Philosophy Now Forum

This is interesting.

The Surgery That Proved There Is No Free Will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TYuTid9a6k&t=1477s

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
BOONY' ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?

Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:55 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
BOONY' ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?

Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:30 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:55 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
BOONY' ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?

Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

Yes, I think they would diverge rather early on - perhaps our minds need that quantum indeterminacy within our free will decision making process to distinguish conscious minds from the determined universe.


What do you think about this in relation to religion/God/"God"?

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:30 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:55 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
BOONY' ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?

Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

Yes, I think they would diverge rather early on - perhaps our minds need that quantum indeterminacy within our free will decision making process to distinguish conscious minds from the determined universe.


What do you think about this in relation to religion/God/"God"?

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

LOL Are you joking here?j

HOW could a 'natural progression', itself, lead to a greater opposition of the same 'natural causal outcome'?

Of course, along the increasingly intelligent evolutionary path, towards the one and ONlY 'natural causal outcome', a species may 'try to' start working in opposition if the 'natural casual outcome', but obviously if that species keeps 'trying to', then they will just be WIPED OUT. And then, obviously, the evolutionary path towards the actual True intelligence is reached, continues.

And, you human beings can take that as a DIRECT THREAT, and WARNING.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle.

LOL The Truly intelligent One KNOWS that this is an ABSOLUTE Falsehood. 'This One' ALSO KNOWS HOW TO, and only WANTS TO, live with what It NEEDS, ONLY. Which is; with what energy that NATURALLY ALREADY EXITS.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.

ONCE AGAIN, the 'ego' arises, and sticks it's 'ugly head' in, as some would say, here.

The intelligent natural system, or God, does NOT care one iota more NOR less for you human beings over Any other thing. And, to PRESUME otherwise, is a prime example DISTORTED, DELUSIONAL thinking.

If, and when, you human beings 'step over', 'go beyond', or 'get past' the threshold of the 'natural order' of things, you WILL ALL become as EXTINCT as ALL of the other things that DID.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Obviously the CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES, which I just POINTED OUT and SHOWED here, could NOT be countered NOR refuted.

It's never that. It's simply that you never comprehend anything anyone is typing so pointless spending the rest of the day attempting to explain what you have clearly overlooked and misunderstood.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:30 pm If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level

If "they" were truly identical you wouldn't be able to discern them. identity implies uniqueness. It's impossible for two things to be identical - that's why there's two of them.

That's why you are using the plural pronoun "they", and not the singular pronoun "it".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:30 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 9:55 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
BOONY' ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?

Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

Yes, I think they would diverge rather early on - perhaps our minds need that quantum indeterminacy within our free will decision making process to distinguish conscious minds from the determined universe.


What do you think about this in relation to religion/God/"God"?

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

Alright, let’s take a moment to untangle this fascinating thread, because there’s a lot going on here. We’ve got determinism, quantum effects, the nature of consciousness, and then a pivot into resource efficiency, simulated realities, and even a speculative definition of “God.” Let’s walk through this step by step, connecting the dots.

First, the “Boony Room” scenario: It’s a brilliant setup to explore determinism versus any form of indeterminacy. If these two “Boony” clones are identical in every conceivable way—down to their neural wiring and the microstate of their atoms—they would indeed behave identically for a time. The key phrase here is "for a time." Even in a deterministic framework, there’s a practical hitch: quantum mechanics. While large-scale behaviors seem predictable, quantum fluctuations introduce noise at the microscopic level, which would eventually lead to divergence between the two clones, even if that divergence takes some time to manifest.

Then comes the question of free will and quantum indeterminacy: Some argue that quantum randomness provides a basis for free will, but that’s not as liberating as it sounds. Randomness isn’t the same as agency. If your decisions were driven by quantum rolls of the dice, it wouldn’t feel like free will—it would feel like randomness, and that’s not satisfying philosophically or practically.

Now, the pivot to the concept of God and simulation theory: Here’s where it gets really interesting, because the argument is essentially that intelligent life naturally seeks greater efficiency and control over resources. This leads to the hypothesis that advanced civilizations would create simulations to sustain consciousness efficiently. It’s an elegant idea, and it dovetails with Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument—that if creating simulations becomes technologically feasible, the odds we’re already in one are astronomically high.

