Very simple and very cool analogy

[Acriku]

A theory is defined as an explanation of a phenomenon. Natural selection explains how evolution [the phenomenon] occurred. Natural selection is a theory.

DNA sequence changes that happen are fact. Amino acid changes that happen are fact. You're confusing your own self.

Ignore the textbook's excerpt, it was given more in jest than anything.

And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Stephen J Gould

Can't get any more clear than that GUNWOUNDS.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You're confusing your own self.

[Dante]

Numbers is exactly what came to my head when I thought this. And I did take into account that they are infinite. However as long as you know to count 0-9, you can count to any number. And since we 're not interested in all data (ie what will happen in the other corner of the universe) we can safely go for specific one (like a range on numbers). Our computation will be wrong only for a very distant state (in which the events in the other corner of the universe will affect us).

But wrong it will be. If you exclude data from any given source, even one that appears to be completely unrelated, then you also exclude any knowledge of how it might effect the data that you include.

And of course that is assuming that data is infinite. It could be finite though.

Given the number of individual pieces of data relating to every electon, every molecule, every picosecond, every leaf of every tree of every country... and then some, I think we're safe to say that data, given that it is inceasing exponentially all the time, is infinate.

The paradox could also show that we can't have predeterminism (rather than not able to have all data).

There is no paradox. As I said, there is no way to prevent the decision making process and the eventual computation from becoming factors in the equation. It is not only possible but it is certain that a computation will become a factor in itself, leading to another computation ad nauseum until whoever is making the decision grows tired of it.

Lets say a man has the decision between cake and apple. He knows the cake is tastier, but he also knows that the apple is better for him. These are factors. He could have had cake yesterday, which makes him think that he should have an apple today. Or perhaps he's had a bad day, and wants to enjoy something sugary. After taking all of the data at his disposal (note: not all data possible), he eventually decides that the apple would be the more sensible option. This is the computation. The decision. Then this decision becomes part of another process. He decides that he doesn't not want to be sensible, and picks up the cake. He has now used a prior computation as a factor in another. Of course he then might feel guilty about his decision and switch back, and then resentful against guilt and switch back again. This is an ever-repeating process that will only end when the man realises that he's been spending too long making a decision, or someone steals the cake.

In other words, there is no paradox. And if there is no paradox, then there is no argument between predetermination and the possibility or impossibility of collecting all data.

And I could be absolutely convinced that I know everything and be right. As I said, the likelyhood of this happening is irrelevant, as long as it can happen.

Ah, but how would you know that you were right? Because if you did, then you would need data that does not exist to back up the argument. And if you didn't, then you don't know everything.

[Dante]

Indeed. However the flaw appears only in the computation of a future state. On the short term, it is 100% safe to assume that the data I have is not affected by the data I deem unrelated.

No, it isn't. Because what you deem to be unrelated may effect more than you know.

Just an example that came to my mind (not very smart but does the job): You fire a projectile at a time when there is no wind at all. In 10 minutes a strong wind is going to blow. For the next x amount of time, where x is less than 10 minutes, you can calculate the course of the projectile by taking into account gravity, air density etc, but you can safely ignore the wind. After 10 minutes have elapsed you will be wrong not to take the wind into account.

You should take into account the speed of the wind, even if there is none of it. Having a piece of data saying 'there is no wind' is far more useful than discounting it entirely and having 'blank.' If you were to calculate the distance that the projectile would travel, having a piece of data like 'zero wind speed' would be far more useful and relevent.

We only need all data of a given state. This can be infinite only if the universe is infinite.

Ironically, what you're saying is correct but what you mean is not. It's true that we only need the data of a given state, but a given state does not mean 'the present.' It also includes the past, and every possible variable. When calculating the path of that projectile, you would need to measure its mass. This might be affected by any impurities, which were allowed in because the person who made it had a cold that day, brought on by their decision to go for a walk a day ago after feeling ill because they ate a bad egg... Without these leading factors which seem irrelevent, there is no way to know the exact circumstances.

