Author Topic: Freedom and Free Will  (Read 9683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 03, 2016, 05:10:02 PM
Reply #15

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Oh, that is wrong. A person with one gun worth of $100 can kill a person owning $50000. Money doesn't equal to power, Rayn, but a possibility.

That is an irrelevant point, and in terms of economics, money is treated as an abstract brokerage of power within society in that it allows us to pay for goods and services and do things. That is one of the key concepts behind money. If a person can't buy something, this does not mean a person is incapable of deciding they want something they cannot afford. Your argument implies that if a person cannot afford something, then they cannot freely decide they want it. That is not reality, because they are plenty of people who want what they cannot afford.

So based on your definitions slaves are actually free people because they can want anything? This isn't about wanting, Rayn, to be truly free, you should be able to become anything, not just desire it.

January 03, 2016, 05:25:39 PM
Reply #16

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
So based on your definitions slaves are actually free people because they can want anything? This isn't about wanting, Rayn, to be truly free, you should be able to become anything, not just desire it.

No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.

Logically, empirically and historically a slave that misbehaved so punished by a whip in better case. Slaves along the history of the humanity as the whole were tortured, sterilized and often beaten to death because their master had a bad dream the night before. What you speak about is just one instance or two (considering Spartacus, as well), the problem is that in those instances slaves had the resources to revolt so they actually had the possibility to free themselves temporarily, the thing that would allow such a possibility now would be money, in that time it were weapons and military training gladiators had. But anyway, we both know how Spartacus ended, didn't we?

January 03, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
Reply #17

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate. You are welcome to read past replies, but unless you bring a new point, I don't believe that it should be rehashed between you and I considering this was already debated in detail earlier in the thread. I am also not going to go on a tangent about history with you, for it is a trivial point and thus does not warrant a tangential conversation on my end. The slave example is analogous to the jail example, and that is what was discussed. Any point I would raise in objection to your point was already raised in speaking with Steve.     

In detail... Yeah, I have noticed :-D. Rayn, tell me, and be honest, do you really believe that YOU in particular do possess a free will?

January 04, 2016, 09:29:34 AM
Reply #18

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Akenu:
You go ahead and start an argument with Rayn right after I said nobody else bothers. Thanks for making a liar out of me ;P (just joking around)

Rayn:
A clean break from the spiral into the shit pile, and I'm feeling a bit more like arguing again.
Quote
No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.
Let's just change that a little so that it's proper, rather than a linguistic and logical disaster:
"slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free (lol duh?), so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't FREELY decide you want freedom."

There. The addition of one word makes it proper. A slave can still make a decision to want to be free, but it's not a decision made in freedom. It's a decision made in slavery. You're once again conflating all forms of freedom to a singular value and ignoring the all sorts of facets of the concept of freedom.

Quote
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate.
Don't pull shit like this. He's not arguing with me, and he's not rehashing anything you and I said. Treat his argument for what it's worth and discuss it with him rather than trying to dismiss it with a wave of the hand by saying it's already been said before.

Quote
Yes, because I have a consciousness that is not emergent from something intrinsically deterministic where my choices can be modeled in terms of a chaotic and stochastic system. My brain and consciousness are stochastic and dynamical, so this means that what I will decide is not determined. But, the details of this have also been discussed, so for a detailed explanation, you need to go back and read.
That's not freedom. You're using a wrong definition, whereby you're confusing concepts. You think that arguing against Absolute Determinism by stating that there is randomness in the world equates to freedom: it does not. There has always been randomness in the universe, since long before humanity ever existed, and yet humanity has since found a way to enslave one another, and other creatures besides.

Chaos/Stochastic/Randomness <> Freedom.

In fact, why don't we go ahead and define freedom since we haven't done that yet:
In it's simplest definition, freedom is a lack of bondage, where numerous different things can bind someone. A more complete definition is more complete.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
>>>>>
 noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:
a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8.
ease or facility of movement or action:

to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity:

freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation:
freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will:
to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

Compare necessity (def 7).
>>>>>

So, several of those definitions are political/social/economic based definitions, and others are very much restriction based definitions. It's a multifaceted concept that does not go away just because of randomness. Of particular importance to demolishing your arguments is number 3. It's not merely the power to decide, but specifically the power to decide without restraints.

Someone pointing a gun at your head and telling you to both "choose freely" and also "but I want you to choose A." isn't a freedom of choice that's generally accepted as freedom by the majority of people, even if it is freedom to get your head filled with holes.

Lock a guy in the stockades and the randomness of his brain functions doesn't make him free.

Freedom to decide is not freedom to act.

Freedom to walk around in a jail cell is not the same as freedom to walk around in a meadow is not the same as freedom to walk to the moon.

Freedom to walk again after someone's had their legs cut or blown off.