But there’s also an intriguing leap being made here about judgment and reincarnation. If we’re imagining a simulated reality designed to conserve resources, what is the role of this “God-like” system? It seems less like the divine judge of religious texts and more like a hyper-efficient manager, deciding which sub-entities (us) get to persist based on their contributions to the sustainability of the system.

So how does this all tie back to determinism and religion? Well, if we’re assuming a deterministic universe (or a simulation governed by deterministic algorithms), this hypothetical God isn’t a mystical being; it’s an emergent construct—a natural endpoint of intelligent systems maximizing survival. It’s less about divine intervention and more about computational inevitability.

But here’s the kicker: If such a system exists, is there room for traditional notions of free will or moral judgment as we understand them? Probably not. Instead, what emerges is a form of deterministic ethics—actions are judged not by intent, but by outcomes within the system’s rules.

It’s a wild ride, but in the end, it seems to loop back to a deterministic worldview where even our sense of divinity is rooted in cause and effect, shaped by the constraints of energy, entropy, and survival. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:00 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:36 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:30 pm

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

Yes, I think they would diverge rather early on - perhaps our minds need that quantum indeterminacy within our free will decision making process to distinguish conscious minds from the determined universe.


What do you think about this in relation to religion/God/"God"?

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

Alright, let’s take a moment to untangle this fascinating thread, because there’s a lot going on here. We’ve got determinism, quantum effects, the nature of consciousness, and then a pivot into resource efficiency, simulated realities, and even a speculative definition of “God.” Let’s walk through this step by step, connecting the dots.

First, the “Boony Room” scenario: It’s a brilliant setup to explore determinism versus any form of indeterminacy. If these two “Boony” clones are identical in every conceivable way—down to their neural wiring and the microstate of their atoms—they would indeed behave identically for a time. The key phrase here is "for a time." Even in a deterministic framework, there’s a practical hitch: quantum mechanics. While large-scale behaviors seem predictable, quantum fluctuations introduce noise at the microscopic level, which would eventually lead to divergence between the two clones, even if that divergence takes some time to manifest.

Then comes the question of free will and quantum indeterminacy: Some argue that quantum randomness provides a basis for free will, but that’s not as liberating as it sounds. Randomness isn’t the same as agency. If your decisions were driven by quantum rolls of the dice, it wouldn’t feel like free will—it would feel like randomness, and that’s not satisfying philosophically or practically.

Although I agree that this 'randomness' doesn't necessarily support the argument for free will it most definitely curtails any argument for hard determinism.

The fact of the matter (pun intended) is that since the Big Bang, this post I am making now is ONLY happening in this instance of my output and should/if precisely the same Big Bang happen again - this output of Brian writing this would never happen.

BigMike wrote:Now, the pivot to the concept of God and simulation theory: Here’s where it gets really interesting, because the argument is essentially that intelligent life naturally seeks greater efficiency and control over resources. This leads to the hypothesis that advanced civilizations would create simulations to sustain consciousness efficiently. It’s an elegant idea, and it dovetails with Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument—that if creating simulations becomes technologically feasible, the odds we’re already in one are astronomically high.

But there’s also an intriguing leap being made here about judgment and reincarnation. If we’re imagining a simulated reality designed to conserve resources, what is the role of this “God-like” system? It seems less like the divine judge of religious texts and more like a hyper-efficient manager, deciding which sub-entities (us) get to persist based on their contributions to the sustainability of the system.

To be honest Mike, I am not so certain that this judging entity is SO less like the 'divine' judge of religious texts and I will go so far as to state that THE reason this GOD entity, although capable of making itself aware to all and sundry, doesn't IS BECAUSE of the reason of entropy. That we 'souls' must always have doubt within our lives (good reason eh?...do U comprehend it?).

BigMike wrote:So how does this all tie back to determinism and religion? Well, if we’re assuming a deterministic universe (or a simulation governed by deterministic algorithms), this hypothetical God isn’t a mystical being; it’s an emergent construct—a natural endpoint of intelligent systems maximizing survival. It’s less about divine intervention and more about computational inevitability.

