play etc and people would think its me thats gosu.
I would probably lose to my clone :p so why not try to manipulate him
On April 10 2011 08:13 Mawi wrote: I would manipulate my clone into playing SC2 for me and become rank #1 and compete in tournament's let him play etc and people would think its me thats gosu.
I would probably lose to my clone :p so why not try to manipulate him
he'll manipulate youuuu
in my opinion if you had a clone it would be exactly like you and think like you. what would enable the clone to think differently than you? like there has to be a change for the clone to be different. for example i have a science test and i get 87%, why would my clone get any different? his thought process would be the same and do the exact same work as me shouldn't he?
so if i fought my clone it would be completely even, blow for blow.
On April 10 2011 08:13 Mawi wrote: I would manipulate my clone into playing SC2 for me and become rank #1 and compete in tournament's let him play etc and people would think its me thats gosu.
I would probably lose to my clone :p so why not try to manipulate him
he'll manipulate youuuu
Yeah then next gsl he'll be in IM team.
'Spawning on the top left position, IMmvp' 'No, hes not mvp. I AM MVP! hes my clone' 'na uh IMmvp!'
There is some randomness, if not on thought process, than on physical execution. Electrons move randomly, right? That might have something to do it with it.
For instance, picture a person throwing a dart on two tries. The person will think the same thing on both tries (his brain will tell his body to move its his arm and shoulders and thingers to do a certain motion), but the dart may as well go on a different spot on each try. Or a player shooting a football. It is near impossible for the human body to do the exact motion (down to milimiters and fractions of seconds) twice.
So my guess is me and my clone would try the same first move, but one of us will randomly execute it better, and from there it becomes a dynamic fight.
i think it depends mostly on when the clone began to exist. If it just hopped into existence in the room i think you would fight exactly the same but if it even existed at all outside of the room the fight may be different.
On April 10 2011 08:21 lucasesper wrote: There is some randomness, if not on thought process, than on physical execution. Electrons move randomly, right? That might have something to do it with it.
For instance, picture a person throwing a dart on two tries. The person will think the same thing on both tries (his brain will tell his body to move its his arm and shoulders and thingers to do a certain motion), but the dart may as well go on a different spot on each try. Or a player shooting a football. It is near impossible for the human body to do the exact motion (down to milimiters and fractions of seconds) twice.
So my guess is me and my clone would try the same first move, but one of us will randomly execute it better, and from there it becomes a dynamic fight.
The thing about randomness at an electron level is that at such a larger scale, the trillions of small random events would average out to have basically no net effect. Sure, maybe if you were fighting the clone for infinity time, then eventually a difference would be noticeable.
well, do you know they're your exact clone or not? that would be huge in decision making. you would decide to play on your own weaknesses and predict your opponents next moves.
On April 10 2011 09:18 Sufficiency wrote: Doesn't that happen often? Just pair up identical twins and watch...
Identical twins have differences in their experience, so in their thought process too. They also don't have the exact same DNA, which means they have basic physical and psychological differences. They do not think exactly the same thing at exactly the same time in the same situation.
We would face each other, give ourselves some words like gentleman, crack a yo-mama joke and laugh because we have the same mom, and we'd punch ourselves.
I'm disturbingly certain we would try to hurt ourselves more than each other. Eventually we would be too tired to continue, and we'd just settle it with a rap battle, where mirroring each other's moves would just be cheap and stupid.
Afterwards we would talk about how much we don't like rap music, and play SC II.
I think my clone and I would fight slightly differently because we would have different experiences (from when he was created... even if it was just a few seconds ago). Also, the location we would be standing in would be different (even in a symmetrical room) and might possibly affect how we make fighting moves. Thus even slightly different experiences plus random thought patterns could affect the way my clone fights me.
Does he know that he is my clone? I'm assuming clones don't like fighting their originals and therefore might fight slightly less effectively.
I would pay to see Mondragon play his clone in Starcraft. Actually I don't really care about seeing the game, I'm more interested in the pre/post-match interviews.
This seems pretty appropriate. It's kinda long-ish but I liked it a lot. Written by Cracked's Daniel O'Brian it goes pretty deeply into the question of "You're Locked In a Room With Your Clone: Fight or F#@k?"
On April 10 2011 06:36 Reaper9 wrote: I'd pause, stare at my clone, who is staring back, and ask "what are we fighting for?" We'd then both shrug, and then go brew some tea and play video games and argue who takes out the trash next week.
Just like Kira huh?
I think the more likely scenario is that the mirror match would eventually come to a point where it becomes more of a mind game than an actual fight.
If you knew the clone was completely identical, thought process and all then you would eventually come to realize that in order to gain an advantage you'd need to do something completely against what you would try to do. However since both fighters would likely have the same thought process, the fight would likely come to the same conclusion. I speculate after an hour of fighting both would eventually cease fighting and conclude that it is a pointless battle, only to forge an alliance and conquer the world together.
We'd both agree on a set amount of preparation time, and then we would fight. In between, we may or may not attempt to kill eachother. If we didn't, and we did fight, the winner would be based off of positioning and outside factors (being the only things that aren't perfectly equal)
I definatly think a fight like this would be epic, not only would we both know what or when to expect it would bring in the variable of a serious meta-game. We would both be preparing to assault eachother in an odd manner as well as trying to give off mis-tells to throw the other off, and perhaps the fight wouldnt even occur for a very long period of time as we would both be posturing for some form of advantage lol. However, when the fight does occur, I would assume that it would be me that would end up winning since I am the real person and not the clone... hopefully lawl
If we were fighting to the death instinct/adrenaline would take over which inhibits thought process. So why does having the same thought process matter?
On April 10 2011 10:03 gyth wrote: We'd go out for brunch. I'm a really nice guy and I bet we'd have a lot of things in common.
Scott Prilgrim? =P
I too, think that both my clone and I will agree that we're too scrawny and physically incapable for an epic fight. - We both initially think of ways to win. - We both realize that winning outright is probably impossible. - We both realize that fighting is a lose-lose. - We discuss how together we can conquer the world with 2x the awesomeness.
Wouldn't argue with my clone, we'd divide chores, both actually do them, both would go work and come home and switch days to cook, or sometimes cook twice in a row.
I'm a very easy going guy. We'd try to get slightly different work schedules, best scenario would be one person works at night one works day shift.
We'd pretty much be smart and make each others life easier, when two people do things together it works like that. That's kinda why some marriages work and some don't.
I personally believe that while all mental and physical attributes could be equal, ultimately one or the other combatant would have to make a change.
Look at it this way: two perfectly identicle "battle bots" are set to fight with the exact same algorith...obviously they do the exact same things to each other over and again, fighting like, well the two stalkers mentioned by an above poster. However, both I and the clone posses logic. Each would realise that the other is going to do what you would have done, and eventually one party would try and counter the expected counter. To clarify, if I would normally punch when I see an opponent go for a grapple, I could go for a grapple expecting the clone to punch and when he throws the punch go for a leg sweep to gain the upper hand.
Short answer: due to human logic, the fight would be very dynamic.
I think the hypothetical fight would be dynamic. For the same reason that you don't always use the exact same BO in the same match up on the same map, you also don't use exactly the same moves in a fight with the same opponent. The fighting style would be the same and the strategy/tactics might be the same, but the specific moves used would probably be different.
Fight for hours, cursing at the "clone", lift my shirt to wipe the sweat off my face only to realize I have no belly button and thus was the clone all along. I would then take my head between my hands and scream my lungs out "NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo!"
Thinking about it we'd probably just beat the shit out of eachother and the fact that it was my clone would have little to no bearing on the outcome of the fight; it'd be just like fighting some guy.
I dunno why everyone assumes it'd be some kind of perfectly symmetrical battle. There are plenty of things that will come into play, such as room geometry and how one side might favor you more than another.
On April 10 2011 12:08 Craton wrote: I dunno why everyone assumes it'd be some kind of perfectly symmetrical battle. There are plenty of things that will come into play, such as room geometry and how one side might favor you more than another.
As OP says the room is PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL which means you would do the exact same things because nearly everything in the universe is deterministic (the exception being subatomic particles which are the only truly random things in the universe but they won't be having much of an effect).
If I had to fight my clone it would be based on luck. Since we would both be the same size it would come down to who lands some lucky punches and wouldn't be very interesting to watch. But say Bruce Lee had to fight a Bruce Lee clone then the greatest fight in the history of the world would take place.
Well, it would depend on whether or not my clone received the same amount of martial arts training as I did. Just because he is my genetic clone doesnt mean he knows everything I know and it doesnt mean he is in the same shape I am in.
I'm confused why the OP thinks me and my clone would have the same thought processes. This situation really isnt any different than 2 identical twins fighting.
oooh, is the universe absolutely deterministic or is it in some way probabilistic? deterministic => always a draw probabilistic => you win 50% of the time. (a draw is possible but very unlikely.)
ha ha this thread is so damn nice, it reveals how many ppl still believe in pure Materialism... do u all think that there is no free will?
The Question the OP asked is just sensless u jsut cant fight urslef and if u fight a clone then u always always fight a CLONE and never yourself. The question is way too far away from reality so it cant be answered, or to say it better: if u answer it then ur answer is too abstract to be worth a discussion, cause then everyone can state everything and no one can argue about it
On April 10 2011 13:01 Nakama wrote: ha ha this thread is so damn nice, it reveals how many ppl still believe in pure Materialism... do u all think that there is no free will?
