Determinist paradox?

[RedWorker]

Suppose determinism is true.
Assume a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe is possible, as it is governed by laws which, given a certain input, always have a certain output.
Someone programs such a simulator for his computer. Suppose it's fast enough to reach the real time point and then simulate faster than something actually happens.
The user, viewing the simulated universe, knows what he himself is going to do in the future... he does something else.

Is this a paradox?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well if he put in all the right inputs then in the simulation he should be watching himself watching a simulation in which he's watching a simulation of the same simulation of a simulation, and... and...

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2011/09/mind_blown.gif

[Sabot Cat]

Suppose determinism is true.
Assume a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe is possible, as it is governed by laws which, given a certain input, always have a certain output.
Someone programs such a simulator for his computer. Suppose it's fast enough to reach the real time point and then simulate faster than something actually happens.

The user, viewing the simulated universe, knows what he himself is going to do in the future... he does something else.

Is this a paradox?

No, it's an impossibility.

[Or an indicator that the simulation is defective.]

[RedWorker]

Seen no arguments so far. Does this seemingly a paradox or any related concept have a name?

[Redistribute the Rep]

How do we know we're not a simulation?

[Futility Personified]

It is a headfuck, but not a paradox. It isn't fate, or preordained, it is the culmination of previous circumstances. Whether the person chooses to act on what they see is down to who they are, which is a result of their genetics and social conditioning. All that being able to see into the future is, is another variable, really. From a large enough lens, I don't think you can really get around determinism.

Even if this person made a wildly unpredictable action as a result of seeing the future, that in itself would be down to his personality. It is what it is because it was because it was.

[Sabot Cat]

How do we know we're not a simulation?

The principle of parsimony suggests that such a theory should be shelved in favor of something with less unverified presumptions.

[RedWorker]

It is a headfuck, but not a paradox. It isn't fate, or preordained, it is the culmination of previous circumstances. Whether the person chooses to act on what they see is down to who they are, which is a result of their genetics and social conditioning. All that being able to see into the future is, is another variable, really. From a large enough lens, I don't think you can really get around determinism.

Even if this person made a wildly unpredictable action as a result of seeing the future, that in itself would be down to his personality. It is what it is because it was because it was.

Well, the point is that the person seeing the future [seemingly - because it necessarily stops being the future immediately after seeing it... and therefore, it never could have been the future!] necessarily alters him and thus influences what he's going to do.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, the point is that the person seeing the future [seemingly - because it necessarily stops being the future immediately after seeing it... and therefore, it never could have been the future!] necessarily alters him and thus influences what he's going to do.

But the future he's seeing in the simulation and his own future are expected to be different, due to different inputs (him seeing the simulation)

[rena]

The problem I see is that the simulator, presumably, does not simulate itself. If it did, the simulated simulator would then have to simulate a simulated simulator, then a simulated simulated simulator, ad infinitum. Since it is impossible to take itself into consideration, the simulator can only simulate a universe without it, i.e. not the same universe that the actor watches. Therefore, it acts as just another motivator for the actor. They act in the simulator as they would if the simulator didn't exist, but since the simulator does exist, they are able to act differently according to the simulator's influences in the 'real world' (the world outside the simulator).

[RedWorker]

But the future he's seeing in the simulation and his own future are expected to be different, due to different inputs (him seeing the simulation)

Well, the starting parameters set for the universe are the same, so they should be exact same universes.


The problem I see is that the simulator, presumably, does not simulate itself. If it did, the simulated simulator would then have to simulate a simulated simulator, then a simulated simulated simulator, ad infinitum. Since it is impossible to take itself into consideration, the simulator can only simulate a universe without it, i.e. not the same universe that the actor watches. Therefore, it acts as just another motivator for the actor. They act in the simulator as they would if the simulator didn't exist, but since the simulator does exist, they are able to act differently according to the simulator's influences in the 'real world' (the world outside the simulator).

The simulator being able to simulate itself is merely a consequence of following physics and other natural laws perfectly. If it isn't following them perfectly, then it's not an accurate simulator which we are talking about and the output would be completely different. If it's following them perfectly, then it simulates the simulator.

