If the universe elaborated its need to make everything that could happen, happen serially rather than geographically or in a cascade, then each possible kind of reality might last anywhere from minutes to centuries.
17m — Vera Mont
If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words? — Truth Seeker
Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world? — Truth Seeker
So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices? — Truth Seeker
How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms? — Truth Seeker
create the fantasy of “first universal principles” to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can. — Antony Nickles
, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world. — Truth Seeker
If you were thinking that evolution could occur analogously with some kind of "artificial environment." — Pantagruel
I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. — Truth Seeker
I'd kind of hoped that by asking the question, the absurdity of the idea would become apparent — Banno
. However it seems completely unlikely that the resources to do this will ever be committed authentically - which is to say devoid of some underlying economic driver which, so long as it exists, will preclude the evolutionary development of the thing in question. — Pantagruel
Interesting thought. I would think that there is a sort of evolutionistic survival of the fittest going on in our brains, at the level of different neural nets encoding different competing paradigms with which to model reality. — wonderer1
Computer code is a bunch of symbols, recall. Could a bunch of symbols become consciously alive? — jkop
. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed. — Vera Mont
And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't. — Vera Mont
So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case? — Banno
For it to fear death, it would have to be alive — Wayfarer
. I know which is which — Vera Mont
There was never a point in the universe, that the nothing existed. This is what is hard to comprehend. — L'éléphant
Do you believe that human-constructed artefacts, which are engineered to correct errors in order to function within a predefined scope, are subject to the same emergent possibilities as organic systems, which can exploit apparent errors and thereby expand their scope of operations? — Pantagruel
that somehow, e.g. with increased complexity, it would suddenly become a duplication. It won't — jkop
You are asking: "what is true?" — Banno
The difference is, I think, in what makes a simulation different from a duplication. We can instruct a simulation to respond to words and objects in ways that appear non-instructed, spontaneous, emotional etc. But what for? Is indiscernibility from being human worth striving for? A simulation is never a duplication — jkop
I don't know if I agree with Verisatium's reasoning in this regard (that's the video that is referred to above which was the source for this thread) - chaos doesn't contain or convey information of any kind. It can't be compressed but how is that a criterion for 'information-bearing'? At 3:17 where he says that a completely compressed file is completely random - not sure about that, either. Otherwise, how could it be de-compressed, or intrepreted, at the receiving end? If it were totally random, then there'd be nothing to interpret. So I'm still not sold on the 'information=entropy' equation.
But I like that he recognises that quantum physics undermines LaPlace's daemon. Kudos for that. — Wayfarer
They were talking about examples such as the sun rising. Randomness is not the opposite of atmospheric stability or climate stability. — L'éléphant
A mechanism will always be just a mechanism, however much it sounds like it is thinking, it isn't. — Pantagruel
. How could such attributes be genuinely embedded in an artificial system? — Wayfarer
p.s., While I don't mean to turn the thread into yet another discussion regarding the possibility of free will, I honestly don't find any other way of frankly addressing the issue in the OP. — javra
You might be surprised by the responses that you would get from GPT-4, Gemini Ultra, Gemini Pro 1.5, Claude 3 Sonnet or Claude 3 Opus. I haven't asked them yet, but I plan to do it and I can report the results here if you don't have access to some of them. — Pierre-Normand
But no support for was provided. — L'éléphant
Reference? — jgill
I don't know about this OP. It is uncharacteristic of Benj96 topics. — L'éléphant
Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time — Relativist
Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically. — Gnomon