Well, if you believe that everything has a cause (and I mean everything)... it kind of follows that there's no free will. Because when it comes down to it, you couldn't have done otherwise.
Free will is something that works within the system but not outside the system. I don't believe in it, but I also recognize that we couldn't operate in society without assuming it to be the case.
I think the fight would play out more like your friend suggested than the version you proposed. While it is true that, since you have the same mental and physical characters as your clone that would lead to, (You)Move A "triggers" (Clone)Reaction B "which again triggers" (You)Reaction A. This would then set of a limitless number of actions and reactions that would end up something like this, (You)Move A "triggers" (Clone)Reaction B "which again triggers" (You)Reaction C "triggers" (Clone)Reaction D.
I think free will is an illusion given to us by our thoughts. We obey to what our brain tells us, which is determined by what he feels. What I mean is that we are only a race reacting on our instinc, so what we do is not told by ourselves but by everything that happens. For example, the reason why I am writing on this forum right now is because I feel a need to express myself. Not because I had the free will to do it. If I didn't need to express myself, I would not be writing this, if you see what I mean. But still, I think there would be some slight differences in the execution, which would not be perceptible unless we fight for eternity.
A clone is an exact physical copy of yourself. One's behaviour is determined through many factors but is mostly determined by how you were raised (0-12). Therefore it would only matter who was a better fighter, since a clone would not have the same background as you.
Edit:For all of those saying that there is no free will, although it would be difficult to determine one way or another, there is definitely no "set path" due to entropy, so we are not "predestined" to mirror the exact copy of ourselves. (Entorpy is the fundamental chaos in the universe)
suppose there are three moves Punch Kick and Block. Punch beats kick (because its faster), Kick beats Block (because it hits harder) and Block beats Punch (well, duh). Both me and the clone know this and anticipate to counter each others actions. The cycle breaks down to infinity and we get bored and break out of the room.
Something even more interesting to think about is how you'd feel about this supposed exact physical and metal copy of myself. I for one would be unhappy about him existing, as I think quite highly of myself and enjoy being unique. I'm also a private person and can't stand for another being to know everything about me.
Knowing this, and knowing my copy knows this, I will then understand that we hate each other to some degree and wish the other did not exist. We would either come to some sort of understanding about going our separate ways and never hearing form each other again, or paranoia would cause both of us to try to kill and replace the other asap (assuming we'd get away with it).
Anyone think they would get along with an exact copy of themselves? Or would you hate it as much as I would?
On April 10 2011 09:34 Aquafresh wrote: I would pay to see Mondragon play his clone in Starcraft. Actually I don't really care about seeing the game, I'm more interested in the pre/post-match interviews.
Mondragon vs Mondragon?
Although that would be a nice match, Flash vs Flash would be the ultimate mirror matchup, for obvious reasons. Flash would have to pull off some amazing plays if he is to be able to beat Flash.
From how I interpret the OP, I feel the clone is more of a mirror image rather than something physically different. The clone could be in a different dimension that co-exist in the same plane. ie. suppose the center of the room is given the coordinates (0,0) and my relative location is (x,y), the clone's location will exist at (-x,-y). I assume for each random thought I come up with during the battle, the clone would come up with the same random thought at the precise moment.
That being said, it would be like I'm fighting a mirror except the reflection is something physical. Rather than a chain reaction of "if I do A, the clone will do B", the battle will be "if I do A, clone will be doing A at the same time". So if I raise a punch, the clone would raise a punch as well. I would only be hit if I decide to hit him rather than dodge, in which case the clone would dodge as well. After realizing these implications, we would just sit at opposite ends of the room and wait for timer to reach 0 for draw rather than hurt ourselves.
I'm generally against fighting. So if my clone has the same mental attributes and thought processes, and I'm assuming the same personality, we'd just get drunk and play video games instead.
If only this could actually happen. *wistful thinking face*
Slow Motion, I'm really happy with the point you made, because while reading the posts of people saying they would be happy with their clones, I was wondering if I was the only who would not.
Only my reasons are not the same as yours; it is mainly because I know we would want the same things at the same moment. Like, I wanna okay StarCraft, he wants to play StarCraft. PLus, I like being the leader and choosing things. He does too. I'm stubborn. He is too. It isn't compatible.
On April 10 2011 09:34 Aquafresh wrote: I would pay to see Mondragon play his clone in Starcraft. Actually I don't really care about seeing the game, I'm more interested in the pre/post-match interviews.
Mondragon vs Mondragon?
Although that would be a nice match, Flash vs Flash would be the ultimate mirror matchup, for obvious reasons. Flash would have to pull off some amazing plays if he is to be able to beat Flash.
Day[9] versus Day[9] or TLO versus TLO would be cool because they would play random and therefore we would see which race they control best. Plus it would be really intense decision making since they would not do the same thing, except if they're the same race, but will be able to predict what the other will do so they will try to be as unpredictable as possible.
Nonsensical question: clones aren't perfect replicas, merely genetic replicas, without identical experiences. There's too much randomness and entropy in existence, even assuming you were both as identical as theoretically possible, you'd still have different thought processes on some level.
I think this brings up a more philosophical question of would you be friends with yourself? I mean sometimes too similar personalities can conflict with each other.
but I think sometimes very similar (exactly similar personalities?) can get along pretty well.
Reminds me of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World when he fights Nega Scott
Uh, we would actually find a way to get out of the room, and play some mad 2v2 action, and then fight each other to see who can 4 gate better. But if we had to fight, we would not do the exact same thing, because as well as entropy in the thought process, there is the environment to take into consideration. All things considered, I would kick his clone ass.
My body is not symmetrical, so unless this "clone" was a mirror copy instead of a literal copy, and we were facing each-other, that would definitely cause interference in the theoretical identical openers and so on. I have thought before about how I would deal with such a situation, like: How do you get past such a person? Easy: You both go "right" or "left". Doesn't work against an actual mirror world version though, who would have opposite meanings to right and left.
On April 10 2011 13:56 Whitewing wrote: Nonsensical question: clones aren't perfect replicas, merely genetic replicas, without identical experiences. There's too much randomness and entropy in existence, even assuming you were both as identical as theoretically possible, you'd still have different thought processes on some level.
This pretty much sums it up. Even with identical genes your biology, thoughts, stimuli, etc will all be constantly fluctuating making you different individuals. You are not even the same self you were five minutes ago.
Symmetrical fighting would be impossible. The human brain is infinitely too complex. Being a millimeter closer to the wall than your clone is already changing things. If anything, after noticing that I was fighting symmetrically, i'd just do something "random" which would break the cycle too.
That's assuming we never talked. After you start talking you're already thinking on different paths.
No other option, we'd both find a way to kill each other at the same time because were such gosu fighters, plz bury us both in the same plot tho to save my fam some cash
On April 10 2011 14:17 hongo wrote: Well first I'd jump through the roof, go super saiyan, and get my power level over NINE THOUSAND. Then we'll see how fair of a fight it is
You forgot to add 'and destroy the moon and planet earth in the process'
Though, I think the answer is perfectly clear if we remember that there are twins with same habits, thoughts etc in the world. So there are plenty of clone wars on our planet.
People who think that the fight would progress in a symmetrical fashion are misguided. Do you really think that the instant that you are both 'spawned' you are going to make the exact same unconscious shifts in your body, or that you'll blink at the exact same times? Or maybe that the shifting of your bodies will be so exact that the air circulation in the room will be the same(even if it is perfectly symmetrical to start out). This is already a divergence...
This is kind of like saying that if you were to live a 10 second period of your life 10 times over, and each time you lived it again you would start in the same position with molecular exactness. Do you really think that your body movements are so perfectly controlled that there isn't a degree of randomness which would cause each of the re-livings to differ ever so slightly?
I'd rather play him in UT and have a great practice partner.
Anyways, I argue that you and your clone still form two entities so your clone wont act like you do. You're not synchronized in ways of thinking as your brains ain't linked. I guess they outcome of such a fight would be pretty brutal and the style of fighting versatile and aggressive.
If you imagine something like this in your head and you go "WHat would my clone think?", you're on the wrong line of thought. Rather imagine that you can't guess that. You would have the ideal take at some true guess work. How good do you know yourself and maybe you show yourself (clone) how different you can think all of a sudden.
On April 10 2011 06:30 eduh wrote: there is a certain randomness to your decision making process, so you wouldnt be mimicking each other.
this
not to mention differences in how much force, speed, etc. you would use. The fact that you think alike but are not one mind/entity is enough to throw symmetry out the window.
this goes back to what does "clone" mean to you. Here in the west, "clone" generally means having the same genetic make up but differences in thought processes and self-identity. In the east, "clone" means something more along the lines of doppelganger; that is, literally another instance of yourself, that looks, feels, thinks and behaves exactly like you. Genetics is not stressed, and the meaning has more superstition to it.
example
lets say you do both think alike and you both DO use the same opening move. Depending on the effect of this opening, one of you is going to hit the other, get hit, mutually harm each other, or nullify each others' attack. Based on just these outcomes of the first move alone, there is A LOT of room for rethinking an approach, based on the inherent design of decision making processes.
You wouldn't have the same physical/mental attributes though, because environment and experience will alter who you are, even if you and your clone are genetically identical. The person who wins would be the person who's had the experience that would best aid them in a fight.
