Infinite Debates
- 主题发起人 Splintert
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Mage246
You can only expect it to be half yes and half no if there are no factors influencing whether the choice is yes or no. This is not a choice being made in a vacuum.
The factors that influence whether it is true or false are irrelevant, because for every universe where the factors produce a positive "desirable" output, there is a universe in which the same factors produce a negative "undesirable" output.
That's why the left and right subtrees of my tree are equivalent.
That's why the left and right subtrees of my tree are equivalent.
So you must cut the probability space to only those universes in which that choice occurred. Virtually cutting it to those in which humanity exists, it has developed game industry that led to LOD clipping, let's abandon theories whether it's in game SimCity or SimReich or something else.
Now, seeing LOD clipping as desirable feature (mind it, not "I don't give a single ..." but DESIRABLE) means that something which, more or less, hinders you is desirable. You can't just say "I start my universe from here, it's 0-1 choice", you still have to consider the background, so all the choices that were done before enabling the, for example, "no" answer.
It's tad metaphysical, but civilizations with "we get rid of obstacles" had more chances of getting so far than those who got "we need more obstacles" attitude.
Now, seeing LOD clipping as desirable feature (mind it, not "I don't give a single ..." but DESIRABLE) means that something which, more or less, hinders you is desirable. You can't just say "I start my universe from here, it's 0-1 choice", you still have to consider the background, so all the choices that were done before enabling the, for example, "no" answer.
It's tad metaphysical, but civilizations with "we get rid of obstacles" had more chances of getting so far than those who got "we need more obstacles" attitude.
Mage246
Right, and also add variables considering budget of the project, priorities of the managers, time available, etc. Based on these variables, there would be a number of parallel universes in which the clipping was removed or was not removed. But that number would not be equal. Perhaps it is more likely that there is not enough time to fix it, or perhaps it is more likely that clipping will not be seen as an issue, etc. There's still no reason to assume a 1:1 split. The only way to know the exact split would be to plot out all of the variables to see which ones are most likely to occur and develop an equation to represent overall probability of clipping. Splintert isn't doing that. He's just saying it's 1:1 because he says it is. And look at his example, he drew it as equal so it must be equal!
Well, that's that slight problem with parallel universes. Everyone goes "Oooh, pink llama-whales in the air made of candy from dimension X". But dull truth is that it's just different sets of starting values getting mowed by same and same "choices". Anything that lives in parallel universe would have to earlier pass the "Would it survive?" test on the planet that passed "Would it be created?" test. Of course on the same rule "our" universe never encountered inifinite number of other choices.
Virtually, those are infinite numbers of infinite "0-1" chains that are set on infinite numbers of infinite "0-1" chains determining them. Only that no one says they actually have to be 0-1 and nothing in between.
Virtually, those are infinite numbers of infinite "0-1" chains that are set on infinite numbers of infinite "0-1" chains determining them. Only that no one says they actually have to be 0-1 and nothing in between.
Well, hoped it would be more about that suspicious "infinity<infinity<infinity" relation, but Dryvus was Dryven away and no one else seemed to care 
Don't worry, it will drown quickly.
Don't worry, it will drown quickly.
As to the other points;
The choice is only made once per universe in which the choice is available. We aren't taking into consideration universes in which the choice is never available. As soon as that choice is made, there exists another universe in which the opposite of that choice is made. For every single choice. Every time. No matter what. It doesn't matter if the choice leads to the end of humanity in that universe or not, the universe exists.
The choice is only made once per universe in which the choice is available. We aren't taking into consideration universes in which the choice is never available. As soon as that choice is made, there exists another universe in which the opposite of that choice is made. For every single choice. Every time. No matter what. It doesn't matter if the choice leads to the end of humanity in that universe or not, the universe exists.
Well, yeah, but, you know, not.
Every choice is determined by previous choices. To stand before the one specific choice that starting value had to pass all other leading to it. Which partially determines the result of that one choice.
Saying "they will choose yes and no equally" is very wild guess. It's like saying "there are equal amount of universes in which pacifists went to war and in which they didn't". Ignoring the fact that the pacifists would have to become pacifistic first, stating that "yes" and "no" have equal reasons to happen.