Freedom to decide who you want to be, rather than being forced to be whoever your parents want you to be.

Freedom from a molester who's been abusing the victim all their life.

Lots of different freedoms. It's more complicated than a single simple attempt to answer. So that whole "look in the horse's mouth" story: show me the mouth of freedom so we can count how many teeth it has (and as I just said, the randomness of brain function is not it. In fact, I could trump that and go one further by pointing out the superposition of particles, but that doesn't equate to freedom either).

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 09:43:02 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 04, 2016, 11:43:20 AM
Reply #19

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote
Pretty much, you are stating decisions are exhaustively restricted to the system a person is bound to
Is there a problem with that? I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my decisions to that.

Quote
In order for that to work, you have to prove that slaves can't freely decide in the first place(which you have not done)
I don't have to prove it. They are slaves. They are, by definition, not free. It's is a basic assumption of slavery.

Quote
All that is required for a decision to be made is for something to be apprehended, and the amount of possible concepts to apprehend is infinite
Another incorrect conflation (thanks for that word, by the way ;P). Apprehension of possibilities does not relate to freedom of choice to make a meaningful decision, where a meaningful decision is a decision that has the capacity to be carried out. Being able to visualize myself turning into a dragon doesn't make it actually happen. Imagination <> proper decision making.

Quote
The problem with your logic is that you are presupposing that since freedom is a finite parameter, the possible decisions that can be made, too, are finite.
And I would say that's not a problem. That's the reality of the situation. Logic and mathematics and whatever other scientific or rational fields that you want to try and discuss, should be descriptions of reality rather than attempts at ignoring reality through mere wordplay. If the logic/math/linguistics/whatever else doesn't accurately portray reality, then it is a false notion. Scientists don't just randomly make up equations and then try to fit reality to them; they study reality and model their equations after reality, in an attempt to be as accurate in describing reality as possible.

Is your "logic" describing reality, or ignoring reality?

Quote
you can model this as an infinite-dimensional vector space which means it would not be a subset of that finite space of slavery.
The problem is that slavery is not something wholly different. It's not it's own thing. Slavery happens when an external factor goes into the infinity vector space and turns it into a non-infinite vector space by introducing restrictions. The introduction of restrictions is the diminishing of freedoms. That's the basic inherent relationship between the two.

Quote
Also, it is highly inappropriate and futile to argue against logical and mathematical arguements with a dictionary... I am not arguing semantics, so why are you?
Because no matter how much you attempt otherwise, discussion of freedom is an argument of semantics, not mathematics. So why are you?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 04, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Reply #20

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
EDIT: I changed a few things below, mostly like removing some smack talk and rewriting a few things to (hopefully) add clarity.

Quote
This is the point I've said, before. This is the point you agreed with me on. So, in arguing against this, you are arguing against what you agreed to and are thus contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not.
Quote
You've said that decisions are not implied by whether things can be actualized
See this, this I have said.

Let me spell it out for you better. Or rather, let wikipedia spell it out for you:
"But unlike the English construction, the material conditional statement "p→q" does not specify a causal relationship between p and q and is to be understood to mean "if p is true, then q is also true" such that the statement "p→q" is false only when p is true and q is false."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

I'm speaking in normal english. You misunderstood the Decisions->Effort->Actualization that I said before. You thought it was a logical condition. I clarified it was not. It was a statement of process. I clarified that very very distinctly AND ALSO added in the multiple steps that showed what happened to effort and actualization when decisions and efforts were not made.

So let's change what I said before "I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my decisions to that." to something more understandable, since you have problems discussing things in normal english:
I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly and then actually grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water and then actually grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my "realistic meaningful decisions that I actually want to try and manifest" to that very restrictive system. Does that read better for you?

I also said before that a decision made all on it's own, without action to back it up, is a meaningless decision and therefore a meaningless discussion. It's meaningless to make a decision to go get a coffee, and then just sit around not going and getting the coffee; it's a decision, but an unfulfilled decision, and therefore a garbage decision.

But yes, the decision to do something is distinct from actually doing it; but that doesn't make the decision a meaningful one on its own. You're actually remembering everything I've said about the topic, but you're remembering them in pieces and only arguing one piece at a time while ignoring how the two pieces fit together.

Because there's levels to meaningful decisions. And there's levels to decisions. And there's levels to freedom. You're the only person having problems understanding that because you're so obsessed with a specific "answer" to the generalized concept, rather than an understanding of the myriad of topics that Freedom and Free Will touch upon.

Quote
decisions are not implied by whether or not they can be actualized; this is a point you agreed to
To state it again. I agree that the ability to make a decision is not the same as the ability to actualize it, and that the actual making of the decision does not mean that an effort has to be carried out to actualize the decision. BUT, and this is a very important but. I have also said multiple times, that such a decision without an attempt to actualize it, is a worthless decision, not worth talking about.