The first one who understands that the enemy is a clone wins, because at that point one could simply change the way you fight in that battle, because even if he's your clone, he's still a whole another being, and even tho your thought process is the same, depending on the situation, you'll both think about 2 different things. In my case tho, I would simply go to a bar with him and drink a beer with him. Even if he was about to destroy the entire world. EDIT: Seems like this point was bought up before in this thread. hm...
On April 10 2011 14:59 Brutaxilos wrote: one of us would die to a cheese
I really don't have anything substantial to add to this thread. I just wanted to congratulate this guy publicly for making me legitimately laugh out loud.
They say all knowledge is self knowledge. I think old Brutaxilos here is a knowledgeable individual.
Due to the complete randomness of thoughts that's going around in my head(can't concentra-ooh shiny) the fight between my clone and I would go for about thirty seconds, than we'd both sit down, talk our problems out, and play 2v2 in SC.
We wouldn't be trying to defeat each other at first. The symmetry would be infuriating, and breaking that would be our initial goal. Once symmetry is broken our thought processes will be different and we'll be able to fight properly. But after quite a bit of thinking we still haven't figured it out.
I think it would end in a draw because it requires a lot of stamina and endurance and I would just give up after the first punch and let him beat me up.
lets say you do both think alike and you both DO use the same opening move. Depending on the effect of this opening, one of you is going to hit the other, get hit, mutually harm each other, or nullify each others' attack. Based on just these outcomes of the first move alone, there is A LOT of room for rethinking an approach, based on the inherent design of decision making processes.
it's like pitting 2 macro oriented very good zerg players against each other, telling both of them to 6pool the other guy without scouting, and when they both do it and realize that they did the exact same move, they'll each react differently(or not and just try to move to high macro)
On April 10 2011 07:28 Synapze wrote: I can throw a punch and hit slightly different a thousand times in the same spot. Anyone who assumes fighting your clone would make it identical is just an idiot lol.
First of all, this is all hypothetical, does being right in this situation make you a better person? Second, YOU would be throwing the same punch at YOU at the same TIME. What you described is successively different punches at different times.... aiming for the same spot.
The fact is that your brain will never allow your body to hit where you want 100%. If you could, people would never miss a home run in baseball etc. And no, your coordination would not be identical.
Actually, if you mirror two insane AIs on Starcraft 2 with the same races, they have the same builds at first, but then they start changing it up. One of them eventually wins. I think something like this would happen, the one who makes a superior move wins.
Your scenario takes out the fact that the processes that go on in the human body on a microscopic level are largely random. While on the surface we exhibit a reasonable and ordered machine, on a cellular level stuff is just flying around. Even if you managed to clone two identical beings at that second, they would quickly diverge over time even if nothing happened.
If you ignore that fact, then you also have the case where because they are not in the exact same location, they will perceive the room differently, and be spatially different. Both may think "aim for left cheek" but one may be slightly more left than the other and will hit differently etc, hence one will react more than the other, and from there it also rapidly diverges.
If you even ignore that case, you have the case that logically if whatever you do, will be identically mirrored in every way by your opponent, and you are identical, there is no reason to fight. In fact, it makes no sense to fight. If you are indeed identical in every way as such to invalidate the previous two points, then you would either a) both decide to punch for the face, and both lose, or b) spend a bunch of time attempting to punch before immediately moving into a block, then back to a punch, never actually hitting the opponent.
Basically, a fight with an identical clone would be boring as hell to watch.
Edit: Logically, the only way to win would be to cause a desync in order to try and one up your opponent. Just get a coin, flip it, if it's heads punch, otherwise don't. Both of you do it, but you'll pretty quickly get different results, causing divergence. If your hypothetical removes all randomness from the human system you can simply reintroduce it, and have a normal fight. Once you desync it once, the rest is dynamic from there because all stimuli has changed.
Fighting your clone would not be a stalemate. After the first engagement, the positions would change and each person would react according to their body position. For myself, being a wrestler, I would circle and look for an opening while trying to set the clone up for some sort of take down. My clone would most likely do the same, but we wouldn't move identically. It is hard for one person to do the same exact thing the same exact way in every way twice. There will always be some sort of variation. As a result fighting your clone would not be fighting a mirror of yourself, it would be fighting someone with the same training, body type and experience as yourself.
If you were fighting given zero restrictions you would. 1. Kill Each Other (double snapped neck ect) 2. Eternally tie 3. Agree to peace since you would probably be able to reason with yourself.
Not really any other options. Exact Mirror fight or peaceful solution.
I honestly think that even if i was to fight my clone (even if he didnt look like me and i had no clue of his intentions, if he just acts like me) that we wouldnt trade a single punch. We would both start with a boxing pose, strafe right as is usual in southpaw, and slowly stop moving and lower our hands one by one and try to talk, i do know that both of us would use the same words and even laugh at the same time, but after we figure whats going on we would both back down.
If the door gets closed, both of us would be volutarily to die, therefore its hard to consider which one of would actually commit "suicide", but neither of us would try to do anything else than outplay our opponent with a counters and feints until we run out of stamina and lose our balance. If you were agressive type i think both of you would get serious injuries, whether it would be wrestling, boxing or mma type of fight.
Nonetheless, i think the fight would either take so long that you both starve, or both of you fight until you have serious wounds and cant continue
If me and my clone got in a fight, I doubt we would exactly mirror eachother. Yeah we might have the same exact DNA, but in no way does that mean we're going to think exactly alike.
So many people reading halfway through the OP post and then posting, or just not being able to fully think through how an excact clone would work out. Assuming everything is excactly the same, there would be no difference. You would for example not be able to comunicate, An example of what an attempt to comunicate would be something like this : you would start out comunicating at excactly the same time, saying excactly the same thing, and interupting eachother, then you would wait excactly the same amount of time, before speaking up again and interupting eachother again, eventualy you would probably figure out that you would just have to speak at the same time , but you would be saying the excact same thing to eachother and learning the same things and reacting the same way all in all leading nowhere.
The only argument really in the OP is if there is anything truly random at a molecular level\in this universe at all.Which is something (as far as I know) Nobody really knows. There have been things that are seemingly random, but that could very well stem from our lack of knowledge on the subject. Most random things we see in life is artificially random, take throwing a dice for example, you might think its random what number it lands on, but obviously what actually decides this is a) the dice b) the stuff it is landing on and c) your throw. d) Air\anything else in the enviorment that might effect it, so it is not truly random.
If i were to go with my hunch I would say nothing is truly random and assuming there is no way out of the room, and we actually have to fight, we just fight untill exhaustion recover and re-fight untill exhaustion excactly mirroring eachother untill we die of lack of water.
On April 11 2011 13:57 Akari Takai wrote: Although me and my clone wouldn't fight (the possibilities of working together to create mischief and havoc would be totally epic), I honestly think that it could go either way.
I mean, let's pretend we duplicated IMMvP and forced him to play against himself. Very rarely do Starcraft 2 matches end up as actual ties, even among players at almost equal levels and with almost equal knowledge bases. So I think that more than likely one of us would defeat the other. And I think it would come up to chance a lot. Eventually one of us is going to get the other in a slightly disadvantageous position and things will snowball from there.
This is not a fight between 2 people who are at equal levels though, nor 2 people with almost equal knowledge bases. Nor does it have any of the random elements of a starcraft match (mainly positon/map disadvantages I Guess.) It is 2 people with the EXCACT in the excact same enviorment, everything is excactly the same, As soon as you get yourself in a slightly disadvantagenous position, your excact clone would mirror this perfectly and get himself in the excact same disadvantageous position so things cant snowball from anywhere. This is obviously only in theory as atleast for now replicating this in any way is impossible, but if you are going to start out assuming it is not an excact clone and there are differences that will cause 1 to fail where the other does not, then you are not answering OPs question.
I like the idea of challenging myself to a game of SC. I'd offrace Zerg and 6pool.
If I won, I'd hang my head in shame, because I can't defend a 6pool. If I lost, I'd hang my head in shame, because 6pooling was stupid. If we both 6pooled, I'd high five my clone and then we'd play 2v2s.
Due to minor inconsistencies in the way we do things, which wouldn't be similarly inconsistent for both myself and my clone, one of us would end up getting the upper hand and winning via chaos theory. Although we would both attempt to do the same thing, at the same time, due to those minor inconsistencies we would experience a slightly unbalanced situation which would become more unbalanced over time eventually resulting in two separate thought patterns and actions taken.
well the thing is you may be identical clones with identical thought patterns etc, but you'd be somewhat different when it comes to your agression levels. maybe you will be incensed at each other but theres still a level of randomness when it comes to hormone levels and physical reactions in your body. ever been in the same situation twice with different people and thought very differently on individual occasions? Your moves wil lbe governed by what your opponent is doing, fighting is as much defence as offence!
In a fight with your clone who has all of your memories and is in the same condition you're in it would end with one of the clones making a single mistake in the fight and it being ended.
You wouldn't be going blow for blow like the episode in Arrested Development where the two identical twins fought and just mirrored each other. Your thoughts would be the same basically but the levels of aggression will vary, you might be aggressive in attacking your clone but your clone could be waiting to counter so then he can become the aggressor capitalizing on your mistake or vice versa.
On April 11 2011 18:08 SpectreSOF wrote: I do believe this is one of those scenarios where the term Mutually Assured Destruction was coined for.
How would the clone who is potentially losing the fight kill both fighters?
Going to have to go with your friend rather than the OP's theory. I actually think it would be cool to spar (not fight to the death) with a clone of myself, because it would be a fair fight and a good learning experience (for the both of us).
