observation determins reality

[uruk]

quote:
I don't mind you joking around but you should not use it to hide the fact that you are wrong .
quote:

I've already cried uncle. I agree, there really is no free will, which kind of brings up a rather interesting notion. The future can be
predicted if you could factor in all pertainent variables. Of course
that would require an unbelievably fast computer with a humungus amount of memory. And I would not want to be the programer and the theoretical mathmetician who would have to dream up that algorithim.
I wonder if that would qualify for the million dollar challenge?

Quote:
But if this is the source of free will, you need to show how flipping a coin is free will.
Quote:

Again, I agree. the flipping of a coin is not truely random.
some of the determining factors would be, the mass and surface area of the coin, the initial condition of the coin (heads up or tails up at the start of flipping), the force and angle at which the coin thrown into the air, the surrounding air density, temp and humidity, the local gravitational field density..etc.
I bet if there was someone outthere with nothing better to do
and strong sense of masochisim, they could probably write a program that could predict the flipping of a coin.

Another interesting notion is that ,if all action in the universe (including human action) is determined by physical laws, doesn't that kind of imply (hypotheticaly) a predetermined plan or "will" initiated by whatever it was that "setup" those laws?

I agree when scientists say that the idea of a theistic creation is a copout, but so is the explination "well, that's just the way things are." There has to be something. Not necessarily a god but maybe something yet unimagined or undiscovered. (a dreamer perhaps? )

The explination that existance "has always been" is also a copout.

Then again, that perception could also be just a result of the physical laws for this existance. All determined by the interaction
of those laws. Hmmmm. I feel as dispondant as a lemming.

Oh yea. A now moldering dead guy once said "many a truth was said in jest." or was it "Wit is the brevity of poor yorik's cod piece"? I can't remember.

P.S. I'll get back to you about the lemmings.

 

[swstephe]

reverse turing test?

I guess I should lighten up about "free will". There are actually to cases for "free will". One, which is that your "will", (volition, ability to choose), is "free", (completely independent of outisde influence). But some, like Hobbes and Humes, cop out and say "free" means "can use reason to select a choice independent of outside forces", but acknowledges that "reason" is determenistic.

There is a test I saw a number of years ago. There is one of many versions at http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/six.html
Basically, it shows that 98% of people thinking about "6" will be more likely to think of "carrot" as an example of a vegetable than other vegetables. Being the type of guy I am, I wanted to experiment further. I recalled the "Whorf Hypothesis", (that language shapes the mind), so I tried the test on a maid that only spoke Indonesian and a little Arabic, but no English. She chose "carrot" too, which was interesting because there is no distinct word for "carrot" in her language. They call it "red turnip", so I wondered why she didn't pick "turnip".

Back in the 50's, Alan Turing came up with the "Turing Test" to determine if computers could think. It was probably just a way to show off to friends, not something serious, but others took it serious enough that there is now an official prize for whoever scores the best. The Turing test tries to determine if a computer can think by simply having a human have a conversation with it. If the human couldn't tell if the one they were chatting with was a human or a computer, then it was considered "thinking". This test had to be tuned down quite a bit because, as it turns out, humans are really easily fooled. If a person can see a puppy in a cloud or mother theresa in a croisant, they can see some hidden thinking or design behind determinstically generated phrases.

I wonder if there could be a "reverse Turing test". One in which a computer tries to detect whether it is talking to another computer, (which is deterministic), or a human being, (assuming they have free will). Being a software engineer, I know it is definitely possible, but it might be a bit taxing on the human. You would have to do a lot of testing in order to establish a pattern and compare it against random values. The human will would then have a goal of consistently avoiding the computer's prediction which means the human would have to outsmart the computer frequently enough to discount randomness.

 

[uruk]

hi
Quote:
The Turing test tries to determine if a computer can think by simply having a human have a conversation with it. If the human couldn't tell if the one they were chatting with was a human or a computer, then it was considered "thinking".
Quote:

I guess this goes along with the idea that if the illusion is convincing enough then it is indistiguishable from reality and therefore just as valid as a reality. Matrix, anyone?