And the universe is constantly expanding and time is constantly passing, so without a forseeable limit the universe is, for all intents and purposes, infinate.

We have a man that has collected all data and predicts what his choice will be in a future decision. You say that this will affect his decision. But

This was predetermined. He was going to make either choice A or B. The data he gathered should show that the man is going to

going to make that prediction, be affected in a certain way by it, then make the choice. There is no loop. And it is an obvious paradox.

I already countered this point, but I suppose I'll just repeat myself...

Predetermination does not stop. Once a man reaches a decision, it does not suddenly cease to function. If someone reaches a decision, that decision immediately becomes a factor in another decision. If all the factors point to a man choosing A over B, and he knows this, he may choose B over A just to spite the universe. This was just as predetermined as if he had chosen A over B. He hasn't somehow 'escaped' causality. He has done exactly what he was predetermined to do.

There is a loop. There is no paradox.

[Dante]

The only changes that will matter are those that can affect earth in one year. Any changes outside the 2-lightyear radius will not affect earth within the year.

Therefore, to predict the state of the earth one year from now we need all data on earth itself and everything in a 2 lightyears radius. And we are 110% certain that the data we ignore won't effect more than we know.

Incorrect again. You were closer with the infinate chain. Anything that effects the Earth in a year is also influenced by factors that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago. And as you said, anything two light years away will be influenced by things three lights years away, which are influenced by things four light years away... But these things do not have to take place now. For example, a massive explosion eighteen light years away could affect the Earth now if it took place eighteen years ago. It could be argued that this only becomes important once the particles are inside the sphere of influence that you suggest, but that would be to discount their cause, making acknowledging them at all rather pointless.

I don't get your point. What matters is the impurities themselves, not what caused them. If we know the impurities we can calculate the path of the projectile, period.

If you don't take causes into account, then you aren't examining all of the data. Why is just as important as what.

He was predetermined to make that choice. Therefore all factors should "force" him to make that choice. We have a state where he makes that choice. All previous states inevitably lead to that one. Data at a previous state would show that. By collecting it, he makes the computation. The computation was predetermined and occurred after collecting the data, therefore the data collected would have taken the computation's result into account.

Your point being? You can rephrase the process as much as you like, what it boils down to is that predetermination is inevitable, cannot be escaped, and that there is no such thing as free will.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm trying really hard to make up my mind here on who i agree with.. but whether its a loop or a paradox

[nemafakei]

You only need data from a 1 light-year radius cone. The reason being that anything outside this cannot affect anything inside the radius early enough for the result to have effect within the year. The data collection will include all particles and quantum states, which will of course include all results of previous years.

To prove graphically: Draw a spacetime graph (ct against t on the y-axis) with earth after one year at the origin and the 45 degree lines for the light cone, forming 4 quartiles. You can draw a legal line (i.e. 45 degrees or steeper) between any event in the bottom quartile to the origin. However, if you place an event in either of the side quartiles, there does not exist a legal line between that event and the origin, or any point in the bottom quartile: it can affect Earth, but only after the year is up.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You only need data from a 1 light-year radius cone. The reason being that anything outside this cannot affect anything inside the radius early enough for the result to have effect within the year. The data collection will include all particles and quantum states, which will of course include all results of previous years.

To prove graphically: Draw a spacetime graph (ct against t on the y-axis) with earth after one year at the origin and the 45 degree lines for the light cone, forming 4 quartiles. You can draw a legal line (i.e. 45 degrees or steeper) between any event in the bottom quartile to the origin. However, if you place an event in either of the side quartiles, there does not exist a legal line between that event and the origin, or any point in the bottom quartile: it can affect Earth, but only after the year is up.

Actully i think spectral is correct in terms of what his intentions were Nema... he said 2 light years to prevent any marginal data from leaking thru..because the universe isnt static... its moving.

[nemafakei]

Well, with all these things, while assuming an impractical level of data collection, I assumed we were working on a purely theoretical basis. In practical terms, of course, the data could not be collected in one place for computation until one year has passed!

