🔒 Locked

A question that's been bugging me ...

Started by RedDrake Dec 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM 40 replies 9.6k views

Original Post

Dec 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM

OK i know GameDev.net is not the best place to ask this but i feel comfortable asking here and have seen a loot of smart answers, so here it goes ... I've been reading some physics text books and after reading the part about randomness i came to ask my self how can anything bee random if it behaves under some rules, that is if it can be defined by chances of happening. It seem that chances are a way of approximating something, but that does not mean that any of the predictable outcomes is likely to happen - it only means that we think that any they can happen, and in reality only one outcome will happen - which means the more different outcomes we find the more flaws are in our calculations but it does not mean that the universe is subjected to these miscalculations. Giving more thought to randomness issue I've found to believe that the only reason we can't predict the exact outcome is the infinite subdivision in our math system - and the argument here is Pi - the number which can't be expressed correctly (only approximated - which brings back the "chances" and errors) and yet it's the basis of all physical rules (if I understood correctly the quantum physics are based on spherical math). This all leads me to believe that universe is deterministic, but can only be determined (or "solved") by it's self ... and that that means that although it's only theoretical, the universe is deterministic and predetermined - which is a depressing thought :) ... the reason i write this is because I'm young and like to think about the meaning of life and similar things, and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who thought/studied this more than i have - so any guidelines for further thinking and questions/ideas/readings would be appreciated. [Edited by - RedDrake on December 22, 2007 6:15:18 PM]

iMalc

Dec 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Whoa, heavy stuff!
You're a bit brief on how those things link together there. I'm sure you've got it clear in your head though, so nevermind, I'll just muddle along and go with the flow.

I wouldn't be worried about the universe being deterministic and predetermined. Even if it were true, I'd say that it still depends on the observer. It can only seem that way to an external observer, which we are not. Read much about quantum mechanics?
Here's some more "heavy stuff" for you:

Taking that even furthur, one could imagine that an external observer would be unaware that we consider ourselves to even be self-aware. Flipping this around, it in turn suggests to me that complex computer programs involving neural networks might even be self-aware from their own perspective, without us ever really knowing it, as to us it's all reproduceable with the same input and same initial state.

So, should we care about determinism of our own universe? No, not really.

btw that's "which" not "witch" you want there

gunning

Dec 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Quote:
the universe is deterministic and predetermined

Stephen Hawking wrote, "Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve." (Does God Play Dice?). I'll take his word over yours.

aaron_ds

Dec 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
but it does not mean that the universe is subjected to these miscalculations.

Yes it does.

There is a fundamental limit of how much we can know about a particles position and momentum. The more we know of a particle's position, the less we know about its momentum and vice-versa.

As for hidden-variable theories, refer to Bell's theorem.

Yann L

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
I've been reading some physics text books and after reading the part about randomness i came to ask my self how can anything bee random if it behaves under some rules, that is if it can be defined by chances of happening.

Being able to calculate the probability of an event happening doesn't mean that the event can be predicted. Quantum mechnical events occur according to probabilistic distributions. So in a way, we can predict the "chances of happening" as you defined it, but we cannot predict it with absolute certainty - because the probability of a QM event will never reach 100%.

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
It seem that chances are a way of approximating something, but that does not mean that any of the predictable outcomes is likely to happen - it only means that we think that any they can happen, and in reality only one outcome will happen - which means the more different outcomes we find the more flaws are in our calculations but it does not mean that the universe is subjected to these miscalculations.

This has nothing to do with flaws or miscalculations. In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with mathematics. Randomness is a physical 'property'. It's the way this universe works. You are mistaking stochastic for the approximation of an exact rule. It isn't. There is no exact rule predicting a non-deterministic event, and as such it cannot be approximated with conventional error margins. All we can do is express a certain probability of such an event happening.

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Giving more thought to randomness issue I've found to believe that the only reason we can't predict the exact outcome is the infinite subdivision in our math system - and the argument here is Pi - the number which can't be expressed correctly (only approximated - which brings back the "chances" and errors) and yet it's the basis of all physical rules (if I understood correctly the quantum physics are based on spherical math).

I think you're a little confused ;) There is no 'subdivision' in our math system. Math cannot be unprecise by iself. It's the physical properties math express that can be fuzzy. As I said above, QM non-determinism has nothing to do with math, it's just the way the universe is. Why ? No idea.