I was thinking that the mechinizim of choice may be related to what we call inspiration and creativity. Sometimes, in art, creativity and inspiration is the unusual or unpresidented combination or juxtaposition of disparate elements. Take for instance, Pablo Picasso. He took a bicycle seat and handle bars
and arranged them in such a way that resembled a bulls head.

An art critic remarked that his child could have done the same thing, to which he answered "yes, but I did it first!"

But that is also drivin by outside influences. Optical stimulation,
and pattern recognition combined with memory and cultural upbringing. Hmmmm...Oh well, I thought I had an idea there.

 

[swstephe]

The future can be
predicted if you could factor in all pertainent variables. Of course
that would require an unbelievably fast computer with a humungus amount of memory. And I would not want to be the programer and the theoretical mathmetician who would have to dream up that algorithim.
I wonder if that would qualify for the million dollar challenge?

The computer isn't the problem. That part is actually feasible. That is, it is feasible to build a computer that could predict the future accurately enough for general use. It wouldn't have to be fast or with "lots" of memory. The problem is the input. The computer has to know the state of every major causul factor. In chaos theory, they say that you could accurately predict the weather if you placed a sensor at every square inch of air in the general vicinity.

It wouldn't satisfy the JREF challenge because, at its core, the phenomenon would have to be deterministic, but unexplainable by any natural means, (supernatural). A computer clearly qualifies as a natural cause for being able to predict the future. However, it is possible to cheat ... simply discover a brand new physical natural process, claim it is supernatural, and hope nobody figures out the process before you have a chance to spend all the money and get out of town. That is more like Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", (but there are problems with that one two).

Quote: (After Fingle, (Raul Julia), and his doppleganger Rick are transformed into electrons within the computer simulation):
Appolonia: "But electrons don't dance or make love".
Crow T. Robot: "They're Lutherans?"
Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank".

 

[BillyJoe]

uruk,

I've already cried uncle. I agree, there really is no free will, which kind of brings up a rather interesting notion. The future can be predicted if you could factor in all pertainent variables.

You don't think quantum effects might "leak through" to the macroscopic level to prevent complete predictability.

Of course that would require an unbelievably fast computer with a humungus amount of memory. And I would not want to be the programer and the theoretical mathmetician who would have to dream up that algorithim.

Yeah "The Matrix" is possible in principle but impossible in practice.

I wonder if that would qualify for the million dollar challenge?

Well, I don't think it would break any physical laws do you? In any case Randi, all of us, our decendants, the world and the universe would all be long gone before you finished.

Again, I agree. the flipping of a coin is not truely random.
some of the determining factors would be, the mass and surface area of the coin, the initial condition of the coin (heads up or tails up at the start of flipping), the force and angle at which the coin thrown into the air, the surrounding air density, temp and humidity, the local gravitational field density..etc.
I bet if there was someone outthere with nothing better to do
and strong sense of masochisim, they could probably write a program that could predict the flipping of a coin.

Sorry, I forgot the quotation marks. By "flipping of the coin" I meant "random chance".
How does a random event qualify as a mechanism of free will?

Another interesting notion is that ,if all action in the universe (including human action) is determined by physical laws, doesn't that kind of imply (hypotheticaly) a predetermined plan or "will" initiated by whatever it was that "setup" those laws?

I don't think it is "implied". It is one possible explanation but one which requires a massive explanation of its own.......

I agree when scientists say that the idea of a theistic creation is a copout, but so is the explination "well, that's just the way things are." There has to be something. Not necessarily a god but maybe something yet unimagined or undiscovered. (a dreamer perhaps? )

Well, I think scientist do not say "well, that's just the way things are." but rather "we do not know the answer to that one" and some will add "yet" onto the end of that sentence. So, yes, it could be something as yet unimagined. But a "dreamer"? Where would this "dreamer" come from? Seems to me you have as big a problem with your "dreamer" as theists have with their "God".

The explination that existance "has always been" is also a copout.

Perhaps I agree but then I wonder if "It has always been" is any more difficult an idea to understand as "It was created out of nothing"

Then again, that perception could also be just a result of the physical laws for this existance. All determined by the interaction
of those laws. Hmmmm. I feel as dispondant as a lemming.

That lemming is okay, uruk, so I guess you are safe also.