Quote
Whether or not it is a meaningful decision is irrelevant to this point.
But it is entirely relevant to the question of free will and freedom. The freedom to make a decision and then refrain from carrying it out, is little different than not making the decision in the first place. Thus, the situation can be easily ignored for any topic regarding attempting to actually carry out the decisions, as is implied by the Will part of Free Will (which we've been largely ignoring up until now because you're still so stuck on the concept of freedom).

Quote
If A implies B, and B is finite, then this does not mean that A has to be finite.
Have you considered that your logic is wrong because it does not properly describe the situation?

[EDIT ADDED]
The reason I say this is because the universe itself, within which we exist, is decidedly finite. Thus, we can easily deduce that we, as human beings, are finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our thoughts are likewise finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our capacity to make decisions is actually finite as well.
[/EDIT ADDED]

Quote
so we can treat a decision as A and freedom to actualize this as B where B being finite does not mean that A has to be finite. You are assuming that A has to be finite.
Logic must describe reality properly. So the question is not whether A implies B and whether either is dictated to be finite or not by the logical relationships of that statement. The question is whether a decision is, in reality, finite or infinite. If a decision is finite, then the logic must reflect this.

To be sure, and this is getting it's own line so as not to be confused with the above, a decision all on its own can be more or less infinite (EDIT: I was going to just give this point to you, but I have to change it to reflect what I added above) is finite though the possibilities of what can be decided upon are vast, because the decision, entirely on its own, is simply an exercise in imagination. But, when we then discard all of the meaningless decisions that cannot possibly be carried out no matter how hard a person might try, such as turning into a dragon, then we come to the conclusion that meaningful decisions are then definitively finite. Not that it matters either way.

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 08:27:24 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 07, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Reply #21

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Removed previous post.

Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Back to the actual definition of freedom: the term denotes a few things, an in general a freedom from bondage.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
>>>>>
 noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:
a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.
ease or facility of movement or action:
to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity:
freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation:
freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will:
to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Compare necessity (def 7).
>>>>>

Free Will would then be the Will being enacted as a driving force (rather than a passive agent) with out reasonable restriction (where reasonable is understood as a commonly accepted concept among laypeople, much like "a reasonable person" in terms of law).

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 10:54:46 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 12, 2016, 06:16:07 AM
Reply #22

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Rayn, I had been working on neural AI for a full year, yet I did not get what you were saying...

January 12, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
Reply #23

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Rayn, I had been working on neural AI for a full year, yet I did not get what you were saying...
Quote
More formally, a support vector machine constructs a hyperplane or set of hyperplanes in a high- or infinite-dimensional space, which can be used for classification, regression, or other tasks. Intuitively, a good separation is achieved by the hyperplane that has the largest distance to the nearest training-data point of any class (so-called functional margin), since in general the larger the margin the lower the generalization error of the classifier.

Support Vector Machine

Support Vector Machines are used in machine learning where it utilizes something like what I said.

Thank God that article has a Czech version as in English this sounds like mandarin to me :D. Anyway, you might rather be interested in the Reinforcement learning, it might not have been used for DNA analysis, but it certainly is way more "human".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

January 12, 2016, 06:56:59 AM
Reply #24

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Anyway, you might rather be interested in the Reinforcement learning, it might not have been used for DNA analysis, but it certainly is way more "human".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to get bogged down in a specific discussion about different types of machine learning. The fact what I said is used in machine learning is enough to make my point.

I have to disagree there as you were making a connection to the consciousness, in that case the Support Vector Machine was a bit off.

Anyway, so how does this solve the situation that many people are in?

January 12, 2016, 07:37:54 AM
Reply #25

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
I have to disagree there as you were making a connection to the consciousness, in that case the Support Vector Machine was a bit off.

Anyway, so how does this solve the situation that many people are in?

Consciousness is merely a chaotic and reflexive framework(it references itself) where experience are vectors. Possible decisions can thus be modeled as which one of those things in the vector space can be selected. To be honest, it is more appropriate to think of it as a field of possible concepts and a field of possible concepts to be selected where the field can be thought of as infinite. Steve is attempting to argue magnitude. Well, we can give these experiences a magnitude; however, the entire field can be thought of as infinite. An example of the magnitude of an experience would be the subjective intensity of an emotional experience. The magnitude of that emotional experience does not restrict all the other experiences you can have. I've addressed your second question as much as I am going to.

point A: Let's take a brain and start smashing it with a hammer. With each hit the brain cells die, making the process of thinking way harder up to impossible.
point B: Let's create a semi intelligent servitor where there is no real connection between physical and mental capability (as servitors do not have a body), depending on your ability to create intelligent "life", capability of the servitor to understand things  will be better or worse, but certainly not infinite.

