Ok, RT first:
Please clarify…
I’m argueing against (absolute) predictability… even theoretical predictability. (My response to soc is comin’ up; it will address this.)
Again…
Now soc’s turn:
So once the observer is completely removed from any sort of possible relevancy on the universe whatsoever? Sounds like someone I know… What was his name again? G something, with a really, really capitol G…
Seriously though, once this state has been acheived, its no longer a simulation running, but the actual universe…
If such a model/simulation exists, then it is, by necessity, completely irrelevant. It cannot interfere with the universe in the slightest minutest possible way. Any exception you want to ask about is automatically ‘no!’ If it does in anyway touch the universe in even the most minute manner, it has lost that necessary abstractness it so depends on. Nothing could ever be aware of it at all.
Of course, it is possible and completely unknowable that anything and everything could exist in such a state. You could use this same method to demonstrate any, any, anything is possible…
Do you agree that any (relevant/able to be talked about) observer affects the observee? I can explain this deeper if you like… I’m just asking.
(don’t bother reading the long part of this next quote if you remember this conversation)
The randomness thing - I was merely introducing as an unknown. Your ‘subparticles comprised of meta-particles’ are particles comprised of an infinite unknowns. This can be approximated with the word ‘unpredictable’ in my examples (it just doesn’t flow quite right though); the idea remains the same. If causality holds, the chaos of the meta-particles would somewhat even out/somewhat not on the subparticle level. (if I’m getting the terms confused, I apologize. You should be able to figure out what I’m saying anyway.)
Time for some analogy fun…
Say you have a map and are in the place that it is a map of. Certainly the map describes the map to a degree of moderate certainty. (if you walked somewhere, the roads and general land structure would likely match that of the map; thus, there is a degree of predictability.)
At the same time, there are plenty of innaccuracies. For instance, roads become overgrown to the point of unusability, new roads are made. Maybe there is an accident on one road making it inaccesible. Additionally, most maps don’t include information like the locations of sewer entrances, how many lanes different streets, and more specific information, like what sort of cement pattern is used on the sidewalks and such.
Easy enough to solve, increase the complexity of the map (say its a digital map or something), make it updateable as new events occur (say, updates every 5 minutes or so), include more specific data, etcetera.
Well, the map obviously still isn’t perfectly accurate. It doesn’t have the locations of all the people walking around, all the cars, every leaf on every tree, etc. If we’re going for complete accurateness here, its no good.
So again, increase the map’s complexity so much that it includes every single possible one of these details and that it updates in realtime (at the exact instant the real version of the place changes).
If this map is abstract (more specifically, the observer of this map), like you’re computer, then the map ceases to be a map and becomes the place itself. If it is exact in everyway, then what distinguishes it from the real place? To be exact in everyway, it would have to be real too.
If this map is still part of this universe, oops, almost lost the analogy. If you are in the place with the map, then the map itself affects the place, as it is part of the place. You could ignore this fact, but then the map would by inaccurate; it would not include itself on it, even though its obviously there. If you do include it, then we hit the paradox I spoke of earlier. (Like two parallel mirrors, it would be…)
Did I miss anything… um, well, I guess I’ll find out when you respond 
Finally, something that actually has to do w/ QM
Wikipedia has a great article on it. Very in depth, perhaps a little bit too technical (actually, its really pretty technical; most of it took a few readingsm a lot of it I still don’t fully understand…). Very unbiased too, especially around the matter we’re addressing. (It talks directly about it.) Here’s a highlight:
Sounds a lot more like Einstein…
Einstein worked out a bunch of the implications of quantum mechanics when it was still a baby in order to demonstrate how ridiculous it was. (Most famously, the EPR paradox). The QM guys kindly said “thank you”, and ran with the ideas, proving Einstein wrong experimentally (there’s controversy around this, but I think more because the results are so bizarre, a lot of people just couldn’t accept them). The experiments showed that the hidden variable/limited knowledge versions of QM do indeed breakdown. Nondeterministic QM (ironically) predicted the results perfectly. (obviously, accurately in accordance with its probabilistic nature.)
This of course is not the end of this discussion (certainly not the one I’m having with soc…). You guys might want to take a look; tell me what you think.
RT:
I think you decided this before you started you’re research… please let us know what led you to these conclusions.
I hope you don’t leave the conversation! I’m really interested in this too, and would appreciate a continued exploration.
