Are these predictions about the Pacific coastline true or just a coincidence?

[TheUnknown]

The SCH hypothesis (assuming one universe) would say this simply would not/could not happen, because it is a non-self-consistent solution.


No, it simply could not occur as you describe it in "one world" because of the SCH hypothesis.


Then you have it in your multiple worlds theory.


no, its not that the universes would be destroyed, because (assuming just one world) those universes never existed in the first place. SCH simply says that the scenario you portray is not possible, the only possible world is one which is self-consistent.


seems like you need to separate in your mind the "multiple universe" idea from the "single universe" idea.

In the multiple universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible between universes) there would be no paradoxes and universes could be created and destroyed, and there is no need for a SCH hypothesis.

In the single universe idea then (assuming time travel is possible) it seems that we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure the world is self-consistent and there are no paradoxes.

Try not to mix the two ideas and you will be OK.

Hope this helps,

MF

explain to me what a "self consistent situation is?" who's to say in 20 years i decide to become a terrorist, and i am able to get my hands on time travel, and i do indeed travel back in time and the "nuclear episode" occurs exactly the way i want it to, because i believe it will destroy the universe according to your theory. Again the free actions of humans simply cannot be dismissed. I still haven't seen anything that makes me like the "dissapearing universes" theory, as i stated... if i became a terrorist, destroyed a world, took someone from that time (because i believe in this hypothesis, that it will somehow destroy the universe... this seems to easy to me and i jump at the chance to get a time travel machine and surely enough i am able to do it, and boom the whole universe as we know it doesn't exist because of my actions.) So what you are implying is that these universes simply DO NOT exist... until we go there... then they are created upon our arrival? and they disappear while leaving? still contradicts taking someone from that universe back to our time if they don't actually exist. Sorry if i am mixing ideas... like i said i am trying to assert all of these theories and hypothesis to get a clear view of what can and cannot happen, and then come up with a very reasonable theory.. i like mulitple worlds, although there is a lot of information lacking, like the free actions of humans, and the free actions of the universe as a whole, giving an infinite number of outcomes and Earth's that could or could not have been created exactly in tis place in the universe. what if we time traveled and upon coming out of the minurature black holes (supposively the source of time travel) we find ourselves in the middle of no where, and the solar system as we know it is 3,000,000,000,000 miles away from where we are today? and that any Earth in any other universe may not be 1000 years more advanced than us if we traveled back to 1970 because another "Einstein" came along before ours.

 

[TheUnknown]

For the multiple worlds theory to work there must be an unlimited (infinite?) number of parallel worlds, not simply to cater for different human "decisions" but also to cater for every possible outcome in every quantum mechanical event (assuming that QM is not deterministic).

If time travel is allowed, it boils down to :

Either the laws of physics are not super-deterministic and there are multiple worlds to cater for the various possible outcomes and to allow non-paradoxical time-travel.

Or the laws of physics are super-deterministic (even at a quantum level) and there is only one world with one (fixed) past and future, and (to ensure no paradoxes) this must be an entirely self-consistent solution even allowing for the possibility of time-travel.

MF

i agree... i want to prove time travel is possible, but sometimes the paradoxes seem not to allow it... but we have come so far in physics, we know the possibility is not to far off, and if we are able to harness it, we need some type of reasonable solution, so the first time travelers aren't going back in time thinking they do not have free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction]) i think you could in a sense.. on a time travel level, relate free will to action/reaction, free will is the actions and reactions that occur because of our actions... and we do have the free will to make these actions(nuclear episode), and they need be applied to these theories in whole.

 

[TheUnknown]

i do believe as well, if we can put together a plausible theory... that has no dead ends, and can be explained to any nay sayer, or questioner, that the possibility of time travel MUST be true. Example... planet hunting... Hubble picks a star, it can see this star, the scientist can measure the "wobble effect" on the star, and therefore a planet must exist, and they have been right everytime so far, a real theory must lead to reality, right? we can see the star (time) we know it's there, now we are measuring it's wobble(possibility of existence). if there is no wobble then the travel does not exist.

 

[Ich]

I am inclined to agree that there is something "not quite right" about the idea of time-travel within a single world (ie if we discount the multiple-worlds idea), it seems we are forced into a situation where we need something like the SCH hypothesis to ensure no paradoxes arise, but even with this hypothesis I think the possible outcomes are absurd (such as me traveling back in time and telling myself yesterday what I will have for breakfast today, and then being powerless to do anything but have what I have been told I will have). This absurdity suggests to me there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of time travel that we have yet to discover.

MF

guess we have a common point. This multiverse stuff seems to be the most approproiate to handle time travel, but I don´t really like it.

 

[TheUnknown]

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction])

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I don't get this multiple worlds idea. The logic is backwards.

"If we can't travel back into our own time, then at least we should be able to travel to the past by traveling back into an alternate time."

See, it starts with the premise that we simply cannot travel back into our own time. Then it goes on to say "but I really *want* to believe time travel of *some* sort is possible, so I'm ging to invent an alternate way it could happen - subjectively - from my point of view."