Humans aren't even very rational creatures, so it is absurd to think that they will think the same thing under the exact same stimuli even if they are perfectly identical. I understand that is a hypothetical but even under the conditions you stated I think there is still a ton of randomness. There are a lot of situations where you must decide between a 50/50 mixup and in that split-second determine a reasonable choice. Even under the exact same stimuli I could easily make a different decision. To put it bluntly, if I played against a clone of myself in RPS, we certainly wouldn't be throwing out the same thing repeatedly. Perhaps I'm wrong. Would be cool to find out either way.
Quantum theory has led me to believe that there is no way that the fight would end in a draw.
Both because of the randomness in the atomic/subatomic processes that goes through your body and because of the chaotic nature of a fight. For example if you throw a right hook and your clone throw a right hook your fists will not collide with each other, fragments of a second (or even seconds) will determine the outcome.
It would also matter whether or not the real you are aware of the fact that you are real and that you are fighting a "clone" but i will assume for the sake of argument that you are not.
I think I would not even fight since I would think of what move I'd do. And then what move I'd do next so I can counter it, but he knows the counter, so I'd do some other move, etc. etc. etc. We'd never fight and just think about how we'd do the most damage in one hit.
Nah, but seriously. I had this question asked in a philosophy course; well, not exactly. But something very along the lines:
"What if an unmovable object met an irresistable force?"
The question is along the lines of fighting your clone; the exact replica of yourself dictating exactly how you think and move, so all your attacks and defenses would be perfectly offset.
The answer to that question (and possibly this question) is that they can never co-exist. There is no possible way that two extremes can ever exist. If you consider your self-being as an extreme, and the clone of yourself existing with the same mentality, then neither of you could be defeated, thus making the problem at hand impossible.
Just a way to look at it. Might not be perfectly applicable to this scenario, but it's definitely a mind warp
Aaaa. People need to grasp that this is a hypothetical question with things that are close to impossible to actually recreate, such as a room that is 100% perfectly symetrical down to a molecular level, and a clone that is excactly the same as you spawned instantly in the excact same but opposite spot of the 100% symetrical room.
On April 11 2011 17:36 Akari Takai wrote:
I was, but I can understand your confusion. Because I know what my clone knows, I know that I cannot be predictable. So I will be random. And I will make those random decisions based on my environment. Like, for instance, I have a bookshelf and I make decisions based on the title of the first book that I see on the bookshelf. My clone is not going to be EXACTLY in the same place that I am. So even if he has the same idea, he won't be choosing the same book, because it's not going to be the first book he sees, because he's not in the same position. And he can try and guess which book I saw first, but he won't KNOW for sure.
I really feel like my clone and I would put each other into a rock-paper-scissors scenario. One of us would get lucky. Despite being exactly the same, because we know we are exactly the same, we can create differences from each other.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear in my post.
You need to realize that when a clone is perfectly cloned of you, you are both you, he is not a clone any more or less than you are, you are the excact same being, if you think "Oh I will fool this clone by acting like I normally would not do!" then the supposed clone will think the excact same thing and do the excact same thing. As for your whole enviorment argument, if the room is perfectly symetrical then the enviorment is a nonfactor.
The putting yourself in a rock-paper-scissor scenario and/or getting lucky, would not happen. For the sake of it, lets just say that instead of fighting, you were to play rock paper scissor, now assuming what is mentioned in the OP Is true, then (in my humble opinion) if you were to play rock paper scissor, you could play it 10000 times in a row, and it would come out as a draw every single time. There is no such thing as random luck in a scenario like this one, as there is nothing that is percieved to be random.
On April 11 2011 17:40 Postman wrote: Due to minor inconsistencies in the way we do things, which wouldn't be similarly inconsistent for both myself and my clone, one of us would end up getting the upper hand and winning via chaos theory. Although we would both attempt to do the same thing, at the same time, due to those minor inconsistencies we would experience a slightly unbalanced situation which would become more unbalanced over time eventually resulting in two separate thought patterns and actions taken.
If you have minor incosistencies, the clone should have the same incosistiencies, if not its not a perfect clone. The chaos theory is not applicable here, and if anything it supports it being a draw. + Show Spoiler +
Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditionssuch as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved
When the Initial conditions are 100% excactly the same with no exception and no difference and no incosistency, the outcome will be the same for both sides.
On April 11 2011 17:52 OptimusYale wrote: well the thing is you may be identical clones with identical thought patterns etc, but you'd be somewhat different when it comes to your agression levels. maybe you will be incensed at each other but theres still a level of randomness when it comes to hormone levels and physical reactions in your body. ever been in the same situation twice with different people and thought very differently on individual occasions? Your moves wil lbe governed by what your opponent is doing, fighting is as much defence as offence!
If you have different agression levels its not identical clones. What you percieve to be random is not actually random. Your moves will indeed be governed by what your opponent is doing, but your opponent will be doing excactly the same as you are, and governing the excact same response that you are, you will then see this and re-respond with something which again is perfectly mirrored into death by dehydration most likely.
On April 11 2011 18:14 bibbaly wrote: In a fight with your clone who has all of your memories and is in the same condition you're in it would end with one of the clones making a single mistake in the fight and it being ended.
You wouldn't be going blow for blow like the episode in Arrested Development where the two identical twins fought and just mirrored each other. Your thoughts would be the same basically but the levels of aggression will vary, you might be aggressive in attacking your clone but your clone could be waiting to counter so then he can become the aggressor capitalizing on your mistake or vice versa.
If one of the clines make a single mistake, then the other clone will make the excact same mistake, at the excact same time, in the excact same manner, if it does not it is not a perfect clone and therefor doesn ot apply to the OP.
On April 11 2011 18:41 exalted wrote: Humans aren't even very rational creatures, so it is absurd to think that they will think the same thing under the exact same stimuli even if they are perfectly identical. I understand that is a hypothetical but even under the conditions you stated I think there is still a ton of randomness. There are a lot of situations where you must decide between a 50/50 mixup and in that split-second determine a reasonable choice. Even under the exact same stimuli I could easily make a different decision. To put it bluntly, if I played against a clone of myself in RPS, we certainly wouldn't be throwing out the same thing repeatedly. Perhaps I'm wrong. Would be cool to find out either way.
Just because you cannot conciously explain why you chose option a or option b in a 50/50 decision does not mean there is not some subconcious part of you deciding it , which will be the excact same thing the subconciousness of the clone will decide.
To put it in another light (and to bring in another fucked up only hypothetical concept.) Lets say I Put you in a room and have you choose a 50/50 thing (like between door A and door B for example) If I were to observe you outside of the enviorment that effects you, see that you choose door A, then travel back in time, and observe you agin, 100000 times over, You are going to choose A, every single time. Because even though it mights seem random to you, deep down, in some incredibly complex fucked up subconcious type of way, there is a reason for you chosing A. Maybe If i had asked you 0.002 seconds earlier, or 0.001 second later in a parelelle universe, you might have chosen B, but even with such miniscule differneces its still a completly different scenario. This clone v clone scenario is a scenario of 100000000000000000000000000% equality on both sides, in the same way that the theoretical travelling back in time is.
Sorry If I am comming of as condescending or something I am trying not to n_n
Anyway The only argument that I can see for it not being a draw, as i believe I stated earlier, is that there are true random elements on an atomic\subatomic level. Which we dont really have any way of knowing since anything that might seem random to us now, could easily just seem random because we do not have learned all the factors involved in that seemingly random process yet.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
What happens when identical twins fight? Edit: Saw revision in OP.
Is there randomness allowed in your closed system? If there is perfect symmetry, then nobody can decisively "win." Whatever one person does is done by the other and whatever is done to one person is done to the other.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
This is all hypothetical, so I won't come out as an elitist and say you are "wrong". However, I think that is incorrect; IF a person/place/object were to be an EXACT replica and clone (once again, referring to my previous point, there is no such possibility in the known universe as an exact 100% clone/replica), then both persons/places/objects would exhibit identical characteristics, based on their genetic makeup and/or physical makeup, thus offsetting each other perfectly.
Solution? They would never exist amongst one another. I know this is an annoying answer to swallow, since it kills braincrafting, but I think it is the only actual answer; other theories seem to forget the fact that these are exact replications, and from my knowledge, there is no such existance of two perfectly identical objects in the universe which can combat each other.
We would engange in an epic fight and get knocked out at the same time. Then a scientist and a guard enter the room. Leg sweep! We fooled you, suckers. We grab the Lasergun from the guard and shoot him in the face. The scientiest tries to scream for help but we smack him with the gun. We'd fist bump and say "clone power". We use the scientist as a hostage and escape. After hiding in the underground of post apocalyptic New York City we get approached by rebels that are fighting against the evil clone men. As we are the only ones that know where the clone facilty is we go back in and blow the facility up by pressing the self-destruction button. We also rescue two superhot clone chicks. Outside while the facilty explodes in the background we make love to these sweet girls. Fistbump. Clone power.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
You can't just do whatever you want in a fight... your actions are based off your environment. You've just been watching too many movies.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
You can't just do whatever you want in a fight... your actions are based off your environment. You've just been watching too many movies.
How is me watching too many movies at all related to you not reading the OP? If you did you would realize the hypothetical enviorment is perfectly symetrical and excactly the same for both clones.
On April 11 2011 20:18 EternaL_9 wrote: I'de convince him to do me sexual favors.
Why? Well, masturbation isn't weird and that is PRETTY much having sex with yourself. Why would having sex with your clone be weird?