Oh yea. A now moldering dead guy once said "many a truth was said in jest."or was it "Wit is the brevity of poor yorik's cod piece"? I can't remember.

I may just be knackered from a day out with the kids but....it sounds clever but could you expand on this a bit.

P.S. I'll get back to you about the lemmings.

White Wilderness

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[uruk]

Hi all.

You don't think quantum effects might "leak through" to the macroscopic level to prevent complete predictability.

True, but in the case of weathercasting, marketing, and the macroscopic world in general, close enough is good enough.

Well, I don't think it would break any physical laws do you? In any case Randi, all of us, our decendants, the world and the universe would all be long gone before you finished.

It wouldn't satisfy the JREF challenge because, at its core, the phenomenon would have to be deterministic, but unexplainable by any natural means, (supernatural). A computer clearly qualifies as a natural cause for being able to predict the future.

Well, if someone were to actually be able to read minds, predict
the future, talk to dead people,...etc., that would mean that there would be some as yet undiscovered physical process or law that would account for this ability and thus, technically, not break any laws.

I agree, as swstephe pointed out the massive amount of input
required to predict an event would make the whole venture impractical.

Sorry, I forgot the quotation marks. By "flipping of the coin" I meant "random chance".

Well, lets go a step further and define "random". Is there
anything in this existance that is truly random. Who knows that
at some point in the future when our computational power has increased enough that we may finally discover a repeating pattern
in Pi. Carl Sagan used this idea in his book "Contact" (that part never made it to the movie). In electronics, specificaly the random number generator in slot machines, the logic circuit which generates random numbers isn't truely random it just uses an hard wired algorithim that is "random enough" for practical pourposes. that is also true for the "random" command in programing.

I don't think it is "implied". It is one possible explanation but one which requires a massive explanation of its own.......

I stand corrected.

Well, I think scientist do not say "well, that's just the way things are." but rather "we do not know the answer to that one" and some will add "yet" onto the end of that sentence. So, yes, it could be something as yet unimagined. But a "dreamer"? Where would this "dreamer" come from? Seems to me you have as big a problem with your "dreamer" as theists have with their "God".

Well, maybe it was the instructor I had a discussion with when I pressed the point. I agree that a good scientist will say "we just don't know enough about that yet", but I guess ego gets in the way sometimes.
So, my dreamer hypothisis is no more or less valid than the big guy with a beard concept. nice

may just be knackered from a day out with the kids but....it sounds clever but could you expand on this a bit.

Sure, no problem. For the first part, look up politcal satire or satire in general. In ancient times jesters were able to tell the kings things (usually the truth) that would get other courtiers killed, mainly because they surgar coated it in humor.

For the second part see Hamlet by Willie Shakespear.

stay tuned for my rebuttal on the lemming issue!

 

[BillyJoe]

uruk,

First of all, congratulations on mastering one of the quote functions.

Well, lets go a step further and define "random". Is there
anything in this existance that is truly random. Who knows that
at some point in the future when our computational power has increased enough that we may finally discover a repeating pattern
in Pi. Carl Sagan used this idea in his book "Contact" (that part never made it to the movie). In electronics, specificaly the random number generator in slot machines, the logic circuit which generates random numbers isn't truely random it just uses an hard wired algorithim that is "random enough" for practical pourposes. that is also true for the "random" command in programing.

Well, actually, quantum events are truely random.

Consider radioactive decay. On the macroscopic level it is predictable that half of the substance will decay in a certain time. At the microscopic level it is truely random when a particular atom will decay. There are no "hidden variables" as in your "random number generator" that determine the time of decay of a particular atom

. I agree that a good scientist will say "we just don't know enough about that yet", but I guess ego gets in the way sometimes.

Yes, the good scientist hopefully will be good enough to guard against this.

So, my dreamer hypothisis is no more or less valid than the big guy with a beard concept. nice

No. So throw him out and trample him underfoot as you march bravely on into the unknown future.

many regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[uruk]

Hi BillyJoe

First of all, congratulations on mastering one of the quote functions.

Thanks, I am a bit dense sometimes

Well, actually, quantum events are truely random.

Well, true for now, But who knows that at some time when our understanding has progresses enough. the things we hold now as immutable my be turned on it's ear. It's happened before.

But of course this is speculation. but speculation with history.