It's inventing a phenomemon out of "whole cloth" for no reason (other than because we want fodder for stories). It doesn't resolve *anything*.

The only way this would make sense is if we *had* a working time machine, that really *did* travel to a place that looks just like our past. And we were standing around scratching our heads, and saying "How is this possible? Where are they going when they go to the past? Since our universe hasn't disappeared in a puff of illogic, perhaps they're going to an alternate history."

 

[TheUnknown]

Personally, I don't get this multiple worlds idea. The logic is backwards.

"If we can't travel back into our own time, then at least we should be able to travel to the past by traveling back into an alternate time."

See, it starts with the premise that we simply cannot travel back into our own time. Then it goes on to say "but I really *want* to believe time travel of *some* sort is possible, so I'm ging to invent an alternate way it could happen - subjectively - from my point of view."

It's inventing a phenomemon out of "whole cloth" for no reason (other than because we want fodder for stories). It doesn't resolve *anything*.

The only way this would make sense is if we *had* a working time machine, that really *did* travel to a place that looks just like our past. And we were standing around scratching our heads, and saying "How is this possible? Where are they going when they go to the past? Since our universe hasn't disappeared in a puff of illogic, perhaps they're going to an alternate history."

alternate history/alternate worldline multiverse can all be tied together.. it is not just taking an opinion and saying believe this! it's taking all these other theories and saying.. look how faulty and wrong these are, they could never happen, since we have phylosophy and we understand that humans make choices everyday, they cannot be, the only way this could be possible is by doing it this way... there are no dead ends and no paradoxes, so why can it not be true? how could we travel back into "our" own time? if you really sit and think about, it does not work, time travel of that sort is not possible, if that's the only way time travel... could work, then i guess time travel is impossible in that sense. going back to a different history would suggest the multiple world theory, and with the multiple world theory, you then get back to square 1, which says, if there is an alternate universe with people making different decisions to have different histories, then everything in that world as we know it will be different, because every single human being every single day will make a different decision than he made today, or a different thought, at least once! at the least! and that's being generous! what if john wilks booth decided not to kill lincoln? what if america never dropped it nukes and germany came to power with the first nukes? alternate history is exactly what i am suggesting, and you are saying you believe in it... but you only want it to work according to this theory(which would say that for some reason the Earth started 100 or so years ago, forgetting about everything that has occurred over the past billions of years on earth, with all the people in it now, so if you went back to 1975, all the same people are there.. but with a different history?), you only want the histories to be different, but all the same people still exist, and all the planets lined up right, and (again if you believe in evolution) and all animals evolved the same, creating the same people to die from certain animals etc. etc. you see how cimplicated and how much of an amazing anomoly it would be to actually have an exact replica of our Earth with all the same people in it, but only making decisions that change in OUR view of OUR "historical events", but somehow still has all the same people living in it,. also physics are starting to expose the travels in time... so if it's possible, and we know it can't work a certain way, then it must work another way... which would mean 1.) multi universes do exist. Or 2.) time travel is not possible, or is a figment of the imagination created by intense gravitational fields (black holes).. or you do go back in time, and everything you think you are doing is not actually happening, although all the events around you are truly unfolding... I'm trying to figure out some way that time travel may be true.. but false at the same time, more of a mental lapse created by the gravitational field, that actually takes you back to these times and allows you to visualize or something, anyway, that sounds very incomplete and ridiculous, because it is incomplete, i'll put more thought into it, and see what i can come up with. also, when we do figure time travel, and the multiverse idea is true, then surely religion will have be rethought by many athiest... how could something like this beyond our thoughts be created over and over and over and over again unless a greater power wanted it to be that way so that we COULD time travel?

 

[moving finger]

the computer will just split out complete histories, all you can do is view them. But in these histories, there may be simulated intelligent beings who learn to time travel, and a time traveler may meet another being and tell him in advance what he was going to do. So if this being asks the time traveler, "but what will prevent me from doing something different?", I'm asking you what you think the best answer to him would be if you were to imagine responding to him in your head, you can't actually tell him the answer since you are not part of the simulation.

Hi Jesse

Can we examine the simulations analogy in more detail please?

The hyperspace computer producing these simulations is presumably generating each of these simulations at random, using some kind of "starting point" or “seed” in the time-axis of 4D spacetime (it could be at the beginning of time, the end of time, or any point on the time-axis, since using Block Time and the deterministic view, we should be able to generate any particular history, past and future, given the precise spacetime coordinates for one particular point on the temporal axis of that history). Do you agree?
The computer then uses the deterministic algorithm to simply generate the full 4D spacetime history from a given starting point (seed).
I am interested in the selection process for complete histories - the process the computer uses to select and “split out” only complete (ie self-consistent) spacetimes for the hyperbeings to view.
The computer presumably selects seeds at random and generates a multitude of random spacetime histories?