Because my clone is a guy? It's not the same for me, maybe I'm too homophobic. Imagine if you could would you use your mouth for pleasuring yourself? I had a decent discussion about this with my friends, its still a cock in your mouth, i wouldn't care if its mine. It's the same with other holes too.
One of the simplest way to realize you wouldn't copy the exact same moves is to look at your heartbeat. Once the heartbeat is off everything else is off. Even the electricity in your brain waves would never be the same. Even your position in the universe would affect you.
i dont like how many of you dont consider dualistic view (mind and brain are different substances), im not telling this is the right one, just many of you dont bother with even mentioning it
but i agree with those with materialistic and stochastic stance: from my understanding of quantum effects.. they usually net each other out but if the clones fought for a long enough time - they would have some impact (to mental processes and physical execution). But this also depends on the physics of the "perfectly homogenic and same environment" in which the clones fight)..
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.
There's nothing that says that a clone would have the exact same thought process as what it was a clone of. Your personality and other mental attributes are shaped second to second with every interaction and experience you make - a clone would rapidly change to be a mentally different person that the original person.
first one to use mean tactics would win. (means the first one that decides winning is more important then ethics.)
So whoever leaves the room is more evil than before. Other option would be we decide to work together and do a fusion and find the evil person responsibel for this and punish him *-*.
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
For the entire concept of having a doppelganger appear with the same memory and such as when I entered the room, I would probably have the same view as Karl from the vid {CC}StealthBlue posted. There is no easy way of telling who is who.
What is interesting to note is that human being diverge naturally, eventually if left to exist long enough the doppelganger would become different from "me" unless there exists some control to forever mirror my developments as a person.
This is an awful thread so far. People are creating entirely new ideologies on thought processing and philosophy out of thin air with nothing to back it up but their own opinion.
You would do the exact same thing.
Thought is based on experience and stimuli. If both you and your clone have the exact same memories (experience) and are in the exact same environment with absolutely no differences (the room proposed), then there is no way to have an unique thought. The fight would stalemate out.
Edit: I got all excited thinking it was already my birthday then I realized that is Korean time.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Fairly easy: No fighting, unite ofc. Perfect aliby (imagine the posibilities), and not to mention you would have someone who would understand you 100%, so you would not even have to say a word to each other. Then imagine the hability to live 2 diffrent lives and decide 100% aware of what is wha.t What is the best option. I could go on like this for 3 hours but i have to work. Best part: You could really mess up someones mind :D.
So youd sacrifice that to fight? Sry, not in my world :D
As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
All this is wrong in my opinion. In practice, you need to account every factors that will change the thought process. A tiny detail can change your whole thought process. Imagine you fight your clone and realise that the sun is kinda blinding you in the position you are in. You will start thinking about going around the opponent to reverse this stuff, while your clone will have a totally different thought process and resulting actions. Every details count like : did the clone and I did have exactly the same day, did we eat the same stuff, are we equally tired, are we here to fight for the exact same reasons.
This is more like do you think that you could beat a version of you from tommorrow ? you're the same person but maybe today you're tired and you would lose.
EDIT : Didn't see the second edit.
Even if the clone and you are ABSOLUTELY similar in ABSOLUTELY neutral space : I imagine the resul would be a double K-O. But I can't help to think that even there tiny differences can happen. If you're not stupid, you can agree with your clone to get at least one little random factor to have a fight with a winner and a loser instead of 2 losers.
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
oh, and i gave my reason for why i hypothesise this, "try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard..[read:impossible]"
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
Find what random variables? I'm saying they don't exist, you are the one creating them.
You are trying so hard to stretch this out to be correct. Sadly, however, you're still wrong. For the entire thread the idea has been a similar environment - this applies to you and the guy above you. There is no blinding sun. You are in an exact environment.
You are the exact same person in the exact same environment. Your brain, your organs, your fibers are going under the exact same stimulus and strain. If they were to randomly fire, they would fire at the exact same time.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
//tx
I agree that such a difference would cause further differences. But that original difference in actions should never happen. Why would it? What would cause it? It has to begin somewhere, but there is nothing to cause it.
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
Ultimately it depends on how the problem is defined, if the clone is a perfect copy (exactly the same down to the molecules/all other variables), a stalemate would result (assuming exactly the same environmental conditions also, probably easier to define the environment as a vacuum to avoid these issues having any effect). (If exactly the same inputs are used, there is no randomness)
If the clone is a more reasonable, less theoretical 'clone' (same dna, same experiences, same thought-pattern, all other variables free), likely one of the clones would prevail (since there would be slight differences from just the chemical reactions/electrical signals that drive a person's metabolism, etc.) after a while, but it's impossible to tell which would, initially.
The OP indicates that the 'clone' is 'exactly the same' so the former of the two situations described would result, but this discussion is moot since the conditions are theoretically impossible.
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
Find what random variables? I'm saying they don't exist, you are the one creating them.
You are trying so hard to stretch this out to be correct. Sadly, however, you're still wrong. For the entire thread the idea has been a similar environment - this applies to you and the guy above you. There is no blinding sun. You are in an exact environment.
You are the exact same person in the exact same environment. Your brain, your organs, your fibers are going under the exact same stimulus and strain. If they were to randomly fire, they would fire at the exact same time.
Happy birthday Necrosaint.
mm good argument for a theoretical discussion, here let me try: you're wrong
see now i'm winning.
okay but seriously, let me try to explain this again. you stated "we are discussing a situation without random variables?" but how do we know there are no random variables? where did you read this? the OP said "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically"
my hypothesis is that "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically" will have random variation from you due to actions like punches and kicks being extremely difficult to throw in the exact way you want them to land.
you cannot discard that by saying "THE CLONE WILL HAVE NO RANDOM VARIATION THAT IS A FACT AND YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AND YOU ARE WRONG".
you can say "i believe the punches and kicks will land the exact same without fail because punches and kicks blah blah blah something something"
but if you're a philosophy major and you don't already know this then GL putting that degree to use
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
Find what random variables? I'm saying they don't exist, you are the one creating them.
You are trying so hard to stretch this out to be correct. Sadly, however, you're still wrong. For the entire thread the idea has been a similar environment - this applies to you and the guy above you. There is no blinding sun. You are in an exact environment.
You are the exact same person in the exact same environment. Your brain, your organs, your fibers are going under the exact same stimulus and strain. If they were to randomly fire, they would fire at the exact same time.
Happy birthday Necrosaint.
I agree with the "exact person, exact environment -> exact same actions" but I mean.. you can't control an environment so perfectly. For example flat surfaces aren't truly flat and 2 lights aren't exactly as bright so you just can't control it. Apart from that problem the 2 clones would need the exact prior experiences.
So if you just had two clones they wouldn't act alike due to environmental variables before and during the fight. If you theoretically were able to create an exact situation then it would be a complete mirror, but I don't see that happening.
Wait.. So you are telling me that you acknowledge that the environment is perfectly symmetrical, a vacuum like the poster above mentioned, and that our two subjects are exactly identical, but there is still variance? If they have the exact same thought when they throw a bunch, and are both identical in their physical build up, their punch will fail the same way.
And yes, I can say that you are wrong, because that, my friend, is fact.
Edit: Several people are bringing up the fact that such an environment is impossible or this scenario is impossible. Well of course that is true. But we are just assuming that such a thing exists for the sake of conversation.
On April 12 2011 01:42 frogurt wrote: A more important question:
Would you improve if you and your clone were practice partners?
Shadowboxing is supposed to be a huge training tool in many arts. I would assume that fighting yourself would be just as good. But a much better question than the original.
On April 12 2011 01:32 holynorth wrote: Wait.. So you are telling me that you acknowledge that the environment is perfectly symmetrical, a vacuum like the poster above mentioned, and that our two subjects are exactly identical, but there is still variance?
yes i'm acknowledging that we're in a perfectly symmetrical vacuum-like environment, i fucking read the OP unlike so many other of you dumb asses.
If they have the exact same thought when they throw a bunch, and are both identical in their physical build up, their punch will fail the same way.
no, i don't think there punch will fail(fall?) the same way because if i throw a punch at a punching bag twice in a row being as identical as possible in "physical build up"(?) the punches will still have wildly varying force, and i know that isn't proof itself because it's possible that it varies *only* because i just threw the last punch, but i don't believe that's the case and i think it would vary even if i went back in time and threw it again, and it's more evidence than you're giving.
And yes, I can say that you are wrong, because that, my friend, is fact.
how is that fact? what is your definition of fact? since when is anything in this thread fact? you are the worst philosophy student ever.
But we are just assuming that such a thing exists for the sake of conversation.
you're also assuming that you're right for the sake of being able to go around saying you're right
Mythito, you seem pretty angry man. This upsetting you?
You're comparison to punching a punching bag twice is also pointless. If both people punched a punching bag twice, they would tire the exact same way and hit it both times identically.
On April 12 2011 02:01 holynorth wrote: Mythito, you seem pretty angry man. This upsetting you?
You're comparison to punching a punching bag twice is also pointless. If both people punched a punching bag twice, they would tire the exact same way and hit it both times identically.
Keep raging though. It's entertaining.
should it not upset me that society is filled with incredibly stupid people? i have natural instincts to yearn for the human species to advance evolutionarily as far as possible and ignorant fucktards like yourself are no more than a detriment
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
//tx
I agree that such a difference would cause further differences. But that original difference in actions should never happen. Why would it? What would cause it? It has to begin somewhere, but there is nothing to cause it.