Regarding the compulsion paradox: the computer is not an impartial observer: because the result becomes a factor in the equation, you are presenting it with an insoluble equation. For example, if you have two computers, the first to predict a binary answer by second, the second designed solely to defy the other's prediction, when the first presents its answer to the second, the second will always defy it. That's not a manifestation of free will, that's a mechanical response.

[Dante]

You only need data from a 1 light-year radius cone. The reason being that anything outside this cannot affect anything inside the radius early enough for the result to have effect within the year. The data collection will include all particles and quantum states, which will of course include all results of previous years.

That's what I'm getting at. All data inside the cone will show what is there, but not how it got there. I.e. Light particles may be in the cone, but their source will not be. The particles may be what will affect the Earth, but to ignore their source is to discount data.

To prove graphically: Draw a spacetime graph (ct against t on the y-axis) with earth after one year at the origin and the 45 degree lines for the light cone, forming 4 quartiles. You can draw a legal line (i.e. 45 degrees or steeper) between any event in the bottom quartile to the origin. However, if you place an event in either of the side quartiles, there does not exist a legal line between that event and the origin, or any point in the bottom quartile: it can affect Earth, but only after the year is up.

Well, I can't argue with what I can't understand...

If you don't understand what I am saying, read again please. Try to picture it in your mind. Till you get it. There's nothing to argue about here; everything that occurred in the past outside the sphere I am interested in (earth + 2 lightyear radius) and can affect it

a) will have affected it before the data collection

b) will affect it after the data collection but will not affect earth until after a year.

It's as simple as that.

So you're saying that an event that took place three light years away three years ago will not influence the Earth now? It's outside the present and outside the distance, but its effects will still reach us during the data collection.

If you got nothing to say, then don't. If my aim is to calculate the trajectory of the projectile, why is totally irrelevant.

Everything is relevent. We're talking philosophy here, not science.

Eh? How did free will pop up? It's predetermination we 're talking about. My point being that the result of the computation would show the man the following: his choice after seeing the result. Get it now? No loop.

And yet after seeing this result he is left with another problem, to follow it or not? Even if you were to present a man with a detailed essay explaining exactly how and why every event that has ever taken place is leading up to his choosing the cake over the apple, he is not forced to do so. Because the moment you have given him that essay, you have introduced another variable into the equation, forcing the whole thing to begin again. Gunwounds has got it. You don't. There is a loop.

Predeterminism makes free will an impossibility. That's how we got here in the first place.

2.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok i have read all of this and understand it... but one question .... isnt the difference between one computer defying another computer... and a human defying a computer ......that the human has that split second to contemplate whether he "wants" to go along with the printout or defy it?

[nemafakei]

"So doesnt adding the human  variable to this scenario make it more than a mechanical response?  Isnt human spite different from a second computer arbitrarily "spiting" another computer?  Isnt our spite worth more?"

Why is it different? The fact that we may or may not spite it? Given all possible previous data, you can predict whether or not a human will spite the machine, unless you tell the human the result of this computation, in which case you have to perform another calculation, etc. But the same is replicable on a computer.

"So you're saying that an event that took place three light years away three years ago will not influence the Earth now? It's outside the present and outside the distance, but its effects will still reach us during the data collection."

That event would only just influence us, and those effects would be visible on the very edge of the 1 year by 1 light year cone.

An event that took place 3.1 light years away 3 years ago would not affect us until the middle of November.

[Dante]

Eh, I've said my piece. And I can only repeat myself so many times before it gets trying. Nema and Gunwounds get it. Whether they actually agree with it I'm not sure, but they certainly seem to understand it. Until there's some fresh material, I have nothing else to add.

[GUNWOUNDS]

it was all good info and nice arguments on both sides, but unfortunately i think everything that can be said has been said.

[stefanhendriks]

Didnt read it all, but the last post is 100% certain.

Random is just a formula, look on the internet. Random numbers do not exist! :)