Are we saying (A) that it is possible (in principle) for the computer to generate (given a particular starting seed) a spacetime history which is inconsistent and therefore incomplete? In which case the entire set of histories generated by the computer will contain both complete (consistent) and incomplete (inconsistent) histories, and the computer then presumably retrospectively discards the incomplete histories?

Or are we saying (B) that the computer will only use seeds that will always generate only complete and consistent spacetime histories?

If (A), then there is some point in the “hypertime” of the computer when each incomplete history “exists”, prior to being discarded. Presumably, the simulated beings within this incomplete history “experience” that existence, just as much as the simulated beings within a complete history. In which case, both complete and incomplete histories, at some point in hypertime, give rise to conditions whereby 4D simulated beings experience existence. This being the case, it is clearly possible that our present universe could be one with either a complete or an incomplete history (if incomplete, we simply have not yet reached the point of inconsistency which renders our spacetime incomplete).

If (B), then this implies there must be some kind of preferential “pre-selection” of seeds that will produce ONLY complete spacetimes, ie seeds that will produce incomplete spacetimes are somehow eliminated from the batch of seeds used for the simulations BEFORE they are used to produce an incomplete history. But in this case we must ask the question – what is the selection process? How are seeds pre-selected to “weed out” the ones that will lead to incomplete spacetimes (it cannot be by actually RUNNING the simulation and generating the relevant spacetime, since this leads us back to (A))?

Interesting questions……which seem to suggest that the “self-consistent histories” solution is perhaps not such a complete and neat solution after all….

MF

 

[moving finger]

explain to me what a "self consistent situation is?"

a self-consistent solution is only relevant to the single universe scenario. basically, any timeline which creates a paradox (such as me going back in time and killing my mother before I am born) would be non-self-consistent (ie could not result in a single coherent and complete 4D spacetime within a single universe, because it contains the paradox that i exist and yet my mother died before i was born).

who's to say in 20 years i decide to become a terrorist, and i am able to get my hands on time travel, and i do indeed travel back in time and the "nuclear episode" occurs exactly the way i want it to, because i believe it will destroy the universe according to your theory. Again the free actions of humans simply cannot be dismissed. I still haven't seen anything that makes me like the "dissapearing universes" theory, as i stated... if i became a terrorist, destroyed a world,

again, please be clear about whether you are talking about the single universe scenario, or the multiple universes scenarion.

If multiple, then self-consistent solutions are not necessary or relevant.

If single, then how can you "exist" if at the same time you have destroyed your past (this is the non-self-consistent timeline).

took someone from that time (because i believe in this hypothesis, that it will somehow destroy the universe... this seems to easy to me and i jump at the chance to get a time travel machine and surely enough i am able to do it, and boom the whole universe as we know it doesn't exist because of my actions.)

Again - if single universe you have created a paradox, a non-self-consistent solution.

If multiple universes, no problem.

So what you are implying is that these universes simply DO NOT exist... until we go there... then they are created upon our arrival? and they disappear while leaving? still contradicts taking someone from that universe back to our time if they don't actually exist.

No, I never said that. If multiple universes, then they DO all exist, every one of them, in parallel with our own, all equivalent.

Sorry if i am mixing ideas... like i said i am trying to assert all of these theories and hypothesis to get a clear view of what can and cannot happen, and then come up with a very reasonable theory.. i like mulitple worlds, although there is a lot of information lacking, like the free actions of humans, and the free actions of the universe as a whole, giving an infinite number of outcomes and Earth's that could or could not have been created exactly in tis place in the universe.

There you go again talking of "free" actions. Please define what is a "free action"?

what if we time traveled and upon coming out of the minurature black holes (supposively the source of time travel)

nope. Black holes are not necessary.

we find ourselves in the middle of no where, and the solar system as we know it is 3,000,000,000,000 miles away from where we are today? and that any Earth in any other universe may not be 1000 years more advanced than us if we traveled back to 1970 because another "Einstein" came along before ours.

yes... and your point is?

MF

 

[moving finger]

A computer may NEVER have "free will" because of the fact that is has already been created by us, that destroys it's whole concept of free will, because yes it IS programmed by the creator, now if you believe in God you may argue that we then.. have no free will, but religion states that God works in mysterious ways, and that we DO have Free will, although he is omnipresent and all knowing, one of many paradoxes yet to be discovered.

But none of this follows from your definition of free will!

Are you saying that nothing "created" by a human being can ever have free will? How are human beings created... by other human beings!

Why does the fact that something has been created "destroy its whole concept of free will"? There is nothing that leads to this conclusion in your definition of free will.

There is also nothing in your definition that says free will can be endowed on a creature only by God.

Please can you re-define free will such that it is consistent with what you have said?

No i do not believe we are programmed to act a certain way or do a certain thing... we have the software, but we make our own decisions, no one is clicking a mouse or hitting Enter.

A machine can be designed to make decisions without any outside observer clicking a mouse or hitting "Enter", does this make it free?

Humans MUST act freely for time travel to be possible.

why?