Humans can do stuff just because "they feel like it". It's random, or at least we don't fully understand it yet.
I don't need a particular reason to wonder around my room looking at everything just because I felt like doing so. But that doesn't mean that if a clone of mine were in the room, he'd be doing the same. Maybe he wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe he just felt like closing his eyes and wonder why the hell is a guy just like him looking around like an idiot =P
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
//tx
I agree that such a difference would cause further differences. But that original difference in actions should never happen. Why would it? What would cause it? It has to begin somewhere, but there is nothing to cause it.
Humans can do stuff just because "they feel like it". It's random, or at least we don't fully understand it yet.
I don't need a particular reason to wonder around my room looking at everything just because I felt like doing so. But that doesn't mean that if a clone of mine were in the room, he'd be doing the same. Maybe he wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe he just felt like closing his eyes and wonder why the hell is a guy just like him looking around like an idiot =P
//tx
Like bigbeau said, random doesn't exist. Your thought is driven by experience and environment. Both people will do the same "random" things at the exact same time.
On April 12 2011 02:01 holynorth wrote: Mythito, you seem pretty angry man. This upsetting you?
You're comparison to punching a punching bag twice is also pointless. If both people punched a punching bag twice, they would tire the exact same way and hit it both times identically.
Keep raging though. It's entertaining.
should it not upset me that society is filled with incredibly stupid people? i have natural instincts to yearn for the human species to advance evolutionarily as far as possible and ignorant fucktards like yourself are no more than a detriment
I'll take that as "I realize I can't argue with you anymore because I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. No gg."
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
//tx
I agree that such a difference would cause further differences. But that original difference in actions should never happen. Why would it? What would cause it? It has to begin somewhere, but there is nothing to cause it.
Humans can do stuff just because "they feel like it". It's random, or at least we don't fully understand it yet.
I don't need a particular reason to wonder around my room looking at everything just because I felt like doing so. But that doesn't mean that if a clone of mine were in the room, he'd be doing the same. Maybe he wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe he just felt like closing his eyes and wonder why the hell is a guy just like him looking around like an idiot =P
//tx
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 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
well give me a single sample of randomness. there is none. rolling a dice isnt random. flipping a coin isnt random. why do you think an algorithm cant be created to create a random number/variable for example in online poker. those cards arent random. they are just sent through an extremely complex algorithm to appear to be random. if you knew that algorithm, you could cheat. everything can be explained by math, meaning there exists an algorithm to explain every action, whether you can figure it out or not.
there are 52 cards in a deck. if the top card is an ace, what is the probability that the top card is an ace? 100% obviously. now if you dont know that the top card is an ace, what is the probability that the top cardis an ace (same deck)? still 100% theres nothing random about the top card being an ace.
On April 12 2011 02:01 holynorth wrote: Mythito, you seem pretty angry man. This upsetting you?
You're comparison to punching a punching bag twice is also pointless. If both people punched a punching bag twice, they would tire the exact same way and hit it both times identically.
Keep raging though. It's entertaining.
should it not upset me that society is filled with incredibly stupid people? i have natural instincts to yearn for the human species to advance evolutionarily as far as possible and ignorant fucktards like yourself are no more than a detriment
I'll take that as "I realize I can't argue with you anymore because I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. No gg."
ahhaha wait, you are the one who stopped arguing by not saying anything new and just saying the same thing over and over. here, i'll simulate our conversation for you: you: exact same is exact same me: i disagree because of this.. you: you are wrong me: what? how am i wrong? you can't just say that without anything to back it up you: you are wrong. exact same is exact same me: no but i disagree because of this... you: exact same is exact same me: why do you keep saying that? you: exact same is exact same me: but what if it's not? you: exact same is exact same
On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random..
In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution.
and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other)
Quantum mechanics is the body of scientific principles which attempts to explain the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and atomic particles.
it attempts to explain the behavior of matter at an atomic level how is that random? it attempts to solve what seems random such as electrons.
and it only applies on the atomic level. so theoretically (since this whole argument is theoretical lol) you could say that the effect created by quantum mechanics would influence the fight.
As I'm about to start fighting, my brain would explode from trying to understand why I'm standing in a room with my perfect clone in front of me, and the only idea in mind is to fight with him...
I would wonder so much and try to convince myself not to fight, that the unsurmountable unknown force that wants me to fight him would simply make my and my clone's brains explode out of boredom, so they can try their sick plans on another unsuspecting TL member.
On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random..
In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution.
and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other)
We are presuming that their experiences and memories are identical as well as the physical build up. Looks like body and mind are identical, no matter which theory we follow.
I never meant to say Quantum physics was or isn't randomness, just that those fields of study were the ones relating to randomness and that he should go look it up and read on it a bit.
I don't know enough about the field to make any assumptions about it, but I still don't believe random is possible. I read up the wiki page and the only random thing on there is that we can't find a time-pattern on a few wave-functions. Sounds like this field needs more research before it means anything.
On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random..
In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution.
and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other)
We are presuming that their experiences and memories are identical as well as the physical build up. Looks like body and mind are identical, no matter which theory we follow.
I never meant to say Quantum physics was or isn't randomness, just that those fields of study were the ones relating to randomness and that he should go look it up and read on it a bit.
I don't know enough about the field to make any assumptions about it, but I still don't believe random is possible. I read up the wiki page and the only random thing on there is that we can't find a time-pattern on a few wave-functions. Sounds like this field needs more research before it means anything.
oh i'm sorry, did i ask for further reading on the subject? pretty sure i asked for proof...
and
mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
that sure sounds like making assumptions about it. (i know it wasn't you but you backed it up)
On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random..
In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution.
and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other)
We are presuming that their experiences and memories are identical as well as the physical build up. Looks like body and mind are identical, no matter which theory we follow.
I never meant to say Quantum physics was or isn't randomness, just that those fields of study were the ones relating to randomness and that he should go look it up and read on it a bit.
I don't know enough about the field to make any assumptions about it, but I still don't believe random is possible. I read up the wiki page and the only random thing on there is that we can't find a time-pattern on a few wave-functions. Sounds like this field needs more research before it means anything.
then you dont know enough about dualistic theory of mind its about mind being a qualitatively different substance than body and somehow (mind-body problem) interacts with matter. In this theory mind is independent from materialistic processes (states of brain etc.) and therefore the clones wouldnt necessary mirror each other.
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.
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.
did i say it was how you phrased it that made me think it was an assumption? if i did i meant to say that it was you stating a fact that was an unproven assumption that made it sound like an assumption
bigbeau are you aware that unicorns exist?
see? just because you say it doesn't make it true either
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.
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.
'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.
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.
the coin flip could in principle be predicted - by applying complex measurements and calculations. The quantum effects nope
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.
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.
I'm sorry, I was not more clear. I was referring to something happening prior before entering the room, for example maybe you and your girlfriend broke up 10 minutes before you walked into the room. The clone would only have a memory of that instead of the feeling because he was just spawned. And to counter your argument about they wouldn't know which one is which, I think twins know who they are and don't mistake their twin for being them. I did not mean to say the clone is emotionless, but doesn't have a current emotion other then the adrenaline of a fight going.
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.
Effects on the quantum scale are truly random (altough stochastic - you can tell with what probability will happen a particular outcome, but unless you do the experiment, you cant really know which one it will be). This is the current state of our understanding of the workings of the universe)
if this is the physics of the fighting arena, it wouldnt be mirror match
Since you are perfect clones of each other (i.e. same physical and mental attributes), you would have the same exact thought processes
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."
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.
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.
exactly. 'Randomness should also not be confused with unpredictability'
Since you are perfect clones of each other (i.e. same physical and mental attributes), you would have the same exact thought processes
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."
DNA isnt everything. Identical twins arent truly identical because they get more and more different as they age.
The thread start posed the question with the idea that the clone is the exact same as you in every way possible. Anything else would make this discussion useless.
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.
In the middle of our divine eternal struggle to vanquish eachother we would simultaneously freeze up. Realising that if we worked together and found a way to create more clones of me we would be invincible in any teamgame ---> Become famous ---> and finaly, score a geneticly created 25 years younger Joan Jett as my lover.
On April 11 2011 20:11 Tschis wrote: Just because it's a clone it doesn't mean you'll have the same thought process.
That's like saying your thought process is already decided and all the thoughts you'll have in life are already pre-determined.
//tx
Yes you will, if you do not then it is not an excact clone. Your thoughts are not pre-determined, excactly what they are decided by is obviously somewhat hard to pinpoint but it is probably mainly influenced by your past (the clone has the excact same past\memory) your enviorment (clone has excact same enviorment) And genetics (clone has excact same genetics.)
D=?
Just because you're in the same environment and he is a clone, doesn't mean you'll do the same things. You're both looking at each other, now your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left.
Your thoughts aren't pre-determined. Your reactions could be the same if everything is the same, but just because the environtment is the same and you're both inside it, doesn't mean you'll act equally.
If he is looking to the right and you attack, he'll see the action happening in a different way you're seeing, so your actions won't be the same.
//tx
A circular environment is the same if both of you are standing at equal lengths to the center of the circle
Yes, I've affirmed they are the same in my post.
//tx
although i don't think the fight would be exactly mirrored by both clones, your logic of "your clone decides to look to the right while you can just decide to look to the left" is flawed, you said "Your thoughts aren't pre-determined" but you can't assume that you wouldn't both look to the right, that's just a wild statement, at best it would be a poor hypothesis
It isn't flawed just because I assumed something, in fact, it's much easier to have different actions being done than having equal mirroed actions, so it's more like assuming that both will do the exact same thing that is flawed. If you look a milimiter further than him, that could change the outcome of your perception and therefore the logic behind your actions.