Every choice is determined by previous choices. To stand before the one specific choice that starting value had to pass all other leading to it. Which partially determines the result of that one choice.
Saying "they will choose yes and no equally" is very wild guess. It's like saying "there are equal amount of universes in which pacifists went to war and in which they didn't". Ignoring the fact that the pacifists would have to become pacifistic first, stating that "yes" and "no" have equal reasons to happen.
Every choice is determined by previous choices, but in an infinite set of parallel universes there is infinite universes for irrational choices as well.
That's why I think the tree is a decent explanation of the situation. It goes on forever on each side, so long as no universe can be destroyed or erased, the consequences of the choice mean nothing.
That's why I think the tree is a decent explanation of the situation. It goes on forever on each side, so long as no universe can be destroyed or erased, the consequences of the choice mean nothing.
Well, problem is, again, your question considers that it's not universe choice of some particles (like, how the parallel universes actually works), but choice that has to be done BY SOMEONE. Sentient being with developed gaming industry and ACTUALLY having LOD clipping. That means, there are only that many universes in which this choice is done and for this situation we cannot assume that it's going to be simply coin toss for them. All the way they did so far would determine whether they would consider it a problem or a feature.
You're applying how parallel universes works to stuff in which choice is made by sentient beings.
There are parallel universes in which people can fly and there are those in which they can't. Let's say they divide 1:1 because infinity
But you're taking universe with flying people and make them decide, should they fly or not. Will those universes which splurt from that point divide 1:1 with those who fly now and those who don't?
You're applying how parallel universes works to stuff in which choice is made by sentient beings.
There are parallel universes in which people can fly and there are those in which they can't. Let's say they divide 1:1 because infinity
But you're taking universe with flying people and make them decide, should they fly or not. Will those universes which splurt from that point divide 1:1 with those who fly now and those who don't?
Why not?
The people aren't really deciding whether they fly or not, they just do. We exist in one of the universes where humans cannot fly. There's an identical universe to ours where the only difference is humans can fly.
Perhaps it delves too deep into predetermination.
What exactly are you arguing in favor of? You're both only saying that it isn't 1:1. What is it, then?
The people aren't really deciding whether they fly or not, they just do. We exist in one of the universes where humans cannot fly. There's an identical universe to ours where the only difference is humans can fly.
Perhaps it delves too deep into predetermination.
What exactly are you arguing in favor of? You're both only saying that it isn't 1:1. What is it, then?
Because you just cut the possibilities to make to decide people who already CAN fly. Why should they abandon it? Up to this point they developed flying ability because it was needed and supported by the world they were living in.
We're, or at least I'm, not saying it isn't 1:1. I'm saying there's no, I repeat, absolutely no way you can estimate it and say it's 1:1 as long as you won't create the reliable model of Big Bang or any other Beginning of The Universe and compute it with infinite possibilities of starting conditions, cut it to this particular choice - when it applies - and check how many "yes" and "no" choices there were.
We're, or at least I'm, not saying it isn't 1:1. I'm saying there's no, I repeat, absolutely no way you can estimate it and say it's 1:1 as long as you won't create the reliable model of Big Bang or any other Beginning of The Universe and compute it with infinite possibilities of starting conditions, cut it to this particular choice - when it applies - and check how many "yes" and "no" choices there were.
Yeah, absolutely true.
Also, absolutely irrelevant.
You've clearly stated before we're narrowing the universes to only those, to which that situation applies.
You're making a mistake when you're thinking, that all the infinity universes are presented with the problem.
Whereas it can be only ours in which LOD clipping exists.
In all other parallel universes humanity might be extinct before LOD clipping showed up. There's going to be infinite universes from here, but still in all of them it's undesirable, because we find it undesirable.
Of course there can be two other universes in which LOD clipping exists. Or four more. Or infinity. But we can't estimate even that, as we can't say "there's a choice, LOD clipping exists, half goes yes, half goes no". That's why you need to do impossible and compute everything up to point of LOD clipping until you'll be able to estimate ratio between it being desirable and undesirable.
If everything led to creation of double-heads coin, there's no way it can be tails.