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
This all leads me to believe that universe is deterministic, but can only be determined (or "solved") by it's self ... and that that means that although it's only theoretical, the universe is deterministic and predetermined - which is a depressing thought :)

The thought processes that lead you to this conclusion are incorrect, due to your misunderstanding of probability and non-determinism. While we don't actually know for certain whether QM processes are really non-deterministic - and we probably will never know, unless we could observe our universe from the outside, without being a part of the system - from all that we know, the universe isn't predetermined.

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:10 PM

sorry for the which and witch - I misspell it all the time tough i never write witch :D probably used Firefox syntax suggestion's :D

Quote:
Taking that even furthur, one could imagine that an external observer would be unaware that we consider ourselves to even be self-aware. Flipping this around, it in turn suggests to me that complex computer programs involving neural networks might even be self-aware from their own perspective, without us ever really knowing it, as to us it's all reproduceable with the same input and same initial state.

That's similar to some of my thinking - but the conclusion is somewhat different...
If your neural networks were self-aware - then from their perspective we are God - we created them and gave them purpose and their gods are imperfect - much to their discomfort :D.

IMO determinism removes any possibility of "divine" action (other than "initial action") - because determinism dictates that any action is a reaction from a previous action witch would make God deterministic - and would put him in time : since he initiated action - which are by definition only possible within time - witch again is impossible because anything in time is subjected to changes and perfection should be constant ... so to rap it up - if determinism is true and still "god" affects us - then he is subjected to the same rules as we are, perhaps to a lesser extent but still - he would be to us what we are to those neural networks - and the loop goes on ...

Quote:

Stephen Hawking wrote, "Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve." (Does God Play Dice?). I'll take his word over yours.

I am sorry that you misunderstood me - I never intended to make you take my word - if anything i would like to dispute and prove me wrong - i would like to know that universe is random, and not predetermined, it would make me sleep easier knowing that i know that i get to make a difference, and i have an eternal soul ... still that does not mean that I'm going to stop questioning anything that i don't understand in an attempt to understand it (or dispute it).

It's 2 in the morning so i don't have time to read the link, but i will when i catch some time ...

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Quote:

Stephen Hawking wrote, "Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve." (Does God Play Dice?). I'll take his word over yours.

I am sorry that you misunderstood me - I never intended to make you take my word - if anything i would like to dispute and prove me wrong - i would like to know that universe is random, and not predetermined, it would make me sleep easier knowing that i know that i get to make a difference, and i have an eternal soul ... still that does not mean that I'm going to stop questioning anything that i don't understand in an attempt to understand it (or dispute it).

It's 2 in the morning so i don't have time to read the link, but i will when i catch some time ...

I don't think QM implies that you get to "make a difference". Instead, it appears to be simply random, as you said. Not really any more empowering than a purely deterministic universe...

Of course if you have an eternal soul it's a different issue, but QM doesn't have anything to say about that. [smile]

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Quote:
Taking that even furthur, one could imagine that an external observer would be unaware that we consider ourselves to even be self-aware. Flipping this around, it in turn suggests to me that complex computer programs involving neural networks might even be self-aware from their own perspective, without us ever really knowing it, as to us it's all reproduceable with the same input and same initial state.

That's similar to some of my thinking - but the conclusion is somewhat different...
If your neural networks were self-aware - then from their perspective we are God - we created them and gave them purpose and their gods are imperfect - much to their discomfort :D.

Maybe this doesn't have to do with the topic, but I've thought about this as well. I don't think self-awareness is the problem at all -- I can easily write a program that's self-aware in any practical sense. The tricky thing would be to make a program that has some kind of "subjective experience". Frankly I don't understand how such a thing as "subjective experience" makes any kind of sense in a physical world, but it's a little hard to deny that it exists. Unless you're a Buddhist or something. [grin]

One thing I like to think about -- is there some way to manipulate a person's brain, "turning off subjectivity", so that afterwards they'll say, "I clearly remember the past hour, but I didn't experience it?" You couldn't take this as evidence for anything unless you underwent the experiment yourself, but if it's possible, we might actually figure out the source of consciousness.

[Edited by - twix on December 22, 2007 7:23:07 PM]

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:35 PM

First off - thanks Yann L - you really cleared up some things for me ...
also tnx to aaron_ds i will look in to it ...