You cannot dismiss this and then come up with a theory lacking the free actions of humans, and prove it to have no paradoxes, a paradox is a problem, it is not a solution. for free will/timetravel/multi universes to be possible, there must be only one of YOU in the entire universe, and every other Earth is full of different humans or beings.

what does this have to do with free will?

i take that back.. in a sense... there may be another you since there are an infinite amount of universes, but it is not really YOU, or they are living in your current time(i don't want to believe this can happen, but i'll give it the benefit of the doubt, on a quantum multiverse scale i find it highly unlikely you'd ever run into yourself), i take that all back, there must certainly be another you if the multiverse is infinite, but it's not YOU.. if you know what I'm saying? or when you both met, since the universe is omnipresent, your minds would explode or something, how can anyone fathom that? how can YOU be talking to YOU and listening to what YOU are saying... but not knowing what YOU are going to say before you say it, even though it is YOU talking... hm. :-/ u know? different YOU brains each not knowing what the other is thinking, yet they are both YOU. can't be possible?

There is only one of you. Even someone who is almost identical to you in another universe is still not you. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of free will (which we cannot debate yet because we still don't have a definition that we are happy with)

MF

 

[JesseM]

Hi Jesse

Can we examine the simulations analogy in more detail please?

The hyperspace computer producing these simulations is presumably generating each of these simulations at random, using some kind of "starting point" or “seed” in the time-axis of 4D spacetime (it could be at the beginning of time, the end of time, or any point on the time-axis, since using Block Time and the deterministic view, we should be able to generate any particular history, past and future, given the precise spacetime coordinates for one particular point on the temporal axis of that history). Do you agree?

No, that's not how I was thinking of it. Your "seed" comment suggests you're thinking in terms of picking a random set of initial conditions, then evolving them forwards using dynamical laws. I'm thinking of generating entire histories at random, with no laws constraining them whatsoever. I used the analogy of a chess board earlier--instead of picking a starting configuration for the board and evolving it forward using only legal moves, imagine simply picking a random number of moves that the game will last, then making a slot for each position on the board at each move, and then assigning each slot a piece (or designating it empty) completely at random, like "A4 on move 12 will contain a black rook" or " E11 on move 3 will be empty". The vast majority of histories generated by this method won't look like a legal chess game at all, the number of pieces and their positions will be changing randomly from one move to another, but the computer can then go through and throw out every history that does not obey the "laws of chess" from beginning to end. Similarly, I am imagining something like a computer which generates a spacetime manifold whose curvature varies in a completely random way, with the worldlines of objects also drawn at random, and then all of these are thrown out except for the spacetimes where the metric relates to the density of matter/energy according to the rules of GR, and where the worldlines also obey the correct laws of physics (being geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, for example). Of course, the complete description of a "history" in quantum gravity may be something other than worldlines on curved spacetime, but whatever the basic description you should be able to come up with an analogous notion of "random histories".

Are we saying (A) that it is possible (in principle) for the computer to generate (given a particular starting seed) a spacetime history which is inconsistent and therefore incomplete? In which case the entire set of histories generated by the computer will contain both complete (consistent) and incomplete (inconsistent) histories, and the computer then presumably retrospectively discards the incomplete histories?

Yes. These histories are not logically inconsistent, but they contain points where the laws of physics are not obeyed. This would probably be because the laws of physics are not obeyed throughout the entire history, just zigzagging worldlines and changing spacetime curvature that follow no laws at all, but there would also be occasional histories where the laws of physics were mostly obeyed but that contained specific points where they weren't, like if I went back and killed my mother but then at some moment her dead body suddenly disappeared and she was suddenly walking around with no memory of having been visited by a time traveler.

If (A), then there is some point in the “hypertime” of the computer when each incomplete history “exists”, prior to being discarded.

Yes, but this is just an analogy, the point is just that the histories we see the computer return as output will obey the laws of physics throughout, and will thus be consistent. I'm not suggesting that there is some entity sorting through random histories and then picking one where the correct laws of physics are obeyed throughout, waving his magic wand over it, and making it a "real universe"; it's just a way of thinking about what it means for the "laws of physics" to exist as timeless constraints on entire histories (like general relativity, or the principle of least action in classical physics) as opposed to dynamical rules that start from some initial conditions and evolve them forward.

 

[moving finger]

TheUnknown - I take it this is your definition of free will?

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<----.

Sorry, but this is a tautology - you are defining free will in terms of the ability to act freely - which is a circular definition (ie is meaningless).
The rest of your definition (being able to change oneselves or others mind causing certain... etc) describes properties that a demonstrably deterministic machine can have.

(on the basis that time travel exists, one has these free will choices inside themself while time traveling, THEY control what they do and don't do while time traveling, and that either effects the world they are currently visiting, or doesn't, and causes consequences, and rewards[action/reaction])

I do not see what free will has to do with time travel, sorry. We can (theoretically) create a machine that could time travel, in place of a human, are you saying that this machine must be endowed with "free will" before it can travel in time?

