Regarding Franko...

[Franko]

Mordred:

Franko:
Do you agree with Trixy that selecting a card at random from a deck occurs “beyond the scope or influence of TLOP”?

Mordred:
I don't agree with that statement...of course that is a misrepresentation of his position

How is it a misrepresentation exactly? Here is exactly what he said?

Franko:
When a person selects a "random" card, does TLOP decide what card they get, or does the person selecting use "magic free will powers"? ... or does the card itself "decide" to be selected?
Trixy:
The person uses their free will to choose.

So do you agree with Tricky or not Mordred?

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Hence saying that events that happen one after the other is not the same as playing them twice

Great. Where did I ever say they were the same thing? hmmmm...seems I didn't...

Im looking at the logic behind it.
You dont have to seriously if you really dont want too
haha

Did you not bother to read that whole discussion about logic, assumptions, observation, and empiricism? Reading the whole thread is usually a good idea. So I ask you...if while applying a system of logic to our observations of the universe, the logic contradicts our observations...which one should we believe? How we actually observe the universe behaving? Or what we conclude it should behave like based on a synthetic system which includes assumptions which are not necessarily true?

It's ok for TLOP to control you but is less conscious than you.
Youre on a fire...

The laws of physics do not control me. The term control implies conscious action. Using it in the way you have makes your argument circular. This was also covered elsewhere.

Einstein's Nobel was for?

 

[Mordred]

So do you agree with Tricky or not Mordred?

I do not support his position, as I have no reason to believe in free will. However, I also do not support your position that the universe is deterministic. Asking me to choose between the two would be a false dilemma.

 

[wraith]

That assumes determinism...which is exactly what the whole scenario was supposed to prove. I'm afraid if you actually apply quantum mechanics to this situation, the initial conditions can be 100% identical, and the outcomes can still be different.

So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

 

[Mordred]

So why are you saying that if you wound back time, the outcome WILL be the same?

It had to do with the WAY in which it was originally stated. I asked for clarification on this point, but it was never given. Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event. How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has. If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Great. Where did I ever say they were the same thing? hmmmm...seems I didn't...[/B]

“It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.”

Did you not bother to read that whole discussion about logic, assumptions, observation, and empiricism? Reading the whole thread is usually a good idea. So I ask you...if while applying a system of logic to our observations of the universe, the logic contradicts our observations...which one should we believe? How we actually observe the universe behaving? Or what we conclude it should behave like based on a synthetic system which includes assumptions which are not necessarily true?

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment

The laws of physics do not control me. The term control implies conscious action. Using it in the way you have makes your argument circular. This was also covered elsewhere.

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Einstein's Nobel was for?

Youre asking me because......
lol

 

[wraith]

Are we rewinding time and then playing it forward back to the original point (a kind of instant replay)

Yes

...or are we merely going back to a known set of initial conditions and letting things play out as a unique event.

Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.

How things will play out will be dependent on which of these things the whole "rewind" scenario is actually referring to. If we are just playing back an event that has already happened...it will of course happen as it already has.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?

If we are traveling back to a point with known initial conditions, and letting the universe evolve forward from that point, then the exact same outcome is not gauranteed.

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

 

[Franko]

You are all over him Sorcerer ...

 

[CWL]

Einstein's nobel prize? Anyone? Perhaps Franko or his young Sorcerer would care to guess?

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

“It is precisely the same thing that you are trying to pass your whole "rewind" thought experiment off as. The events are identical in every physical sense, yet they yield different outcomes.”

That was in reference to my thought experiment involving two identical universes with identical initial conditions. It had nothing to do with two events happening one after the other.

Well, take a stance, then we will talk. Im getting mumbo-jumbo talk from you at the moment

I took a stance when the topic was originally brought up, by me. If you bothered to read the thread you are posting in you might have noticed this. It is my opinion that when our system of logic contradicts our observations of the universe, and we have no reason to believe that our observations are incorrect, we must conclude that our system of logic is flawed as far as applying it to the universe. I even busted out a quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

You wouldn't want to go and disagree with Einstein eh? What did he win his Nobel for again?

Of course not! You control TLOP. Im not real. Everyone is controlled by you. YOU is all that there is....

Show me exactly where any of my statements imply this conclusion in any way or shut the hell up about it.

Youre asking me because......
lol

I'll settle for an answer from either one of your personalities. It isn't a difficult question.

 

[Mordred]

Doesnt matter. If you say that if you had the EXACT same conditions as you had in the replay, then the outcome will be the same. If you say that the outcome will be different, then the outcome in the replay has the potential to also be different.

No, and here is why...something that I have stated repeatedly and you have apparently not picked up on. In the replay scenario...the event has ALREADY HAPPENED. If something has already happened, can it happen differently? This is why I asked for clarification as to the specifics of this scenario and suggested an alternate which was less temporally ambiguous so to say.

Why is that?
Is it because the conditions are exactly the same?

No, it's because the event has already happened.

Why is that?
Were the conditions exactly the same?

Yes. I defined them as exactly the same at the outset of my little thought experiment. Yet if we apply quantum mechanics in this scenario, the outcomes will not necessarily be the same. There will likely be a decent chance that they will...but there will also be some nonzero chance that they won't...and the farther away from the initial conditions we get, the more likely it becomes.