Also, absolutely irrelevant.
You've clearly stated before we're narrowing the universes to only those, to which that situation applies.
You're making a mistake when you're thinking, that all the infinity universes are presented with the problem.
Whereas it can be only ours in which LOD clipping exists.
In all other parallel universes humanity might be extinct before LOD clipping showed up. There's going to be infinite universes from here, but still in all of them it's undesirable, because we find it undesirable.
Of course there can be two other universes in which LOD clipping exists. Or four more. Or infinity. But we can't estimate even that, as we can't say "there's a choice, LOD clipping exists, half goes yes, half goes no". That's why you need to do impossible and compute everything up to point of LOD clipping until you'll be able to estimate ratio between it being desirable and undesirable.
If everything led to creation of double-heads coin, there's no way it can be tails.
If everything led to the creation of a double heads coin, the head-tails coin wouldn't apply to them.
How can something be undesirable in another universe if it doesn't exist, just because we find it undesirable?
Going back to the tree, taking one step up from x would be w, with the parameter there being "does LOD clipping exist?". x is a subtree of w. On the right side of w are all of the universes in which LOD clipping is neither desirable nor undesirable, be that because it doesn't exist or something like that.
Not that all infinite universes have the problem, but that there are infinite universes with the problem.
Why? If infinity is really infinite, then it doesn't matter how many contain undesirable results because there is always an inverse.
How can something be undesirable in another universe if it doesn't exist, just because we find it undesirable?
Going back to the tree, taking one step up from x would be w, with the parameter there being "does LOD clipping exist?". x is a subtree of w. On the right side of w are all of the universes in which LOD clipping is neither desirable nor undesirable, be that because it doesn't exist or something like that.
Do not look here 说:
Not that all infinite universes have the problem, but that there are infinite universes with the problem.
Do not look here 说:
Why? If infinity is really infinite, then it doesn't matter how many contain undesirable results because there is always an inverse.
One thing that this 1:1 chance and infinite parallel worlds blah did make me think of (might be completely unrelated, but shall write it down anyways):
If there's an exact 50/50 chance of something happening in each universe, then half the Earths would get wiped down and destroyed this nanosecond by a huge meteorite, no? And the chances of them getting destroyed the next nanosecond would again be 50/50 (and so on and so on), which would leave relatively few Earths to pass around
Especially if Earth surviving throughout the whole span of time is 50/50 as well...
The infinity business would still leave it a bit questionable, seeing that since there being infinite options, even the amount of undestroyed Earths would be infinite. Same with the destroyed ones. One would think that ∞/∞ would be 50/50 (or 50:50 or 1:1 or however one would want to put it). But considering that infinity is NOT a number, you can't really go around treating it as one. Goin' with the 50/50 chance of getting destroyed every nanosecond, you wouldn't have very high chances of finding a universe with it intact in a few thousand years. Especially not a 50% chance.
What I'm getting at is pretty much a rewording of what Mage has been going at (at least as far as I've understood it), even if there's only two options of something happening (destroyed/not), it doesn't necessarily leave a strict 50% chance on everything.
If there's an exact 50/50 chance of something happening in each universe, then half the Earths would get wiped down and destroyed this nanosecond by a huge meteorite, no? And the chances of them getting destroyed the next nanosecond would again be 50/50 (and so on and so on), which would leave relatively few Earths to pass around
Especially if Earth surviving throughout the whole span of time is 50/50 as well...
The infinity business would still leave it a bit questionable, seeing that since there being infinite options, even the amount of undestroyed Earths would be infinite. Same with the destroyed ones. One would think that ∞/∞ would be 50/50 (or 50:50 or 1:1 or however one would want to put it). But considering that infinity is NOT a number, you can't really go around treating it as one. Goin' with the 50/50 chance of getting destroyed every nanosecond, you wouldn't have very high chances of finding a universe with it intact in a few thousand years. Especially not a 50% chance.
What I'm getting at is pretty much a rewording of what Mage has been going at (at least as far as I've understood it), even if there's only two options of something happening (destroyed/not), it doesn't necessarily leave a strict 50% chance on everything.
类似的主题