//tx
I agree that such a difference would cause further differences. But that original difference in actions should never happen. Why would it? What would cause it? It has to begin somewhere, but there is nothing to cause it.
Humans can do stuff just because "they feel like it". It's random, or at least we don't fully understand it yet.
I don't need a particular reason to wonder around my room looking at everything just because I felt like doing so. But that doesn't mean that if a clone of mine were in the room, he'd be doing the same. Maybe he wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe he just felt like closing his eyes and wonder why the hell is a guy just like him looking around like an idiot =P
//tx
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
Not really.
So you're saying that if 2 clones are in 2 equal rooms, they'll be doing the exact same thing even if they're separated from each other?
This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. Just because they are equal it doesn't necessarely mean they'll be thinking about the same thing all the time. Random thoughts go through my mind when I'm at work, so basically you're saying that if there was a clone of mine in an environment equal to mine, he'd be thinking exactly the same random stuff?
That's not what "random" mean. I'm hungry, then I might think "How long has it been since I ate?", meanwhile my clone might not think the same, he could think "How long until I leave and eat again?". It's not just because he's the same as me that he will ask the same questions.
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.
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
This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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 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"
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.
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.
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 04:14 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.
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.
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 04:14 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.
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.
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 04:14 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.
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:
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.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
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.
did i say it was how you phrased it that made me think it was an assumption? if i did i meant to say that it was you stating a fact that was an unproven assumption that made it sound like an assumption
bigbeau are you aware that unicorns exist?
see? just because you say it doesn't make it true either
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?
On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote: mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist?
bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something.
Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random.
Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics
Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want.
please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random..
In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution.
and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other)
We are presuming that their experiences and memories are identical as well as the physical build up. Looks like body and mind are identical, no matter which theory we follow.
I never meant to say Quantum physics was or isn't randomness, just that those fields of study were the ones relating to randomness and that he should go look it up and read on it a bit.
I don't know enough about the field to make any assumptions about it, but I still don't believe random is possible. I read up the wiki page and the only random thing on there is that we can't find a time-pattern on a few wave-functions. Sounds like this field needs more research before it means anything.
oh i'm sorry, did i ask for further reading on the subject? pretty sure i asked for proof...
On April 12 2011 01:32 holynorth wrote: Wait.. So you are telling me that you acknowledge that the environment is perfectly symmetrical, a vacuum like the poster above mentioned, and that our two subjects are exactly identical, but there is still variance?
yes i'm acknowledging that we're in a perfectly symmetrical vacuum-like environment, i fucking read the OP unlike so many other of you dumb asses.
If they have the exact same thought when they throw a bunch, and are both identical in their physical build up, their punch will fail the same way.
no, i don't think there punch will fail(fall?) the same way because if i throw a punch at a punching bag twice in a row being as identical as possible in "physical build up"(?) the punches will still have wildly varying force, and i know that isn't proof itself because it's possible that it varies *only* because i just threw the last punch, but i don't believe that's the case and i think it would vary even if i went back in time and threw it again, and it's more evidence than you're giving.
On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote: As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting.
And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God).
You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way.
This would be a stalemate.
On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:
On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:
On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote: There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight.
Except that the room is the exact same in all positions...
I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time.
try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight.
Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up.
ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment
lawl.
How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables?
go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait.
back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?"
my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball.
Find what random variables? I'm saying they don't exist, you are the one creating them.
You are trying so hard to stretch this out to be correct. Sadly, however, you're still wrong. For the entire thread the idea has been a similar environment - this applies to you and the guy above you. There is no blinding sun. You are in an exact environment.
You are the exact same person in the exact same environment. Your brain, your organs, your fibers are going under the exact same stimulus and strain. If they were to randomly fire, they would fire at the exact same time.
Happy birthday Necrosaint.
mm good argument for a theoretical discussion, here let me try: you're wrong
see now i'm winning.
okay but seriously, let me try to explain this again. you stated "we are discussing a situation without random variables?" but how do we know there are no random variables? where did you read this? the OP said "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically"
my hypothesis is that "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically" will have random variation from you due to actions like punches and kicks being extremely difficult to throw in the exact way you want them to land.
you cannot discard that by saying "THE CLONE WILL HAVE NO RANDOM VARIATION THAT IS A FACT AND YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AND YOU ARE WRONG".
you can say "i believe the punches and kicks will land the exact same without fail because punches and kicks blah blah blah something something"
but if you're a philosophy major and you don't already know this then GL putting that degree to use
in fact, it seems like the ONLY thing i'm doing here is denying your shitty, terribly argument... so what are you doing here?
4 Gate vs. 4 Gate with a lot of back-and-forth in the middle ground until we eventually ran out of units and resources, in which case there would be a simultaneous probe all-in, which would meet in the middle in an epic micro battle. The last two probes would both have 5 HP and throw one last whack at each other and it'd be a draw...
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:
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.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory.
Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way.
If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?"
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
oh my god. now you are admitting we are right and you are wrong but you are still thinking you are right. you are assuming the OP said shit that he did not say. you are assuming that both the clone and original appeared simultaneously when he said that the clone appeared when the original entered the room. you are assuming the original didn't see the clone being created, whereas what the OP says actually infers the opposite.
Tschis is completely right when he says that you think the question is "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
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:
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.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory.
Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way.
If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct?
And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum.
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?"
I guess the answer is "yes", in this case.
//tx
No, there are several schools of thought and ideology that would disagree and say that they would not do the same thing in a vacuum because thought is not solely dependent on experience/environment.
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?"
I guess the answer is "yes", in this case.
//tx
yeah that's the question that holynorth thinks he is answering, not the question that was asked by the OP
anyway, i'm gonna let sharkspider continue fighting this fight, as he seems even more intelligent than me, unlike holynorth who is retarded on so many different levels.
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:
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.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory.
Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way.
If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct?
And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum.
Sorry, I'll clarify the use of proof a little. It is acceptable for a textbook to give a question that says "prove, using quantum mechanics, that no pencil can be created that stands on its end without falling over, indefinitely" (which is where I got the example), because it works under the assumption that the theory holds. You are free to question the theory, but not the results, and so far, results have implied strongly that mass fluxuates, so it is difficult to argue that mass does not fluxuate in the brain, or in pencils, etc. because proof techniques are used to extrapolate those results from the facts we accept.
So yes, I'll give that you can deny the current state of quantum theory and the accumulated results of all science performed on the topic and reach a situation where it's possible to have a "brain" function with no random elements. That being said, doing this would also assume, implicitly, that there is actually a function of age that determines radioactive decay, and that all studies on the matter have had the bad luck of observing this function in such a way that it appears to be going by a probability-based decay identical in every way to the poisson distribution in mathematics. In other words, not likely by anyone's standards.
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:
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.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory.
Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way.
If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct?
And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum.
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote: I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?"
I guess the answer is "yes", in this case.
//tx
No, there are several schools of thought and ideology that would disagree and say that they would not do the same thing in a vacuum because thought is not solely dependent on experience/environment.
I've been trying to say all along that maybe there's more than experience environment involved and I'm being denied every single thing that I say.
Then at the end you make exactly the same point I tried to make...
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:
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.
I find this pretty interesting.
But I still don't see where this randomness comes from?
It seems like people are saying "We can't predict it, so it's random", but all we know is that "we can't predict it" and with that knowledge it seems more reasonable to assume that we don't have the correct tools or understanding to do so than to start drawing conclusions about new phenomenon. In order to say it is random one would also have to disregard causality, even if only for certain circumstances, and I don't think some unreliable measurements warrants a conclusion that cause and effect are no longer in play.
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:
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.
I find this pretty interesting.
But I still don't see where this randomness comes from?
It seems like people are saying "We can't predict it, so it's random", but all we know is that "we can't predict it" and with that knowledge it seems more reasonable to assume that we don't have the correct tools or understanding to do so than to start drawing conclusions about new phenomenon. In order to say it is random one would also have to disregard causality, even if only for certain circumstances, and I don't think some unreliable measurements warrants a conclusion that cause and effect are no longer in play.
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.
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:
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.
I find this pretty interesting.
But I still don't see where this randomness comes from?
It seems like people are saying "We can't predict it, so it's random", but all we know is that "we can't predict it" and with that knowledge it seems more reasonable to assume that we don't have the correct tools or understanding to do so than to start drawing conclusions about new phenomenon. In order to say it is random one would also have to disregard causality, even if only for certain circumstances, and I don't think some unreliable measurements warrants a conclusion that cause and effect are no longer in play.
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.
this is why i didnt wanna argue about quantum mechanics, i dont know very much about it, but it seems that since they cant explain the causation of it, it must be random.
Aaa this thread makes my head explode. It basically comes down to 3 things.
a) There is some sort of super natural interference/source that is not can not be cloned like the soul or god tells you how to beat the clone since cloning people breaks with god principles or some shit (though religion\supernatural things have no place in this.
b) Things are not random and its a mirror fight.
c) There is some truely random shit going on down at the atomic levels which eventually will cause the fight to differenciate.