Quote:
Original post by twix
Of course if you have an eternal soul it's a different issue, but QM doesn't have anything to say about that. [smile]

yes but it leaves a chance of it, unlike determinism IMO

Quote:
Original post by twix
Maybe this doesn't have to do with the topic, but I've thought about this as well. I don't think self-awareness is the problem at all -- I can easily write a program that's self-aware in any practical sense. The tricky thing would be to make a program that has some kind of "subjective experience". Frankly I don't understand how such a thing as "subjective experience" makes any kind of sense in a physical world, but it's a little hard to deny that it exists. Unless you're a Buddhist or something.

To give subjective experience IMO you have to define the subject - eg. make a specific machine that the algorithm could define as "self", then you add survival instincts - and pretty soon your machine will realize it's due to "die" and come up with a God IHMO :D.

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Quote:
Original post by twix
Maybe this doesn't have to do with the topic, but I've thought about this as well. I don't think self-awareness is the problem at all -- I can easily write a program that's self-aware in any practical sense. The tricky thing would be to make a program that has some kind of "subjective experience". Frankly I don't understand how such a thing as "subjective experience" makes any kind of sense in a physical world, but it's a little hard to deny that it exists. Unless you're a Buddhist or something.

To give subjective experience IMO you have to define the subject - eg. make a specific machine that the algorithm could define as "self", then you add survival instincts - and pretty soon your machine will realize it's due to "die" and come up with a God IHMO :D.

You could easily do all this and never have your program really experience anything. What I'm interested in is a way to make something like me -- not simply in behavior, but in the experience I'm having right now.

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Quote:
Original post by twix
You could easily do all this and never have your program really experience anything. What I'm interested in is a way to make something like me -- not simply in behavior, but in the experience I'm having right now.

Are you perhaps refering to Qualia ?

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Quote:
Original post by twix
You could easily do all this and never have your program really experience anything. What I'm interested in is a way to make something like me -- not simply in behavior, but in the experience I'm having right now.

Are you perhaps refering to Qualia ?

Qualia are part of it. There's also my experience of my emotional state, and my experience of the thoughts I'm having, as well as my memories. Though I suppose if you wrote a program with qualia the rest might be a trivial extension. [grin]

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Quote:
Original post by twix
Qualia are part of it. There's also my experience of my emotional state, and my experience of the thoughts I'm having, as well as my memories. Though I suppose if you wrote a program with qualia the rest might be a trivial extension. [grin]

Tough i need some time to reflect on the topic I think (along with the feelings) it's possible to predict and simulate those effects as much as it is possible to simulate brain chemistry & physics - simple argument are the psychedelic (and other) drugs - that can highly alter almost every part of your experience - which shows that your "experience" is a result of same physical laws as the entire universe. (This is the first thing that came to mind, i haven't really thought much of this subject.)

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
Quote:
Original post by twix
Qualia are part of it. There's also my experience of my emotional state, and my experience of the thoughts I'm having, as well as my memories. Though I suppose if you wrote a program with qualia the rest might be a trivial extension. [grin]

Tough i need some time to reflect on the topic I think (along with the feelings) it's possible to predict and simulate those effects as much as it is possible to simulate brain chemistry & physics - simple argument are the psychedelic (and other) drugs - that can highly alter almost every part of your experience - which shows that your "experience" is a result of same physical laws as the entire universe. (This is the first thing that came to mind, i haven't really thought much of this subject.)

The problem is that you can only predict and simulate the behaviors that result from having the experiences, not the experiences themselves. As far as I can tell there's no way to tell if someone or something else is having any sort of experience at all. Do you have a "point of view" like I do, or are you no different from, say, an incredibly large expert system? I don't know. I can't possibly know, either. This is why I suggested finding some way to temporarily "suspend" your own experience to get at the root of what (physically) causes it. I imagine it might be possible to do something reversible to your brain that will result in no behavioral changes that anyone else could notice or measure, but would completely disable your subjective point of view. The key, then, would be to somehow tell if that's what really happened, or if it was a result of your memories being manipulated.

As for psychedelic drugs, they can certainly change what you experience, but not (as far as I know) the fact that you are experiencing it. You can also apply software psychedelic drugs to a computer program that doesn't have any subjective experience.