Oh ya, I almost forgot-
Haha! ya I have seen it. The beginning of it presents a pretty good exploration of the implications of QM. Later on, though, it gets a touch new agey for my taste… takes some of this a little too far I think (well, in the wrong direction at least)… nevertheless, it will definitely interest all of you! I recommend it, as RT says, it will tickle you philosophically for sure! It does have quite a bit of similarity with a lot of the stuff I talk about…
Its been a few months for me, though… so I don’t remember all of the ideas it goes into; still, what did you (RT, or anybody for that matter) like /dislike philosophy wise? and of course, why?
Quibbles, regarding that last bit, I understand what you’re saying about the infinite complexity loop (universe inside a universe inside a universe etc). But for the sake of the argument, consider the computer to be outside of the physical universe. It doesn’t really matter how, just that it somehow exists outside it and so doesn’t have to contain itself. Gets around the problem you’re talking about and the argument doesn’t lose anything from this modification.
I assume you’re talking here about the idea of, in the physical universe, our not being able to observe events without affecting them (due to the necessity of using light to observe). In my example it’s not an issue, because you can view the contents of a computer’s memory without affecting or altering it.
Allow me to restate the relevant parts of the (revised) premise: A (perfect) computer exists outside the universe. The observer is also outside the universe, and observes the computer. The observer can do this without affecting the simulation.
Do you still have an issue with that last statement given the rest of the premise?
It was actually “meta-particles comprised of actual sub-particles”, but anyway, I think you understood it. 
You are correct, in that if we are modelling meta-particles as a way of simplifying the underlying complexity, they will be inherently unpredictable. We will of course be able to predict their behaviour most of the time, but not all. So I agree with you on that point.
However my argument was that if you increase the level of complexity of the meta-particle in order to model it closer to reality, you will be able to model it more accurately. More to the point, your model will remain deterministic. You could theoretically continue to increase the complexity/accuracy of your model of the meta-particles infinitely, and at every increase your model remains deterministic. So by induction (I think) the universe can be modeled to arbitrary (read: infinite) precision, deterministically. Therefore the universe is deterministic.
So there’s my argument in all its glory (heh). It’s likely that I’ve leaped to some conclusions, or made some assumptions I haven’t stated, or used the principle of induction incorrectly (!) but hopefully it at least makes sense. See what you make of it.
Did this not satisfy? Did I miss anything here?
This was what my map analogy was supposed to be, almost exactly. Read it again and let me know if it checks out with you.
Thanks for the clear statement of your position, by the way. People don’t do that often; it makes discussion a lot easier!
- You mentioned the model (or observer, I’m not sure) was irrelevant, but didn’t give a why.
- You said the observer wasn’t allowed to affect the universe. That’s cool, the premise satisfies this.
- “Demonstrate anything is possible”? How? It’s a thought experiment, and as far as I can tell the assumptions in the premise don’t make the conclusion any less meaningful.
Yeah, I can see how you might say they are parallel universes, that’s sort of what I’m suggesting (although with the added complexity that one of them is running on a computer - not sure if that’s relevant). I don’t know what paradox you’re referring to and can’t be bothered reading the entire thread to find it.
Could you spell it out for me again?
No problem. I’m an INTP - I strive for clarity (and the quest for Truth!) 
It was Schrodinger that said that quote. It wasn’t about QP in general, just some specific theorys.
What led me to the conclusion that it doesn’t disprove determinism was my limited understanding of the uncertainty principle and information I found about Einstein and other major players in QP. The Uncertainty principle as I understand it merely says that with our current method of observing quantum particles (by bouncing particles off of them) we are ruining our ability to test for velocity, and so the two can never be known together using this method of observation. I dont see how UP makes it so both can NEVER be found. Maybe one day we will have an alternate form of observation that will not compromise results as bouncing particles off does. And from reading about Einstein and others I found that MANY Quantum Physicists hold on to a hope for a deterministic outcome to quantum problems. And what ive noticed is that Einstein and the others that seek determinism were getting frustrated because WE couldn’t determine it. They seemed never once to doubt that these things happen because they were caused. Even the Physisists that believe “god played dice” so to say have begun suggesting reasons, causes for why Quantum interactions have only been able to be explained through probabilistic models. They consider it random in that it cannot be determined, predicted, but not random in that it happens for NO reason. Everett’s multiverse explenation is itself a search for reason, the search for a cause. He is explaining WHY the interactions happen the way they do, and if his multiverse theory comes to be accurate, then we have more reasons, more causes to find. So my point as always is that Quantum Physics does not seem to abandon the search for reason. It merely says we cannot determine the future in the abstract reductionist methods of the past, like you said. This is no indication that something can actually happen for NO reason.