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

no, this machine would not have free will because it cannot think for itself, we would be controlling it.

 

[TheUnknown]

a self-consistent solution is only relevant to the single universe scenario. basically, any timeline which creates a paradox (such as me going back in time and killing my mother before I am born) would be non-self-consistent (ie could not result in a single coherent and complete 4D spacetime within a single universe, because it contains the paradox that i exist and yet my mother died before i was born).


again, please be clear about whether you are talking about the single universe scenario, or the multiple universes scenarion.

If multiple, then self-consistent solutions are not necessary or relevant.

If single, then how can you "exist" if at the same time you have destroyed your past (this is the non-self-consistent timeline).


Again - if single universe you have created a paradox, a non-self-consistent solution.

If multiple universes, no problem.


No, I never said that. If multiple universes, then they DO all exist, every one of them, in parallel with our own, all equivalent.


There you go again talking of "free" actions. Please define what is a "free action"?


nope. Black holes are not necessary.


yes... and your point is?

MF

hehe my points are that a self consistent singular universe cannot allow time travel, because i am allowed to make any actions i want when i go back in time, and if i killed my mother before i was born, then the paradox would be created, not allowing me to return to my current time, and if you say i could, then the butterfly effect must be true :P I'm saying that multiple universes must be the only explanation, all with different histories (over the billions of years of existence, not just the last 20 or so) if time travel is to even exist. If i was to back in time, and not be able to kill my mother because it is a self consistent situation, then what's the point of going back in time? i can't do anything i want, i am being controlled by "something", that is not allowing me to make decisions, therefore what could we gain? all our actions would be restricted, it doesn't make sense, the single universe cannot exist. Since there an infinite number of universes in the multivierse theory, it may be possible that we are able to figure out a way to only time travel to Earths similar to ours, unless it's always going to be totally random.

 

[TheUnknown]

But none of this follows from your definition of free will!

Are you saying that nothing "created" by a human being can ever have free will? How are human beings created... by other human beings!

Why does the fact that something has been created "destroy its whole concept of free will"? There is nothing that leads to this conclusion in your definition of free will.

There is also nothing in your definition that says free will can be endowed on a creature only by God.

Please can you re-define free will such that it is consistent with what you have said?


A machine can be designed to make decisions without any outside observer clicking a mouse or hitting "Enter", does this make it free?


why?


what does this have to do with free will?


There is only one of you. Even someone who is almost identical to you in another universe is still not you. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of free will (which we cannot debate yet because we still don't have a definition that we are happy with)

MF

i'm going to work on this free will thing until i come to a conclusion, and please critique it everytime, so i can adjust it, until it can no longer be critiqued... the only way to get an answer is by this process i believe :) So, only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will, a computer does not have free will because we are restricting it to what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot understand, if we create a perfect computer then it can never mess up, it does not have the free will to be wrong, therefore it does not have free will. When we make a computer, we endow it with it's accessabilities, and it is not created naturally, we are using our knowledge of what we consider free will and trying to create it into an artificial machine with our two hands. Human beings are allowed to make decisions on their own with no intervention from a controller or creator (as far as we know), we were evlolved or created perfectly to fit the prequisite of free will. Yes humans create humans... but we do not use metal and electricity harnessed from the earth... that'd be the day :-/. Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do... we create them that way, we say ok if this situation occurs, you choose this!... humans have free will... humans with the same "software" (working brain?) all act differently in the same situations... computers and machines do not, unless their software malfuncitons, you can create 100 of the same computer, and it will act exactly the same in every situation if you have programmed it that way, you cannot give a machine free will, because it cannot analyze a situation the way we can, and you should know this. Is a machine conscience of it's conscience? this is almost silly that we are comparing humans to machines on the basis of free will... humans created computers with what they can and can't do, computers are only a bi-product of humans perception of free will, and can never have it.

 

[moving finger]

only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will, a computer does not have free will because we are restricting it to what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot understand, if we create a perfect computer then it can never mess up, it does not have the free will to be wrong, therefore it does not have free will.

Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possesses free will, before you actually define what free will is.

When we make a computer, we endow it with it's accessabilities, and it is not created naturally, we are using our knowledge of what we consider free will and trying to create it into an artificial machine with our two hands.

Why should this make any difference?

Human beings are allowed to make decisions on their own with no intervention from a controller or creator (as far as we know),

A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?

we were evlolved or created perfectly to fit the prequisite of free will.

Who says so? That is your supposition.

Yes humans create humans... but we do not use metal and electricity harnessed from the earth... that'd be the day :-/ .

What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do

What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?

... we create them that way, we say ok if this situation occurs, you choose this!

Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.

... humans have free will.. .

by definition? Whose definition?

humans with the same "software" (working brain?) all act differently in the same situations... computers and machines do not, unless their software malfuncitons, you can create 100 of the same computer, and it will act exactly the same in every situation if you have programmed it that way,

again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines

you cannot give a machine free will, because it cannot analyze a situation the way we can, and you should know this.

Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

Is a machine conscience of it's conscience?

I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine

this is almost silly that we are comparing humans to machines on the basis of free will... humans created computers with what they can and can't do, computers are only a bi-product of humans perception of free will, and can never have it.

I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

biological entities, endowed only by a father and mothers sperm have free will. Anything created by man may never have free will, free will subsides only in biological entities. Free will is the ability to think of time travel, the ability to think of physics, without humans machines do not exist... WE have free will, again, read my first definition of free will now that we have gotten past this machine/human thing, and without questiong it by using machines, tell me what you think.

 

[TheUnknown]

Problem here is that you are attempting to define which entities can possesses free will, before you actually define what free will is.



Why should this make any difference?


A machine could also be so constructed, that after it has been constructed it is then “free” to make decisions on its own without intervention or constraint from outside. If a human being is deemed to have free will, why is such a machine also not deemed to have free will?


Who says so? That is your supposition.


What difference does that make? Are you suggesting that free will is somehow linked with biological machines and never with electromechanical machines?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Exactly.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


What is choice? I define choice as “taking two or more inputs and creating one output”. By this definition then even a simple machine chooses. How do you define choice?


Not necessarily. It is possible to create a “learning machine” which uses its experiences to modify its future decisions. This way, we cannot necessarily predict what it will do.




by definition? Whose definition?

again, not so, if you create a learning machine (possible today) then you can create 100 identical machines on day one, and by day two you will have 100 individual and different machines.

Answered.


Who says so? What is unique about the human way of analysing things that cannot be carried out by a machine?

I see no reason why a machine could not be conscious if it was sufficiently complex and self-reflecting. I agree that simple computers are not conscious, but I see nothing “special” in human beings which could not in principle also be created within a machine.

I disagree. But we can never determine what can and cannot have free will until we agree a definition of free will…… so we have come back to where we started….. what is your definition?



MF

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical or psychological level, therefore it feels no emotions, and all of it's actions only result from pre-programmed(might i add man made) software.

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this? A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy. A machine being able to learn is hardly choice. This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve? will it build bridges? will it reproduce? will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed? no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of. May a computer feel emotion? Does emotion
constitute many of the actions we make? Maybe this will help clear up free will in Humans and Machines. If i go back in time and i am angry, i may kill my mother before she is born, that is my free will to do so, a computer may also do this... but it must be programmed to do so :D

Is this Good enough? :)

 

[TheUnknown]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.

 

[moving finger]

No, I am defining which entites can posses free will on the basis of my original definition of free will. I did already define it.

Your definition was (please correct me if I am wrong) :

free will : --->the ability to act freely and change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

As I have already pointed out, to define free will as the ability to act freely is a tautology (circular) hence meaningless. Your definition therefore reduces to :

free will : --->the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time<---

I see absolutely nothing in this definition which leads us to the conclusion that “only a natural and intelligent entity that is aware of it's conscience that is not created by the hands of human beings or is created in a natural way of life(as we know it, example, you can include babies being produced in labs, since it is natural, sperm and egg.) has free will”

Therefore you are making an unwarranted assumption that only “natural” entities can possesses free will, since this does not follow from your definition.

again because we are endowing a machine with man made characteristics which it can portray but never fully have.

How do you know this? Again, this is an unwarranted assumption with no supporting evidence.

This machine does not have a conscience, it is programmed to make these "free" decisions... which are programmed. It does not actually know what it is doing, it is not a biological living entity aware of it's surrounding environments and life, it cannot connect with life and thought on a phylisophical level.

Again, none of this has anything to do with your definition of free will! I grant you that most present-day machines fall into this category, but there is nothing which says that we cannot create a machine which actually knows what it is doing, is aware of its surroundings etc etc. But even when we do this, what relevance does this have to the way you have defined free will?

This should be fact, we are living entities.. . a machine is not, how can you even argue this?

We are debating free will, not “living entities”. If you wish instead to debate living entities, then please define what you mean by a living entity.

A human being is infinitely smarter than any machine it can ever create, the machine may beat it out in one aspect, but the human will always have deeper and more variety of thought, this is why human CREATES machine, and not the other way around, are you a machine? or do you just like to defend them :)

Yes, I am a machine. I am also human. Why do you say that humans will always have deeper and more variety of thought than the machines it creates? You believe that a human cannot create something which is smarter than itself? Why not?

Choice is not in any free will. (it isn't, it is much deeper, although choice does play a role) I never said choice = free will.

That’s good. Then we don’t need to debate “choice” any more. (just for the record, it was not me who started talking about choice, it was you who said that “Computers cannot actually choose what they want to do or not do”)

Common sense. Phylosophy. How else better to explain it? You and I should both know we have free will, if you would like to help me explain it, it would be nice... but saying a machine has free will is... crazy.