EmptyVoid

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:07 PM

I already know the answers you seek but you would not believe me. Even if you did you would never accept it. So I will not tell you the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything. You most find the answers on your own.

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:08 PM

I think that this "experience" is an illusion created by subconscious mind storing the events you perceive associatively giving you the "unity" of your senses and relating them to the past senses giving you the feeling of continuous consciousness - for example - your vision feels perfectly continuous but it has been proven that you can only see 20-30 fps, but hay, thats way faster than regular brain can analyze the data ... I think the most important part of this experiencing is coherency - eg. if you were knocked out for last half hour you can't really say you experienced it or that you remember experiencing it, and if someone implanted a half hour worth of memory in your brain without linking it to other memories it would also feel as you didn't experience it. If the memories seemed coherent to you you could just assume they are yours and would have no reason to doubt them. You could tell them apart just because they haven't been experienced by your eyes and ears - but this would be only because you would feel a big incoherent and unexplained change in your memory caused by different organs receiving the data and different memory association algorithm (eg. if you memorized something your brain will probably create associations with other memories, but other person will create different associations based on their memory, and this might be noticeable to your brain "memory reader")

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Quote:
Original post by EmptyVoidYou most find the answers on your own.

I know I do, but it's also easier to start with someone elese thoughts, than with a clean slate (given that i can agree with the other person)

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Quote:
Original post by RedDrake
I think that this "experience" is an illusion created by subconscious mind storing the events you perceive associatively giving you the "unity" of your senses and relating them to the past senses giving you the feeling of continuous consciousness - for example - your vision feels perfectly continuous but it has been proven that you can only see 20-30 fps, but hay, thats way faster than regular brain can analyze the data ... I think the most important part of this experiencing is coherency - eg. if you were knocked out for last half hour you can't really say you experienced it or that you remember experiencing it, and if someone implanted a half hour worth of memory in your brain without linking it to other memories it would also feel as you didn't experience it. If the memories seemed coherent to you you could just assume they are yours and would have no reason to doubt them. You could tell them apart just because they haven't been experienced by your eyes and ears - but this would be only because you would feel a big incoherent and unexplained change in your memory caused by different organs receiving the data and different memory association algorithm (eg. if you memorized something your brain will probably create associations with other memories, but other person will create different associations based on their memory, and this might be noticeable to your brain "memory reader")

Subjective experience can't be an illusion. If it's an illusion, then "you" don't exist at all, and there's nobody to be fooled by the illusion.

Assume, though, that you go to a lab and the researchers tell you, "we're going to shut off your subjective experience, and then we'll chat for a while". The next thing you know, the clocks show one hour later. You remember exactly what you said and did during the past hour, the memories are perfectly clear and lucid, but at the same time it's really the next thing you know. They tell you your brain just spent the past hour without your conscious supervision. Couldn't you safely assume that they had indeed turned off your subjective experience for that hour?

twix

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:30 PM

It would also be just as interesting if this weren't possible. If we have the technology to make arbitrary adjustments to a human brain and it turns out we can't make someone's consciousness skip a block of time while retaining memories, we might conclude, for example, that subjective experience is related to the formation of memory.

RedDrake

Dec 22, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Quote:
Original post by twix
Subjective experience can't be an illusion. If it's an illusion, then "you" don't exist at all, and there's nobody to be fooled by the illusion.

This is assuming that "you" defines me as a single body - yet i am a constantly changing group of elements - whatever you call them(particles, atoms, cells) - not a single particle can be defined as me, and every one of this particles can be gradually replaced and i would still "feel" myself. I think i can be defined as a system much more easily.

Quote:
Original post by twix
Assume, though, that you go to a lab and they tell you, "we're going to shut off your subjective experience, and then we'll chat for a while". The next thing you know, the clocks show one hour later. You remember exactly what you said and did during the past hour, the memories are perfectly clear and lucid, but at the same time it's really the next thing you know. Couldn't you safely assume that they had indeed turned off your conscious experience for that period?

But what roll does my "conscious experience" when i can act without it ? When my memories are the same, and actions are ? Isn't my conscious experience the process witch determines my actions ? What is the purpose of something that i can turn off and be exactly the same - there is just no point in defining such thing even if it exists, simply because it serves to no outcome and defies the logic because it can be affected (perceive) but not affect - since you are the same without it ? It can react but offer no action as response ?

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.