About the movie, I just found it to be a huge coincidence. I was smoking a cigarette and contemplating the observer problem. And I thought it was somewhat of an attractive conclusion to consider our observation, our conciousness as something that can directly effect reality. Like we could choose our reality. Choose one of the probabilities. When I went inside, I turned on the TV and there was some movie about Brain function. I am interested in the stuff, and so I kept watching. By the end of the movie, I realised it was about the implications of Quantum Physics. And if you remember, at the end of the movie, the major conclusion is that we can indeed control our environment. Like positive thinking only on a quantum level. We can actually change reality by thinking about changing, by enacting our observational effect on reality. This conclusion was the same one I had just been contemplating outside smoking a cigarrette. It got me to thinking: “wait a minute, I just thought about this conclusion, and all of a sudden a movie about it apears on TV? Maybe I am effecting reality with my thoughts…” Im a little embarressed to say this, but for a minute afterwards I was trying to levitate a pencil by thinking about it… Needless to say it didn’t work… Such a philosophical conclusion would indeed be verry attractive. Imagine if science all of a sudden backs the theory that we can wish things into truth… Ide love that, but its too good to be true.
The computer can’t affect the universe, right? Then how could it possibly be relevant to the universe?
This is a big theme in philosophy in general. As Imp like’s to remind us, we could all be a bunch of brains in a vat. But if that’s all we ever are and all we ever know is the illusion and can’t possibly know anything but the illusion, what does it matter? Say this brain in a vat thing is true. You could say that anything at all is existing in the room right along with you, as long as it doesn’t affect us, it can’t be proven wrong. Such statements are unfallsifiable and have no meaningful impact on anything (well, the idea in general does, but these unknowable things, by their very nature, can’t have any impact.)
They would not be parallel universes, they would be the same. They have to be identical, right? If they are different universes, they are not identical, just in the simple fact that they are different…
And it is irrelevant that one is on a computer… but not in the way you meant it, I don’t think. Hell, this universe could be on a computer. It probably is, given that stuff actually happens with no necessary connections. But anyway, same idea as above. It can’t be relevant…
As for the paradox, just the infinite loop thing…
Parallel mirriors is another way of thinking about it… (that image is actually very useful in philosophy in general… but that’s for a different time maybe)
Heh, Truth… so young, so naive… (funny thing is, you’re probably older than I am…)
Oh, and pardon my ignorance, INTP?
One can generalize this to any example where the observer affects the observed (which is, well, in everything.) Of course, you could call this an assumption. But I think its pretty sound. Check my discussion w/ soc for that debate…
Oh, I don’t think anyone was ever argueing for that, that there is NO REASON at all… (minus Phaedrus and his nihilist stuff. I happen to agree w/ him on most of it, but that’s a different discussion. Check out some Hume for this stuff.)
Unpredictability, even theoretical unpredictability. And if there is a will, a choice making entity or force or whatever, then things would be caused by something, by the will. Why did the will go a certain direction? because it willed, its the fundamental property of a will…
At the same time, for any causal view of the universe to hold, there has to be a will, or a prime mover of somesort… or else there is no reason why things are causal…
Causality and determinism are not the same thing.
I know! that’s so crazy, I almost fell outta my chair I was so astonished when you first posted this!
isn’t it beautiful?
besides which, what else would be directly affecting reality? it almost seems like choice has to exist…
The positive thinking stuff, the writing things on your body and stuff like that… that was a bit much for me…
but the way you say it generally…
well said.
Your thoughts are part of reality, now aren’t they? But remember, the important thing here is choice. Thoughts are not you… thoughts can definitely be modelled in a deterministic way. Its awareness, its choice that’s so key… that, I think, is the self…
(an interesting side effect of this is that all matter is inherently ‘conscious’)
Oh, and the pencil thing… we’ve all tried it, you’ve no reason to be embarassed.
However, this sort of thing happens all the time.
Overcoming the physical defincies of one’s body during times of extreme physical hardship might be considered an example of this… or moments of extraordinary coincidence…
oh, just wondering, are you actually agreeing with me?