I don’t see why it is crazy. Why does it seem so crazy to you? You believe that only humans can possesses free will? You defined free will as “the ability to change oneselves or others mind causing CERTAIN negative and positive reactions in ones self, or in others, in any circumstances in any environment or universe at any time”….. I see nothing in this definition which precludes a machine from having free will as defined. If there IS something in that definition which precludes machines from ever having free will, please do point it out (but please do not just simply say that “only humans can have free will”, because this does NOT follow from your definition).

A machine being able to learn is hardly choice.

Ohhh, I thought we had put “choice” to bed?

This machine, like i said before, is already endowed with it's software, which man gave it, and is now only a micro-fraction of mans perception of free will. A machine will never have free will.

That is your opinion. I think differently. And I see nothing in your definition of free will which would preclude a machine from having free will.

Yes this is possible, but will it evolve?

If it is capable of reproducing itself, yes, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it build bridges?

Why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it reproduce?

If it has been given the physical possibility of reproducing, why not? (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

will it uptake a profession in physics and rewrite the limits on speed?

I see no reason why not. (but this has nothing to do with free will!)

no, it is impossibl, a machine will forever be limited.

No more limited than a human.

Everything. I've already explained, a computer does not understand what a star is when it looks at it, a computer does not understand it's ancestory, a computer cannot understand quantum mechanics the way we can, it is just programmed software... so is it actually learning?

Present day computers, yes, I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which can understand all these things. And learn.

Machines can never be conscience of their conscience, there is no conscience to be conscience of.

Present-day machines, yes I agree. But there is nothing in principle to prevent us developing a machine which is conscious.

MF

 

[moving finger]

Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls.

What is a "biological entity"? This needs to be defined. For example, if a silicon-based life-form were to evolve on another planet, would that mean it could not have free-will as so defined here?
The definition could then be criticised for necessarily limiting free will to biological entities, and that would need to be defended.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion. Therefore we would in fact be creating a living naturally created biological entity, as i explained. please read my new definition of free will. Updated version... free will : State of mind that can only be possesed by a biological entity that is aware of it's conscience and can connect with life phylisophically and phsycologically, as well as experience emotions which will cause it and allow it to act and think in any way it desires not restricted by "self consistent situations" at any point in time, traveling to any universe, and while in any universe. (multiple universe free will explanation) possibly more acn be added, critique pls. Can you re read my last reply to you too, i edited some things while you were replying, so it got mixed up, sorry :) u don't have to reply to it again, i just added some things that i thought were important after i re read what i had typed.

 

[TheUnknown]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across". And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this? "we can make computers smarter than humans" you said something like this, or implied this. i never denied this, i said in one aspect you make be able to, example is a calculator, so? what else can a calculator do? And that also is not free will it is programmed to be perfect, it can never be wrong, it cannot learn, it is nothing. it has no pulse, it cannot make decisions. computers will NEVER be smarter than humans, since we program with the technology they need(we make their brains, we know everything they know and can possibly ever know).

 

[moving finger]

if we ever created a machine capable of reproducing biologically... then it would HAVE to be biological, there is no other way for a machine to reproduce and still fit the specifications of my definion.

You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF

 

[moving finger]

"will it build bridges?" "Why not? This has nothing to do with free will" ... yes it does, you are missing my points, it can build bridges, but it must be built to build bridges, and programmed to understand bridges, you cannot create a machine that will come to a river and think "build a bridge to get across".

In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?

And even if you can, which might be possible, then you have to make it be able to build a bridge, and then it would also have to understand how to construct a bridge, and take into effect, the wind, the sway it eneds to hold up agains the wind, what resources to use, etc etc etc. the list goes on. the only way this could be done is with a biological entity, do you deny this?

Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF

 

[TheUnknown]

You now need to define biological. See my last post re silicon-based life-forms.

MF

i don't need to explain biological, you know what biological is, that is a good enough definition of free will, if you want me to define every single word, then this will get no where, but i can if you think that will help. :P

 

[TheUnknown]

In principle, yes I can.

I could argue that "humans are built to do what they do". Does that imply they do not have free will?


Yes I do deny it! Why should it be only a "biological entity" which can do all these things? Please also define biological entity.

MF

this is what i am explaining to you(or trying to to :-/), humans are not built to do what they do, we take it upon ourselves to figure out problems, a machine is simply a reincarnation of a false human, what humans percieve as free will, and they will never be able to amount to a human in all aspect of life, they can only be built for certain specifications. a biological entity, is any living breathing being (plant/anima/microbial, or of any aspect of life that is consistent with being biological)that lives off of and uses it's surroundings to survive and is created biologically, and consists 100% of biological substance.

 

[TheUnknown]

"... could imply humans are built..." humans are simply not built...

About your silicon thing, that does not fit into the specifications of a biological entity... so when i write my definition on free will, i may have to change biological entity, but as far as we know there are no other life forms, so for this Earth, that definition stands true.

 

[TheUnknown]

Should i call a biological entity a universal intelligent entity? what can i call it? i think this definition is quite proper, i just need to find a name or names that correspond with all life anywhere in the universe that could have possibly evolved from any type of substance or matter. heck that sounds good enough... any life anywhere in the universe that evolved from any substance or matter that is naturally produced and reproduced, and is aware of it's conscience? something along those lines, help me out, i think i almost have it. :) I'm not that bright, you know... i need some help on this.