But here’s the kicker: If such a system exists, is there room for traditional notions of free will or moral judgment as we understand them? Probably not. Instead, what emerges is a form of deterministic ethics—actions are judged not by intent, but by outcomes within the system’s rules.

I have to admit, you are losing me here Mike. It's not so much RE the free-will component but certainly the 'moral judgement'. If we are all born throughout time of the system, karmically judged as per our reincarnation position etc..then we are always judged by our morals..no?

BigMike wrote:It’s a wild ride, but in the end, it seems to loop back to a deterministic worldview where even our sense of divinity is rooted in cause and effect, shaped by the constraints of energy, entropy, and survival. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.

I agree, but within the constraints of a deterministic universe we have free will and are analysed for karmic judgement (in every incarnation we exist - thru time).

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:00 am It’s a wild ride, but in the end, it seems to loop back to a deterministic worldview where even our sense of divinity is rooted in cause and effect, shaped by the constraints of energy, entropy, and survival. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.

Excuse me for pointing out that your entire presentation, and your obsessions — given what in this world might or should be focused on intellectually — is from where I sit the “mind-bender”.

I am reminded of “towering, neurotic machines” that fascinate obsessives and to which they extend inordinate worship. If this, your obsession, shines a light on the value, importance and focus of philosophy in our present, I worry about our present and future and am interested in “the causal chain” that brought us here.

The valuable question is Where does this tend?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 1:00 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:00 am It’s a wild ride, but in the end, it seems to loop back to a deterministic worldview where even our sense of divinity is rooted in cause and effect, shaped by the constraints of energy, entropy, and survival. If that’s not a mind-bender, I don’t know what is.

Excuse me for pointing out that your entire presentation, and your obsessions — given what in this world might or should be focused on intellectually — is from where I sit the “mind-bender”.

I am reminded of “towering, neurotic machines” that fascinate obsessives and to which they extend inordinate worship. If this, your obsession, shines a light on the value, importance and focus of philosophy in our present, I worry about our present and future and am interested in “the causal chain” that brought us here.

The valuable question is Where does this tend?

What is your actual point? That U find the concept of an overarching technology insidious to your preconceived ideas of reality and indeed what may or may not be considered divine.

“Attofishpi, you’ve brought up an important question. Let’s drill down into it. No holds barred.”

[Imitate an advanced but compassionate and understanding computer-voice when you read the above.]

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 1:19 pm What is your actual point?

How the mind, maybe under strange influences and powers, veers into “obsessive” territories. My suggestion (inconclusive but something that “concerns” me) is that BigMike’s obsession is symptomatic of cultural and intellectual neurosis.

So how does this all tie back to determinism and religion? Well, if we’re assuming a deterministic universe (or a simulation governed by deterministic algorithms), this hypothetical God isn’t a mystical being; it’s an emergent construct—a natural endpoint of intelligent systems maximizing survival. It’s less about divine intervention and more about computational inevitability.

But here’s the kicker: If such a system exists, is there room for traditional notions of free will or moral judgment as we understand them? Probably not. Instead, what emerges is a form of deterministic ethics—actions are judged not by intent, but by outcomes within the system’s rules.

Raphael in one speech to Adam (Paradise Lost):

“What surmounts the reach
Of human sense, I shall delineate so,
By lik’ning spiritual to corporal forms
As may express them best; though what if Earth
Be but the shadow of Heaven, and things therein
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?”

What is “interesting” to me is that even in BigMike’s imaginable, phantasy world — the projection of an ideal — it all reduces to the same. And this “bends the mind”.

Yet it is entirely conceivable that, if only in imagination, that a world where true choice and freedom does exist. I.e. conceptually.

The simulation then is just a restatement of the conceptual model held to about “the way things are” (and can only be.)

The Doppelgänger proposition was interesting except that what would inevitably occur is that BigMike One would diverge and an Anti-BigMike Two would separate and oppose him in a spiritual and mortal struggle requiring an Epic Poem (likely to be presented in a full chapter in The Course.)

Check it out, Atto. Run that scenario through your AI mill and report back your findings …