One of the ideas of Chaos theory is that underlying a seemingly complex, and random system is a simple fundamental element.
Take for instance the bifurcation equation: "take a line and split
in two a short distance down the line". Iterate this for a time and
soon you get a chaotic and seemingly random system.

Who knows, Maybe Herr Hiesenberg and Herr Plank may get thier comeuppance.

 

[BillyJoe]

uruk,

I think Bell's Inequality and Aspect's experiment
demonstrating its violation at the quantum level
put an end to the possibility of local hidden variables.

BillyJoe

The lemming lives on.
(Hmmm.... not sure why this picture didn't work?.....)

 

[uruk]

Hello, BillyJoe

I think Bell's Inequality and Aspect's experiment demonstrating its violation at the quantum level put an end to the possibility of local hidden variables.

Whenever it comes to talk of absolute knowledge, I'm reminded of a recent shock-umentary on the Discovery channel.
A shark reasercher, While standing amoungst a school of Bullsharks, Confidently stated to the host that they were safe
as long as they didn't move. After which a shark took a nasty
bite out of his leg. We should never be so over confident of our knowledge.

We don't yet know how far down the quantum level goes.
Atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, gluons, leptons, Bosons, superstrings, quantum foam, etc.
"Turtles all the way down" was the metaphor I believe

Again, refering back to the recent issue of Scientific American; "But the vicissitudes of a century of revelations in physics warn us not to be dogmatic."

AND winding all the way back to the discussion that spawned this
thread. The answers you get depends on the questions you ask.
And science is all about the questions.

Science thought that black holes emitted no radiation at all untill someone asked "well, what happens to virtual particle pair production at the event horizon?"

Lemming rebuttal coming soon!

 

[NoDeity]

Science thought that black holes emitted no radiation at all untill someone asked "well, what happens to virtual particle pair production at the event horizon?"

What a marvelous question! Is there someplace I can read more about that without needing to first earn a PhD?

 

[BillyJoe]

uruk,

I agree with your last post and well said.

All our positions are provisional, but we must have a position so
that we are not waylaid by every piece of nonsense that comes
around but we must also not be so entrenched in our positions
that we fail to see the possibility of moving on to better positions.

And, yes, never stop asking questions.

BillyJoe.
(waiting for the lemmings )

 

[uruk]

hello

What a marvelous question! Is there someplace I can read more about that without needing to first earn a PhD?

Read one of the books by Stephen Hawking (Brief history of time, Universe in a nut shell, also try Black holes & time warps by Kip Thorne.). Hawking was the one that asked that particular question. Turns out that black holes maybe "evaporating" too!

 

[BillyJoe]

.....and the lemmings?

 

[uruk]

almost here. It's taking a little longer than I had anticipated to collect the necessisary data. Plus Lemmings are little hard to wrangle when all they do is mope and whine all day.

Oh, and Lemmings do not emitt hawking radiation or evaporate
although thier urine does YEEEECCCCCHHHH!!!!

 

[uruk]

oops, anybody know how to post a picture on this forum?

Untill I figure that out, for those who want to see my rebuttal to the dreaded Lemming issue.

Please visit : http://briefcase.yahoo.com/mathewottoman
the login is: mathewottoman; the password is: enkidu
go to "my folder" and download the file lemming.jpg

The truth, as you an plainly see, is in this totally unmanufactured and unedited scan of the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[BillyJoe]

The image function doesn't work on this but here is a direct link.....

If you think this is proof uruk, then you are backward

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[uruk]

Bad news folks!
I recieved a cease and desist order from the lemmings and their
weasel lawyers. No, really, their lawyers really ARE weasels in Armani suites. (They're REALLY cute! but bastards!)

Apparently there is a Lemming Anti-Defamation League. Who knew!

The writ states," The party of the second part (our clients)
have suffered enough emotional turmoil in past history and are
entitled to piece of mind and any resititution in civil action for any libel or slander. Additionally if anymore of them commit suicide there wont be enough of them left to fufill their monetary responsibility to us."

Oh well, All good things must come to an end.

they didn't give me a choice!

 

[BillyJoe]

Thanks for the tardy reply kuru.

best regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I can be good without being evil or being around an evil person...