[Comrade Hadrian]

Suppose determinism is true.
Assume a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe is possible, as it is governed by laws which, given a certain input, always have a certain output.
Someone programs such a simulator for his computer. Suppose it's fast enough to reach the real time point and then simulate faster than something actually happens.
The user, viewing the simulated universe, knows what he himself is going to do in the future... he does something else.

Is this a paradox?

How do you know the user could do something else? You're just saying the user can, without justifying it.

It appears to be just an inversion of the time-travel paradox. The solution to that is that you can't use time travel to change anything in the past, because it already would have happened. If you try to go back in time to kill yourself, you will necessarily have failed, and also have a memory of yourself trying to kill yourself and failing (and also knowing you're going to attempt to time-travel and kill yourself and fail)

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, the starting parameters set for the universe are the same, so they should be exact same universes.

According to the wiki:


Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.

You didn't specify what type of determinism you mean. Most of us assumed you were talking about causal determinism, which your scenario does not contradict. Given your last post I'm assuming this was not the type of determinism you meant, since it does not describe causal determinism, but a type of determinism that considers the entire universe to be a single determinate unit. You did not specify this until your latest post, and since the most common understanding of determinism is that of causal determinism, you should have stated this in your OP.

[RedWorker]

You didn't specify what type of determinism you mean. Most of us assumed you were talking about causal determinism, which your scenario does not contradict. Given your last post I'm assuming this was not the type of determinism you meant, since it does not describe causal determinism, but a type of determinism that considers the entire universe to be a single determinate unit. You did not specify this until your latest post, and since the most common understanding of determinism is that of causal determinism, you should have stated this in your OP.

The OP makes it clear what kind of determinism I'm talking about.

[Slavic]

Baring that such a simulation is impossible, and that I am assuming that the man viewing the simulation only cares about his "future"

The man will see in the simulation his reaction to him viewing the simulation. Nothing will change because any action that he takes from seeing the simulation will model the actions that he took within the simulation.

The simulator will know the chemical interactions in the man's brain when he views the photons emitting from the monitor.

[Hit The North]

The right inputs into the system would need to include 'chance' - an element of unpredictability into the system - which, in itself, would mitigate against the universe unfolding in a deterministic manner.

There is no law of the physical universe which pre-determines that the particular sperm impregnates the particular ovum that represents this hypothetical individual. This is sheer chance for all living things. So if you could run the universe over and over again it is highly unlikely that the same individuals would be reproduced. Or even the exact same galaxies, star systems and planets.

In answer to the OP, yes it is a paradox, but so what? Paradoxes are allowed in thought-experiments.

[TheMask]

The right inputs into the system would need to include 'chance' - an element of unpredictability into the system - which, in itself, would mitigate against the universe unfolding in a deterministic manner.

There is no law of the physical universe which pre-determines that the particular sperm impregnates the particular ovum that represents this hypothetical individual. This is sheer chance for all living things. So if you could run the universe over and over again it is highly unlikely that the same individuals would be reproduced. Or even the exact same galaxies, star systems and planets.

In answer to the OP, yes it is a paradox, but so what? Paradoxes are allowed in thought-experiments.
Actually the paradox hypothesises that that the element of chance doesnt exist. Stating that it is required in order to work does not contradict the purpose of the paradox but meerly the nature of determinism.

[Tim Redd]

Suppose determinism is true.
Assume a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe is possible, as it is governed by laws which, given a certain input, always have a certain output.
Someone programs such a simulator for his computer. Suppose it's fast enough to reach the real time point and then simulate faster than something actually happens.
The user, viewing the simulated universe, knows what he himself is going to do in the future... he does something else.

Is this a paradox?

If it really was an iron determinist universe then her seeing what she saw and then doing the opposite would be expected.

[cyu]

The problem I see is that the simulator, presumably, does not simulate itself.


Right. If you were going to simulate this universe, you'd have to track every atom and molecule in the universe. The simulator itself is a subset of the universe, and contains only a tiny fraction of the atoms and molecules in the universe. This means it can only simulate a smaller universe, not the one that contains it.