 

[moving finger]

No, that's not how I was thinking of it. Your "seed" comment suggests you're thinking in terms of picking a random set of initial conditions, then evolving them forwards using dynamical laws.

Yes, that’s what I was initially thinking.

I'm thinking of generating entire histories at random, with no laws constraining them whatsoever. I used the analogy of a chess board earlier--instead of picking a starting configuration for the board and evolving it forward using only legal moves, imagine simply picking a random number of moves that the game will last, then making a slot for each position on the board at each move, and then assigning each slot a piece (or designating it empty) completely at random, like "A4 on move 12 will contain a black rook" or " E11 on move 3 will be empty".

Ahhh, OK yes I see. So it would be something akin to taking the total n-dimensional configuration phase-space for all particle histories in the universe (where n is an extremely large number!) and generating each of the points in this configuration phase-space (each point would represent a whole 4D spacetime, a unique combination of 4D spacetime histories for all particles in the universe), but only some (very few!) of these points would represent spacetimes that are self-consistent.

The vast majority of histories generated by this method won't look like a legal chess game at all, the number of pieces and their positions will be changing randomly from one move to another, but the computer can then go through and throw out every history that does not obey the "laws of chess" from beginning to end. Similarly, I am imagining something like a computer which generates a spacetime manifold whose curvature varies in a completely random way, with the worldlines of objects also drawn at random, and then all of these are thrown out except for the spacetimes where the metric relates to the density of matter/energy according to the rules of GR, and where the worldlines also obey the correct laws of physics (being geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, for example). Of course, the complete description of a "history" in quantum gravity may be something other than worldlines on curved spacetime, but whatever the basic description you should be able to come up with an analogous notion of "random histories".

OK, I get it.

But even some of the “non-self-consistent” histories will contain portions or segments of spacetime which are locally self-consistent (just as a limited sequence of moves in a random movement of chesspieces on the board may just happen to follow the rules of chess, even if the overall set of moves is not legal). In fact, if we are selecting universes in the configuration-space at random, then we would expect the number of universes which are overall non-self-consistent but containing self-consistent limited subsets or segments to greatly outnumber (by a truly astronomic ratio) the number of totally self-consistent universes. Thus, for every totally self-consistent universe we produce, we can expect to also produce an astronomic number of universes which are self-consistent say from Big Bang to 15 billion years after the Big Bang, with non-self-consistency only appearing after the 15 billion-year mark (for example).

These histories are not logically inconsistent, but they contain points where the laws of physics are not obeyed. This would probably be because the laws of physics are not obeyed throughout the entire history, just zigzagging worldlines and changing spacetime curvature that follow no laws at all, but there would also be occasional histories where the laws of physics were mostly obeyed but that contained specific points where they weren't, like if I went back and killed my mother but then at some moment her dead body suddenly disappeared and she was suddenly walking around with no memory of having been visited by a time traveler.

Yes, as I referred to above, if we produce universes at random then for every totally self-consistent universe there must be a multitude which are “almost” self-consistent, but with just one or two inconsistencies, which may (for example) occur after the 15 billion year age point, thus the spacetime history from Big Bang to 15 billion years would be self-consistent.

Now I need to ask : At what point do the beings within each of these universes actually “experience” existence?

Are you suggesting that the complete set of universes (non-self-consistent and self-consistent) are first generated, and then the non-self-consistent ones are somehow “destroyed”? But surely the “beings” (if there are any) within these universes will exist at the moment the universes are “created”, they will surely not wait until the non-self-consistent versions are destroyed until they “suddenly experience existence”?

but this is just an analogy, the point is just that the histories we see the computer return as output will obey the laws of physics throughout, and will thus be consistent. I'm not suggesting that there is some entity sorting through random histories and then picking one where the correct laws of physics are obeyed throughout, waving his magic wand over it, and making it a "real universe"; it's just a way of thinking about what it means for the "laws of physics" to exist as timeless constraints on entire histories (like general relativity, or the principle of least action in classical physics) as opposed to dynamical rules that start from some initial conditions and evolve them forward.

Yes, I see that. And this is where the analogy apparently breaks down. I believe what you would say is that the non-self-consistent versions would never be created in the first place, that there is some kind of cosmic pre-selection rule which only allows a completely self-consistent universe to ever be created (even though there is no way to know in advance whether any point in configuration space chosen at random will produce a self-consistent universe or not prior to creation, just as there is no way to know in advance whether a random assortment of pieces on a chess board will be a “legal” configuration or not, until we actually examine the configuration).

It could be the case (taking the random selection analogy more literally) that we live in a universe which is self-consistent from Big Bang to present day, but without guarantee of self-consistency in the future. I know you will disagree with this, but surely it then comes down to a personal belief, which cannot be proven one way or another?

MF