I really am not seeing the connection to my example. “Relevant”? From the observer’s perspective, the computer simulation proceeds identically to the actual universe. That’s how it’s relevant.
Keep in mind I am new to debating philosophy and so I may not be familiar with the concepts you’re talking about. In this case I can’t figure out precisely what point you’re making about my example. I figure that’s because:
A. I’m stupid
B. You haven’t elucidated the connection clearly
C. The concept you’re trying to apply the example isn’t actually relevant.
I don’t know which of these is the problem, but I’ll try an alternate tack for now. Let’s simplify the example. Instead of modelling the universe, we’ll model a single atom. We have an atom right there that we (for the sake of the thought experiment) know everything about, and which exists in complete isolation. We have a (perfect) computer that models that atom to arbitrary precision in the manner I’ve explained. I believe this is is analogous to the other example, but yeah, let’s worry about that later.
For now, can you tell me if you have any objections with this scenario?
I’ll ignore the rest of your post for now cuz I think it was mostly generated by misconceptions. We can return to them later if you still think they’re valid.
It’s a Myers-Briggs personality type. Google it if you’re interested in that shit - it seems to be pretty accurate in my experience. As to the “clarity” and “truth” comments, they’re supposedly what my type strives for - it was a facetious comment. I may be naive, but I don’t assume a universal truth exists
BTW I’m 21. You?
Do you mind if we stick with the universe model? We can switch if you really want, but I think this better demonstrates the implications…
The results of the simulation can’t be relevant to the universe being simulated… that’s what I’ve been saying so far. if this isn’t clear yet, let me know. I could just be explaining it really poorly.
Obviously, it does affect the one doing the observing. It is relevant to them. However, they can’t exhist in the universe they are simulating (or we run into the infinite loop), so it doesn’t affect them on that level…
Your point, though, is valid to a degree. It is possible to run a ‘simulation’ of a universe. What I’m saying is that any such simulation of a universe would have to be a universe in and of itself… this works for anything infinitely complex.
I do, but then again, if I based them on misconceptions, then I wouldn’t realize it if they weren’t valid… not yet anyway. But if you don’t want to talk about it yet, that’s cool too.
A 
just kidding. Obviously B or C, because you are approaching this willingly and without the presumptiveness so many take in conversations like these and have done an excellent job defending your position.
Oh, and I’m new to philosophy too. Real philosophy anyway. I am younger than you… (still in highschool, but don’t tell anyone.) 18.
The only reason I actually talk on these forums, and don’t just lurk all the time is cause 1) I don’t think I could restrain myself and 2) I took/am taking a philosophy/humanities course this year and read enough of the biggies to feel like I can at least understand what people are talking about.
But the free will/determinism thing is nice because anybody really experienced is too sick of this argument to come smash us to pieces
(minus Phaedrus, Phaedrus is just a good guy)
You’re right, I’m not clear on the meaning/implication of what you’re saying. Hell, I didn’t even think I was suggesting that the simulation had to be relevant to the universe being simulated, other than from the observer’s perception of the two.
Why does it matter that the observer can’t exist in the universe?
Yeah, that was in the premise. Or at least, I said it didn’t matter how it happened to be outside of the universe, just that it had to be separate from it.
Oooh, you’re a young’in. Now I can make unflattering assumptions about your intelligence!
Quibles,
“Oh, I don’t think anyone was ever argueing for that, that there is NO REASON at all”
Well then its settled. As long as there are reasons, my determinism is safe. About free will and the thing from the movie, how we might be able to effect reality with thoughts, that whole thing. Even if this turns out to be true, our desires, our thoughts are still all in our heads for a reason. The way we are brought up, our circumstances, our genetics still determine our desires, our perceptions, all those things. So if we can indeed effect reality, ide still have to say that the effect we have on reality was caused on reality’s effect on us. Get what Im saying? So its still a whole big causal chain. As long as its a causal chain, Im happy. I dont believe in what the movie said though. I definatly dont think there is enough evidence to support such a conclusion. When people start levitating objects ile take some interest, but for now, im not going to take it seriously.
HEY! I’ll partake.
oh jeez, i feel an ass whoopin’ comin’ on… (don’t know if i can take arendt )
Did you just read that one clip of my post and ignore the rest? The whole part about determinism and causality not being the same? Yes, everything is caused by something; our will…
ah, now you’re talkin’ some sense
One cannot exist without the other. Parallel mirrors.