But you might imagine 2 parallel universes, operating on the same laws. One runs faster than the other. Lets say the guy in the slower universe is somehow able to know what he does in the faster universe - maybe viewing it through some portal or maybe "God" just tells him. Can he behave differently? Yes. However, if he gets information about the faster universe, then the 2 universes are no longer the same. The slower universe got an input that the faster one didn't.

[Slavic]

The right inputs into the system would need to include 'chance' - an element of unpredictability into the system - which, in itself, would mitigate against the universe unfolding in a deterministic manner.

There is no such thing as chance. Chance and probability are only utilized when we do not fully understand the laws and interactions of the universe. We being humans of limited cognitive ability, can not fathom the plethora of causes and effects that submit to universal laws. All causes and effects that we can not understand, we deduce their existence from probability.


There is no law of the physical universe which pre-determines that the particular sperm impregnates the particular ovum that represents this hypothetical individual. This is sheer chance for all living things. So if you could run the universe over and over again it is highly unlikely that the same individuals would be reproduced. Or even the exact same galaxies, star systems and planets.There is a law that pre-determines which sperm impregnates a particular ovum. Law of motion, each sperm travels on a discernible trajectory toward the ovum. If we are able to track these trajectories and the outside forces that act upon the sperm, we can conclude which sperm's trajectory reaches the ovum at the shortest time.

All effects are bound to the laws of the universe. Two causes within identical conditions will produce two effects of identical quality. The only way for this to be untrue is if the universe is capable of being destroyed and recreated with different laws.

[Rafiq]

T The only way for this to be untrue is if the universe is capable of being destroyed and recreated with different laws.

This alone assumes that the laws themselves precede real phenomena, or the universe's existence. Remember that laws are only what we call the tendencies, behavior of 'things'.

The idea of a universe with 'different laws' would therefore be absurd. Laws are dependent on the circumstances of that which they describe. Within our present standards of reason it is impossible to conceptualize a universe with different laws.

[Redistribute the Rep]

There is no such thing as chance. Chance and probability are only utilized when we do not fully understand the laws and interactions of the universe. We being humans of limited cognitive ability, can not fathom the plethora of causes and effects that submit to universal laws. All causes and effects that we can not understand, we deduce their existence from probability.

There is a law that pre-determines which sperm impregnates a particular ovum. Law of motion, each sperm travels on a discernible trajectory toward the ovum. If we are able to track these trajectories and the outside forces that act upon the sperm, we can conclude which sperm's trajectory reaches the ovum at the shortest time.

All effects are bound to the laws of the universe. Two causes within identical conditions will produce two effects of identical quality. The only way for this to be untrue is if the universe is capable of being destroyed and recreated with different laws.

According to Stephan Hawkings in this lecture: http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html, this is incorrect, and there is such a thing as chance.

Scroll to the last paragraph for a quick summary if it's too long for you. I didn't want to quote it since it says at the beginning not to distribute it

[Hit The North]

There is no such thing as chance. Chance and probability are only utilized when we do not fully understand the laws and interactions of the universe. We being humans of limited cognitive ability, can not fathom the plethora of causes and effects that submit to universal laws. All causes and effects that we can not understand, we deduce their existence from probability.

There is a law that pre-determines which sperm impregnates a particular ovum. Law of motion, each sperm travels on a discernible trajectory toward the ovum. If we are able to track these trajectories and the outside forces that act upon the sperm, we can conclude which sperm's trajectory reaches the ovum at the shortest time.

All effects are bound to the laws of the universe. Two causes within identical conditions will produce two effects of identical quality. The only way for this to be untrue is if the universe is capable of being destroyed and recreated with different laws.

So is there a law of the universe which determined that my mother met my father, fell for him rather than disliked him (that came later!), had sexual relations with him and was impregnated by him the hundred and tenth time, rather than the tenth time? Was there a law of the universe that determined that there was a strike at my dad's factory which enabled him to be at home on the fatal day that the stated coitus took place? Or a deterministic law of nature that led them to forget to buy the contraceptives which could have prevented the pregnancy?

Are you seriously contending that these trivial events and encounters were predetermined by the big bang?

....