Regarding Franko...

[Franko]

C4ts,

You are an erratic little Graviton – aren’t you?

Humans created TLOP, and they did so through discovery and pattern recognition.

hey look, this one is stirring …

You’re missing the point. What determined the “pattern” prior to it being “recognized”?

If it was the “matter” that determined the “pattern”, and “we” are “matter”, then how is that anything other than an ass-backwards way of saying that “consciousness” created the pattern?

That is why there are sometimes things that break the laws of physics, and why the laws are subject to revision when that happens.

No, no, no, no, my precious little Hellspawn, you are assuming that Solipsism is True again. Nothing ever “breaks” the rules (the pattern) … someone just realizes that we were not properly receiving (perceiving) and/or misunderstanding the nature of the pattern, or even the pattern itself.

Wasn't that what the quantum physics revolution did?

If by Quantum Physics you mean Heisenberg’s Magical Principle, Yes. That is when the forces of darkness mustered and began their slow miserably pathetic little attempt to “conquer the World” …

 

[gentlehorse]

"Map" not equal "Territory".

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many seem to have such a problem with this idea.

 

[hammegk]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many seem to have such a problem with this idea.

Yeah, I wondered too if F made the best choice.

 

[Max560]

If you know all of the numbers, and the rules of addition and subtraction, can you add or subtract ANY two numbers for me?



We (consciousnesses) are the “computers” of “sufficient power”. The more self-aware you become the more “sufficient power” you accumulate.

I think we are misunderstanding eachother.

From the fatalist perspective, i understand that there is no such thing as choice. All things that happen are a direct result of the rules of the universe or, TLOP as per your arguement.

Does this mean that X, Y, or Z may happen, or does this mean that A, B, and C will happen?

In other words, would having all the info, complete understanding of TLOP, and enough computational power to process this tell us what could possibly happen, or what definately will happen?

 

[Franko]

Max:
From the fatalist perspective, i understand that there is no such thing as choice. All things that happen are a direct result of the rules of the universe or, TLOP as per your arguement.

Does this mean that X, Y, or Z may happen, or does this mean that A, B, and C will happen?

In other words, would having all the info, complete understanding of TLOP, and enough computational power to process this tell us what could possibly happen, or what definately will happen?

Okay, think of it this way. We have two computers, A and B, and A is 10x faster processing than B. Now we load the same program onto both computers, and the programs require some input from a database and workspace, so we have both computer A and computer B sharing a hard drive with more than enough space for both.

Assuming that we start the same program running on both machines at the same time, and they are sharing a common fixed data file for any inputs required, computer A will ALWAYS anticipate the future outputs of computer B prior to B actually generating those outputs itself.

But you are really asking a different question, aren’t you?

 

[Max560]

Okay, think of it this way. We have two computers, A and B, and A is 10x faster processing than B. Now we load the same program onto both computers, and the programs require some input from a database and workspace, so we have both computer A and computer B sharing a hard drive with more than enough space for both.

Assuming that we start the same program running on both machines at the same time, and they are sharing a common fixed data file for any inputs required, computer A will ALWAYS anticipate the future outputs of computer B prior to B actually generating those outputs itself.

But you are really asking a different question, aren’t you?

Yes. I want to know if there is enough information in the present (in conjunction with TLOP) to calculate what will happen in the future, as opposed to what might happen. I mean this in the sense of taking a watch, and being able to predict what time it will show 17 minutes from now.

 

[Franko]

Max560:
Yes. I want to know if there is enough information in the present (in conjunction with TLOP) to calculate what will happen in the future, as opposed to what might happen. I mean this in the sense of taking a watch, and being able to predict what time it will show 17 minutes from now.

This is one of those fascinating little topics that I’d bet you could quite literally spend an Eternity discussing and pondering.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.

So, this is where you have the computer A and computer B business. Unless you have a computer that calculates faster than TLOP (the speed of light), then even if you had the perfect algorithm, and perfect database, you still couldn’t anticipate faster than TLOP makes the thing happen in reality (realtime).

 

[Max560]

This is one of those fascinating little topics that I’d bet you could quite literally spend an Eternity discussing and pondering.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.

So, this is where you have the computer A and computer B business. Unless you have a computer that calculates faster than TLOP (the speed of light), then even if you had the perfect algorithm, and perfect database, you still couldn’t anticipate faster than TLOP makes the thing happen in reality (realtime).

So this is where the monopoly game comes in. Primarily, it is a device by which we can slash the information down to a more manageable size.

In this case, could the numbers be crunched prior to the games being played? Can we know exactly how the games will turn out exactly?

The thing that I would seriously consider as Strong evidence for Fate would be something like 20-20 hindsight applied to the future-- 20-20 foresight if you will.

You can definitely predict the future – people do that all of the time.

Sure one can make educated guesses and general projections (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow morning.....I hope). The more impressive feat of course would be having some agreement between the predictor and the evaluator agreeing on what will constitute an accurate prediction prior to the actual prediction being made.