 

[wraith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

That was in reference to my thought experiment involving two identical universes with identical initial conditions. It had nothing to do with two events happening one after the other.[/B]

In other words, if you went back in time and pressed play (having the exact same coditions) you and I say that it WILL yield the same outcome.

Then you say that if you had identical conditions (im assuming that you mean 100% exect conditions) REGARDLESS of when it happened, it's possible to get a different result. ie if you had the EXACT same conditions for both events, regardless of when they were performed (have them be performed one after the other if you want) it is possible to have different outcomes.

I ask again

which one is it?

I took a stance when the topic was originally brought up, by me. If you bothered to read the thread you are posting in you might have noticed this. It is my opinion that when our system of logic contradicts our observations of the universe, and we have no reason to believe that our observations are incorrect, we must conclude that our system of logic is flawed as far as applying it to the universe.

Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment

Then change your logic

I even busted out a quote...

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

You wouldn't want to go and disagree with Einstein eh? What did he win his Nobel for again?

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it?

Think he won the prize for baking a cake...not sure on that one though....

Show me exactly where any of my statements imply this conclusion in any way or shut the hell up about it.

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget
"TLOP does not control me"

I'll settle for an answer from either one of your personalities. It isn't a difficult question.

eh
I only have one personality that I am aware of...
muhahaha

 

[wraith]

No, and here is why...something that I have stated repeatedly and you have apparently not picked up on. In the replay scenario...the event has ALREADY HAPPENED. If something has already happened, can it happen differently? This is why I asked for clarification as to the specifics of this scenario and suggested an alternate which was less temporally ambiguous so to say.[/B]

Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?

No, it's because the event has already happened.

Translation: It had the exact same conditions, but I dont want to admit it.

Yes. I defined them as exactly the same at the outset of my little thought experiment. Yet if we apply quantum mechanics in this scenario, the outcomes will not necessarily be the same. There will likely be a decent chance that they will...but there will also be some nonzero chance that they won't...and the farther away from the initial conditions we get, the more likely it becomes.

So in saying this, how can you say that the replay will be the same?
The best that you can say is that "it already happened."

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"

 

[Yahzi]

An electron for instance can be both spin up and spin down at the same time (it's spin state is both A and ~A).

But can an electron be both spin up and NOT spin up?

No?

Then there is no contradiction with the law of negation.

~Up != Down. Up is the opposite of down, not the negation.

 

[BillyJoe]

LET'S FORGET THE REPLAY SCENARIO.


Take two identical universes, Universe A and Universe B
Let Universe A play itself out.
Let Universe B play itself out.
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?


Mordred says......
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out DIFFERENTLY.
The reason being that TLOP are PROBABILISTIC.

Wraith says.....
Universe A and Universe B play themselves out IDENTICALLY.
The reason being that TLOP are DETERMINISTIC.


Who is correct?
Quantum theory says that TLOP are probabilistic which seems to suggest that Mordred is correct.
However, may I hazard a guess that Wraith in buying into Einstein's original suggestion that there must be something beyond quantum mechanics that determines what the probabilistic outcomes of quantum theory will be.


How am I going wraith?
BillyJoe.

 

[CWL]

However, may I hazard a guess that Wraith in buying into Einstein's original suggestion that there must be something beyond quantum mechanics that determines what the probabilistic outcomes of quantum theory will be.

Well, Einstein didn't like the idea of God playing dice either so that's an educated guess.

If your guess is correct and Wraith is into Einstein, perhaps he would venture a guess as to what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for?

 

[BillyJoe]

If your guess is correct and Wraith is into Einstein, perhaps he would venture a guess as to what Einstein won his Nobel Prize for?

I think everyone must know the answer to that by now.
The question is who didn't need to look up the internet for the answer?

BillyJoe.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

And it wasn't the theory of relativity...

 

[Mordred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: QUANTUM PROBABILITIES

Na, youre still in jumbo-land at the moment

Then change your logic

Then go back and actually read the exchange between whitefork and myself regarding alternate systems of logic. Perhaps even bother to glance at the link that whitefork provided. Would it not be arrogant to presume that the universe MUST adhere to a system of rules created by us that is based on certain assumptions which are not necessarily true?

You know, he could have been talking to those who had the mindset that science opposes religion and vice versa. Not to those who see sciencë and religion as "allies." Get it?

Did you see the words science or religion in there anywhere? He was referring to the application of mathematics to describing the universe.

HAHA
my my, how quickly we forget
"TLOP does not control me"

What you continually gloss over is my objection to the term control, which assumes the conclusion that you and/or Franko are attempting to prove. My actions are dictated by the laws of physics, I have never claimed different. How this proves that they must be conscious on the other hand...you have yet to provide sufficient proof, either empirical or logical.

I suggest we drop the whole rewind/replay thing altogether. It has obvious temporal consequences that you seem unwilling to take into account. That is the very reason that I proposed the identical universes example in the first place.

 

[Mordred]

Already happened?
Is this your way of saying
"It had the exact same conditions"?

No, it's my way of saying the event has already occurred. Is English your native language?

LOL! You can rock up to work tomorrow wearing a dress and say "dont blame me, it already happened"

That might be a valid excuse if tomorrow has already happened. To my knowledge it has not. Do you have proof to the contrary?

Again, I suggest we just drop this. Thinking of time in a linear fashion seems to be enough to confuse things with you...thinking of it in a nonlinear fashion does not seem to be something you even want to consider.