A lot of people (like over 50% of people a lot.) Seem to completlly ignore what is written in the op, which says it is a perfect clone and a perfect enviorment, and go on about how the clone or the enviorment would be different. This is not what the thread is about, if you are going to say anything about the clone or the enviorment being different then you have already failed to answer what OP is asking.
One example that is similar in some ways that I already mentioned is time travel, if I am observing you from a completply sealed of space, and you are asked to pick a number between 1 and 100, which you do. If I then travel back in time to observe this again, and again and again. If your decision was truly random then you would choose a different number each time, but in my opinion the decision is based on a bajillion little things that we have no chance of seeing or reasoning out, so it may be percieved as random, but given the excact same person under the excact same circumstances the outcome will be the same every time.
Going back to b vs c,though which is what this argumenet/situation is about, there is really no way we can know this and it all becomes guesstiomation. If I had to guesstimate i say nothing is random, everything has a cause somewhere some how some way. You can go back 100 years, and look at things we could not explain then, and therefor they were random, but now science can tell us how these things occur, and I am sure 100 years in the future, many things in quantym physics\on atomic levels, that we now think of as random, will in the future have explenations. Anything we at the moment do not have an answer for at the moment CAN be labeled as random, since we don't know, but there could always be factors involved that we are not aware of. So you would never be able to 100% prove that something is random.
Edit: Can we come to the conclussion that anyone ignoring the sub atomic levels of randomness are in the wrong, or atleast not takling all information into account, and therefor their answers are less than trustworthy. Wheras when you take the possibility of atomiclevel randomnes into account then it basically comes down to that and it is impossible for us to know wether it is truly random or not with our current knowledge of science. So unless someone plans on doing some 4serious experiments on some random electrons, Can we say that this is case closed and leave this thread to die now so my brain can rest?
It's cute to see people arguing and discussing very seriously about such a dumb question.
It's such a good thread to talk lightly and make jokes, but seriously, just the presuppositions are so loosy and make so little sense that it's just absurd to try to answer properly.
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.
I wouldn't say I disregard this. I find it quite fascinating.
For the clone, this seems to mean that as long as we observe the fight then it would be a mirror match. And if we blink it favour one or the other due to randomness.
But I mean, if something is causative it can't be random. The experiment you are talking about pretty much demonstrates my first argument about "can't predict -> it's random". If you shoot them one at a time and they diffract then the first thought must have been: what is making them diffract in this scenario but not the second one? The fact that the experiment can be replicated seems to make this question even more relevant and not less, and the ability to predict events in probabilities leads me to think "what kind of measurement would we need to skip the uncertainty?" instead of "it's random".
I'm guessing there is a lot of math behind it all that supports the theory. Still it seems plausible that there is some variable in play that just isn't known. I don't see a deterministic universe and quantum mechanics both existing, which is strange because the view that cause->effect is so central in natural sciences. For both to exist it would have to mean that these microscopic random events have 0 impact on anything in order to not interfere with events (the true mirror clone match?), or they would all need to cancel each other out (in which case they aren't really random) and I don't see how that is possible.
But I am still sort of interested. I don't really see how it "fundamentally changes the way we see things work, and not in the sense that putting a thermometer in your mouth slightly changes your temperature.".
This is actually intriguing to a high extent. I think that it is possible that the two would make a different choice some time in the fight, I'm sure, but I think the OP is right that the clone would be doing the exact same thing. But what if one accidentally tripped, while the other didn't?
I'd just keep my distance from my clone and then beat the shit outta myself. The clone should do the exact same thing. I'd just keep doing this until he dies, and I win!
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 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
I thought your clone would be the exact SAME as you, not the other way around.
Well if we where cloned at birth, and raised in different homes until our duel to the death, it would be the same as fight anyone else. If I fought a clone that is only a few weeks old would win because the clone is still an infant :D
I'm fairly sure I would enter the room and see my clone, and my clone would see myself. We would both come to the conclusion that the person in front of them is perfect in every way and then proceed to make sweet sweet love.
..
*Ahem* Erm.. I mean I would win the fight obviously.
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.
the guy i would have paid BEFORE the event would shoot my clone from the outside you might say it's thinking outside of the "box"
we would stare at eachother with our "aggressive tough guy face" for 10 mins then we would both laugh, high five, and begin working on our schedule figuring out who would attend class/work on what days. Then we would spend the next 15 mins telling eachother how awsome the other is.
I'd lose to my clone... I'd be so shocked at seeing him, then surprised that I was "that" strong and get totally manhandled. (I weight 89KG, 1.71m Tall, Rugby player, can't fight and won't fight though)
I don't think we'd make the exact same moves. Think about it - if you fought someone twice, would you make the exact same moves every time? Of course not.
There's absolutely no reason why my clone and I would fight the exact same way, because I wouldn't always fight in the same method.
Apart from that though, as my clone and I would be of literally the exact same strength and proficiency, the fight would be impossible to predict. But because I'm the good guy, I'm sure I'd win in the end.
EDIT: Actually, for us to be fighting, wouldn't one of us have to be the 'evil' clone? In that case the evil one would win 'cause he'd fight dirty. =P
I'd laugh at him because hes the fake one and I'm not, and he would be the one crying and telling his mom all about it.
I don't do that. I swear.
Actually we would be duking it out pretty good until we both get purple spots, then laugh it off on the way to the bar. We would be great wingmen for eachother!
I guess it just depends on what you believe. If you think all behavior is just reaction to physical stimuli then it would be an awkward symetrical fight. However I believe in free will which i think would cause differences in the fight. Also your on different sides of the room so not everything is exactly the same there could be the tiniest difference in air temperature or pressure or w/e so things could change.
I think that scence im very reationary i would not fight and wait for him to move, there for we would he would do the same, also i would want to play him in sc2 so we had a super epic game.
We would both prolly unintentionally make a "6th Day" quote and then giggle uncontrollably.
Edit: On second thought: If I walked to the left of the room, and my clone did as well... we'd be circle and assuming he'd do the same thing I did, I would try to stop the flow of my opponent... We would be in different positions then each other and we would be coming at each other at different angles.
I think it would happen the initial way I expected though... My brain hurts now.
we are both on the EXACT SAME starting conditions?
it doesnt matter. your idea that we'd do the exact same moves/exact same time would work if we were in separate but identical rooms with same starting conditions.
but here you're facing a.. oh
i see what you mean.
coz if i move to right punch, he's starting conditions = same, so thought processes at exact same place and he moves to right punch, but sees me doing the same/i see him doing the same.
okay well then. it'd be an unwinnable fight, unless you both go for akill move. =)
We would know that its time to team up and mess with every person that has troubled me. Also we would enjoy a ton of 2v2 knowing what strats we both going.
I wouldn't fight me, i'd walk up to me and go "is this a mirror?" and upon learning it's real, i'd chat for a bit, until i realised it's just me, get bored at being unable to find out anything new or interesting i don't already know and leave promptly.
One can always do something making the other not able to do the same move. e.g. if you try to grab his right arm and he tries to grab yours, this will force a different situation for one of them. One arm might be under the other one or any number of possibilities that will create a non symmetrical chain of events.
You would never be able to make any different move, your experience could not be different in any way, never ever.
If it was, then either the clone was not truly identical to you or your respective environments were not identical.
The only exception could happen, when both of you had an objectively random reaction to an event. Key word here, is objectively - meaning that the reaction is truly random from a perspective of perfect, faultless perception, not human perception, provided that the objectively random reaction or event is possible in this world.
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.
Even though the room lacks stimuli it is there in form of your clone. Just because you are a clone doesn't mean you are similar in every way. Maybe he haven't eaten breakfest while you did, which effect your mindset. Even the slighest change will eventually lead to altered behaviour. The only event where you would mirror each other exactly would be if he were similar to you in every single way, down to the last molecule (which is something else than a clone). So basically I'm on your friends side.
Rejoice at finally having someone that doesn't suck to play the games I'm interested in with? Co-op games can be fun, unless the person/people you're playing with are at vastly different skill levels. And of course having twice the manpower for other tasks in life.
Far too lazy to actually fight myself. Too much work/effort required for little to no reward.
The movie "The Prestige" has some mildly interesting relevance to the topic. (spooooiiilllleeeerrr)
On April 27 2011 23:54 UFO wrote: You would never be able to make any different move, your experience could not be different in any way, never ever.
If it was, then either the clone was not truly identical to you or your respective environments were not identical.
The only exception could happen, when both of you had an objectively random reaction to an event. Key word here, is objectively - meaning that the reaction is truly random from a perspective of perfect, faultless perception, not human perception, provided that the objectively random reaction or event is possible in this world.
I agree and this would mean you couldn't break the cycle ever, unless you got a true random generator. You mention that you're not sure if there is anything in the universe objectively random, there is as far as human science know only one. That is subatomic particles, the current theory of quantum physics is in part based on subatomic particles moving in a truly random fashion and as far as human science can tell every single other action in the universe is deterministic or based on a previous action and so not random. So to break this cycle you would need random generators based on subatomic particles. (An interesting but unrelated point is that no matter how much of the universe is deterministic or not you can prove that free will is impossible because actions have to be either random or set in stone responses, but that's for another thread)
Since the head focus of teamliquid is starcraft 2 I want to make an example with that.
We all know that even zealots hitting each other both cannot be killed, so in other way I think either me or the clone will come out on top. Whoever get's the first hit.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.zeldawiki.org/images/d/d2/Dark_Link_OoT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0ZuVJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.dweebist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/epic-fight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://warmowski.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/slapfight.jpg)
You'll both do different things regardless of being clones.