 

[Franko]

So this is where the monopoly game comes in. Primarily, it is a device by which we can slash the information down to a more manageable size.

Someone’s thinking …

In this case, could the numbers be crunched prior to the games being played? Can we know exactly how the games will turn out exactly?

Depends on the relative complexity of the game, depends on who’s playing. You against some kindergartners at checkers, my money’s on you.

Sure one can make educated guesses and general projections (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow morning.....I hope). The more impressive feat of course would be having some agreement between the predictor and the evaluator agreeing on what will constitute an accurate prediction prior to the actual prediction being made.

You might be amazed what some people can do.

It looks like magic. … until they explain the logic behind the trick.

 

[Q-Source]

So you want to predict the future, you have two parameters, You have the algorithm that is going to calculate what is suppose to happen, and you have the data (information) regarding the event you want to predict. Okay, now suppose that your algorithm is perfect, it mimics what The Laws of Physics (TLOP) does perfectly, and suppose that you data is also perfect, by which I mean it is “complete information”, it is everything relevant to the event, or point in time we are trying to calculate.

Yes my friend, just don't forget those little disgusting acausal events...

You cannot hide them, you have to deal with them. If there is just only one single acausal event, then you cannot predict the future. As far as I know, there are millions of them in the Universe.

Q-S

 

[Franko]

Q-Source:
Yes my friend, just don't forget those little disgusting acausal events...

You cannot hide them, you have to deal with them. If there is just only one single acausal event, then you cannot predict the future. As far as I know, there are millions of them in the Universe.

Define “acausal event”?

I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

And what millions of acausal events are you referring to (specifically)? Please don’t say QM Source! QM isn’t nearly as “random” (magical) as people think. Why is it that the magic only seems to happen when no one is looking? Why is it that you A-Theist ALWAYS want to pretend that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn’t a thousand, thousand times more solid that your Many-magical-worlds supernatural accounting of events?

 

[Max560]

You might be amazed what some people can do.

It looks like magic. … until they explain the logic behind the trick.

...hence the need for proper test conditions.

So in summary, is it fair to say that from a Fatalist standpoint, everything that is required to calculate the future that will happen (as opposed tho what might happen) is located in the data of the present plus TLOP?

 

[Franko]

Max:
is it fair to say that from a Fatalist standpoint, everything that is required to calculate the future that will happen (as opposed tho what might happen) is located in the data of the present plus TLOP?

Yes, I would agree with that completely.

 

[Fade]

It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

 

[Q-Source]

It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Yes, but it is a lot of fun. Isn't it?

 

[Q-Source]

Define “acausal event”?

Acausal event is one that happens randomly and is not the result of prior conditions.

I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

No magic here. I also find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...
But it is true.

And what millions of acausal events are you referring to (specifically)?

Specifically: atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang for example.

Anyway, you have said many many times that yout LG is bounded by Gravity. So, God does play dice.

Q-S

 

[Max560]

It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Have you ever exercised to stay fit?

 

[Franko]

Q-Source:
Acausal event is one that happens randomly and is not the result of prior conditions.

Acausal = without logical cause.

Magic = without logical cause. = (Supernatural)

A-Theism = a mystical belief system based on the premise that reality is fundamentally magic/supernatural

Franko:
I bet your definition makes acausal = magical.

Q-Source:
No magic here. I also find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...
But it is true.

That’s called you requiring Magic to support your absurd belief system, and then making a Special Plead to boot – I find difficult to assimilate how something has not a cause, how an event is not the result of a sequence...But it is true

No, it’s not True. It is just YOU claiming that things happen magically.

ACTION is based on BELIEF Q-Source – not magic. How often do you not do what you believe, and instead act “randomly”?

Q-Source:
Specifically: atomic decay, vacuum fluctuations and the Big Bang for example.

Not random (not magical).

… and even if they were you STILL wouldn’t have “free will” you would have “random will”. So I don’t see how this is any help to you even if this nonsense were True?

Anyway, you have said many many times that yout LG is bounded by Gravity. So, God does play dice.

Nope. She doesn’t.

Why do you assume QG is random now?

Let me guess, since the A-Theist have no idea how QG works, then that must mean it is magical?

Nothings is magical. Everything happens for a reason.

 

[Franko]

Fade: (Another A-Theist)
It's like the wheel of stupidity.

One person gives up, another thinks that they should give it a shot.

They give up. Another goes.

Round and round and round and round.

Yep!

When are you hypocritical religious fanatics going to learn, not to believe things based on no evidence?

I see no reason to believe your extraordinary claim that you have magic "free will" powers. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. When will you credulous non-skeptics learn that you must PROVE your wild assertions with Logic and empirical evidence?

 

[J3K]

Ummm Franko, you believe in things that have no evidence. Your goddess for example. You simply believe so hard in her, that it becomes evidence that she must exist to you. Such a simple small mind you have.