It is a paradox of sorts. and it is the reason why I believe in a will…
I dont really understand what you define will as…
Edit: Scratch that, I see what you think the will is. I disagree. I do not believe causality starts at the will. There are too many patterns in human behavior for me to attribute human action to anything other than naturalistic causes. Like I said, there does not neccisarily need to be a prime mover. What about infinate causality? Who knows… Basicly, I think more research is needed. I definatly dont think theres enough evidence out there to threaten my beliefs.
Oh, quibbles, I’d like you to convince me otherwise please. I’ll keep reading on and see what happens.
(As it stands right now, I agree with Tank, but who knows, maybe you’ll come up with something).
Why would it?
The simulation would be meaningless to them. It is not their universe. Their universe can’t affect it at all. I suppose it could affect their’s, but so what? it is not a prediction of their universe, nor would have anything to do with the nature of their universe (the fundamental laws of their universe are obviously different as established in the premise). Besides which, the important piece is the universe being simulated is completely unaware.
It is in no way a prediction of anything. It is a universe. In other words, the only way to for something to be determined is for it to actually happen.
The universe being simulated can’t be aware of the simulation or else the simulation becomes part of the universe (in that it affects it). We hit an infinite loop again.
again, the only way to for something to be determined is for it to actually happen.
It wouldn’t happen seperate of it, it would be it…
Two identical universes running on two metaphysical computers? they could not be the same or else they would be the one and the same universe.
Incompleteness or inconsistency, take your pick (the argument doesn’t hinge on that, i just like the way everything comes back to that)
Really? show me.
this is my prime mover… if one relies entirely on a determinist, logical model of this, it can’t resolve. It is a paradox. This is infinite causality with every action, you realize that right? Like infinite divisibility, but with causes…
Think of it this way… say we have an interaction, a supposed cause and effect. This finite cause and effect is simple to model. now, say this only happens because of other, lower level, meta-interactions. Now its a little more complicated to model. Add another level, the complexity increaces. Go infinitely down. number of levels * complexity added each level = infinite complexity. Now what does that mean, ‘infinite complexity’? it means its not random, but its not deterministic. In order to determine the outcome, the event must occur.
This of course proves nothing, just another way to think about. It is this infinite complexity, I suppose, that I may call the will. It is not predictable, not determinable before it commits the action in question. It has reason, but it also has ‘freedom’. We have choice. But in the moment , every moment, that we make a choice, the choice disappears; it becomes what we have done/are doing. So it appears determined but it is not. Make sense? probably not, I don’t know if its something that can be understood in a completely abstract, ‘intellectual’ fashion. In which maybe its inappropriate to be talking about it in this philosophy forum.
It just seems, the way that every logical/empirical path runs into this final paradox (and it seems to be one single paradox), I don’t know, just makes sense to me.
If you give me more specific questions, maybe I can describe it in greater depth.
Arendt, feel free to jump in anytime. Have you read most of the thread? I would welcome some new criticism.
I am in this to learn, to strengthen my ideas, so I am definitely open to your insights.
Edit: Alas, I gotta go to bed now. I’ve been waking late for school every morning this week cause I can’t keep away from these damned forums
I may actually be able to explain this bit (woo!). Referring particularly to those bits I bolded:
See, the simulated universe running on the computer can be fast-forwarded, rewound, paused, or whatever. The observer could fast-forward ahead to see what the (real) universe will be like at a future date. This is the prediction you speak of. I suppose this might be where the meaningfulness to the observer you speak of comes in too, but I don’t really see how that’s relevant to the thought experiment.
To forestall an objection I anticipate you having at this point, the observer isn’t really intefering with the universe by altering time. The observer is just altering the “speed” at which the simulation runs. From the perspective of anything in the simulation, this doesn’t actually alter anything. To understand this intuitively, think of a person in the simulation. If time is sped up in the simulation (by the observer), the person in the simulation will not notice this because everything around them including their self was sped up. Relative to the person, time hasn’t changed. Relative to the observer, it has.
Meanwhile, the “real” universe - the one that the model is simulating - is plodding along at a constant rate of time (relative to the observer), completely independent from the simulation.
Why can’t you have two identical, but separate entities? Indeed, this is part of the premise. Is there a fundamental problem with this concept?