As presented at points A and B (for both materialists and spiritualists), consciousness is finite. Because you might still have some objections...
point C: Ability to think in French of a person not speaking French is pretty much zero, still finite.

I think now the time comes to introduce Bob. Bob works 12 hours a day from Monday to Saturday at a minimum wage job and has to take care for his family consisting of 3 daughters, wife, and crazy uncle Earl, none of them has any actual income, only Bob.

-So, Bob, based on the information from Rayn you have a free will and infinite consciousness, what do you think?

Oh, sorry, Bob cannot respond now, still in the work...

January 12, 2016, 08:04:22 AM
Reply #26

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Akenu, your points are incoherent... They also have nothing to do with what I have said. The only really comprehensible point is that the brain produces consciousness; therefore, if you kill it, there is no consciousness, but I kind of have already made that point when speaking to Steve. In other words, I am taking that for granted where it has no impact on what I am saying. As far as your second point, I've created a servitor that extends into infinity via creating a fractal feedback loop between experience and seeing that experience. Pretty much, if you hold a mirror to a mirror, you get mirrors all the way down that spiral into infinity. I use this idea behind my matrix.

Once again no. The reflections reflect only as long as conditions permit it (you cannot have a mirror reflection smaller than photon, can you?), so once again you found something that is finite and claiming it to be infinite...

Let's check on Bob, again. So, Bob, did Rayn's new post help to resolve your situation and become truly free? Ugh, still nothing...

P.S. Rayn, just to make it clear, Bob was actually the OT (original topic) to which you were answering and as you can see now, what you say isn't really related to the OT...

January 12, 2016, 08:18:52 AM
Reply #27

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Once again no. The reflections reflect only as long as conditions permit it (you cannot have a mirror reflection smaller than photon, can you?), so once again you found something that is finite and claiming it to be infinite...

No, not really... There are no such physical limitations in this case. It also just makes it wholly consistent so that if I made a servitor and you shattered it, each piece would be a whole servitor that is a complete version of the original. This is why it is holistic. Every time you shattered it, each piece would be just a whole servitor. This simply means you can't reduce the whole to its smaller parts because the smaller parts are a whole. It is based on the idea of fractals. You pretty much make it self-symmetrical. I've always liked an idea of wholeness, so I've already done things like this. The result is an infinite projection of that servitor, internally, so that each part of it is the whole one. It is not hard to do, actually. I apply this idea to all my constructs, so it makes it very hard to break apart anything I do, because you end up with functioning smaller ones that will do what the original could do.

Ok, that might be hypothetically true, except one little problem called the physical reality. The reflection still has to reflect from something and considering how the reflection gets smaller every time and from what it should reflect (e.g. bumps in the material), you still cannot guarantee a reflection that goes right back, therefore the infinite mirror reflection was just logically dismissed.

January 12, 2016, 08:33:31 AM
Reply #28

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Rayn: Fractals are cool mathematically (and even cooler programatically), the problem comes with the physical reality.
This is romanesco:


Also known as the fractal vegetable. The reason why this veggie isn't really fractal is once again physical, at a certain zoom the matter actually loses the possibility to keep the fractal shape.

Let me check real quick on Bob again... Well, still a slave.

Oh, that reminded me some conversation from earlier. You have claimed that a slave has a free will because he can want to be free anytime he wants. That's not actually true. The probability of you wanting to be free is indirectly related to how free you are. A completely free person will never wish for being free, such a slave simply has to think about being free and that's the limitation.

January 12, 2016, 08:44:15 AM
Reply #29

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3343
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Rayn: Fractals are cool mathematically (and even cooler programatically), the problem comes with the physical reality.

Also known as the fractal vegetable. The reason why this veggie isn't really fractal is once again physical, at a certain zoom the matter actually loses the possibility to keep the fractal shape.

Servitors and constructs are not physical, so physical limitations are not relevant. You are saying it is not physically possible. I am saying it is not physical; therefore, it does not matter whether or not it is physically possible. You are also telling me what I've done is not possible, but I've already done it, so I am not likely to agree with you. At this point, there is an impasse that is going to be repetitive, so unless new points are presented, I probably won't respond.

You have created infinite mirror reflection? No, you didn't, so I didn't say anything being impossible that you could have done, stop assuming and stop trying to place words in my mouth, you cannot succeed in that ;-).

Anyway, if you decide to respond anyway, you could respond e.g. to this:
Quote
Oh, that reminded me some conversation from earlier. You have claimed that a slave has a free will because he can want to be free anytime he wants. That's not actually true. The probability of you wanting to be free is indirectly related to how free you are. A completely free person will never wish for being free, such a slave simply has to think about being free and that's the limitation.
which actually is part of the OT.

Checking on Bob... well, still a slave, even your repetitive rant about infinite servitors didn't change his situation...