Can you beat yourself in a fight... [Archive]

FortunaMaximus

12-05-2006, 05:26 AM

Virtual coinflip.

As the length of the fight goes on, the odds of either making an error that loses the other the fight increases. (Yes, I notice the paradox in that sentence. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) And there's no way to tell whether side would be the one to make the error.

Considering that clones are slightly degraded photocopies of the original...

The real advantage for you or your clone would come in the interval from the moment of cloning, and the divergent stimuli in the time interval before the fight.

Giving one a weapon would hardly be an advantage, unless you aren't proficient at the arts to begin with.

Unless it's an Uzi or something.

Obviously, the winner gets Gugino.

Edited to add: WhoIAm, and that's the point. That's the only worthwhile challenge. From a mortal viewpoint, it wouldn't matter who won, no holds barred. Not that I'd know though.

madnak

12-05-2006, 09:18 AM

I assumed the idea is that the point of divergence is the beginning of the fight, and that the clone is perfect. That is, you are the clone. The clone is you. At minimum, neither of you knows which is "original." And both of you probably believe "I'm the original."

tomdemaine

12-05-2006, 09:35 AM

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/4ACV15/Grabs/pic00087.jpg

Nielsio

12-05-2006, 10:48 AM

"Now now, perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything."
-Professor Farnsworth

Bill Haywood

12-05-2006, 11:01 AM

I would take advantage of my tendency to hesitate by being extra aggressive against myself. I won't know what's coming.

ALawPoker

12-05-2006, 12:53 PM

I think playing a game of poker with your clone would be a ton more interesting.

EDIT: Damn, I wasted post 420 on a lame one sentence reply.

soon2bepro

12-07-2006, 01:42 PM

define "winner"...

I guess the most deciding factor would be events that happen differently for each other. Even if everything else was the same, our very interaction already makes us different. Then one would have the advantage.

A weapon of almost any kind is a huge advantage, assuming that it's pretty likely that I'll be able to use a weapon better than I can fight against it. And with the same level of skill on using a weapon and fighting against it, obviously the guy with the weapon has a clear edge. If he didn't, it wouldn't be defined as a "weapon". Or at least it wouldn't be considered a weapon under those circumstances.

FWIW, pretty much like madnak said, I wouldn't want to fight myself.

BCPVP

12-07-2006, 01:51 PM

This would be a boring fight because neither of us would want to make the first move. If either of us have weapon, especially an edged weapon, that person has a clear advantage as my attacking skills are vastly superior to my "de-arming" skills. Plus I know more grappling 'attacks' than I do defenses for those, so whoever could wind up in better position would probably win.

Philo

12-07-2006, 02:52 PM

My clone cannot have the exact same history as me. For example, my clone cannot be typing at this keyboard right now, because I am, and my clone cannot be in the same place at the same time as me.

It's irrelevant to the fight question anyway, since even if we had very similar histories that would not preclude one or the other of us winning the fight.

vhawk01

12-07-2006, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My clone cannot have the exact same history as me. For example, my clone cannot be typing at this keyboard right now, because I am, and my clone cannot be in the same place at the same time as me.

It's irrelevant to the fight question anyway, since even if we had very similar histories that would not preclude one or the other of us winning the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

HISTORY, not present. At the moment of instantiation its at least theoretically possible that your clone can have the exact same history as you.

Philo

12-07-2006, 03:08 PM

This is 'theoretically possible' only if my opponent IS me, but a clone is not me, but only a clone of me (and my clone has no history until he is created). So I say no, it is not possible that we have 'the exact same history'.

vhawk01

12-07-2006, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is 'theoretically possible' only if my opponent IS me, but a clone is not me, but only a clone of me (and my clone has no history until he is created). So I say no, it is not possible that we have 'the exact same history'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh, that sure seems like an artificial distinction that you are making, and one certainly not explicit in the OP. Are you assuming he means a clone like Dolly the sheep? I don't think thats mandatory, and specifically its ruled out by the OP. And yes, I agree, if the clone had the exact same history as you, it WOULD be you, at least for an instant. You disagree?

arahant

12-07-2006, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Luck. Weapon? Advantage, but not all that much of one. A gun at long range would make me a huge favorite, but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know how to turn a knife against someone, doesn't your clone know how to use a knife to minimize this?
I'm pretty sure that if you give the clone a decent knife, you're screwed.

On OP...luck is one factor, but mental state at the time of the fight is probably a bigger one. If my clone is feeling aggresive and self-confident, and I just woke up...no contest.

Philo

12-07-2006, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is 'theoretically possible' only if my opponent IS me, but a clone is not me, but only a clone of me (and my clone has no history until he is created). So I say no, it is not possible that we have 'the exact same history'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh, that sure seems like an artificial distinction that you are making, and one certainly not explicit in the OP. Are you assuming he means a clone like Dolly the sheep? I don't think thats mandatory, and specifically its ruled out by the OP. And yes, I agree, if the clone had the exact same history as you, it WOULD be you, at least for an instant. You disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow--what is the artificial distinction that I am making? What sort of clone are we talking about?

What does it mean for something to be me 'at least for an instant'? Anything that is me cannot be me at one time, and yet not me at another time.

vhawk01

12-07-2006, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is 'theoretically possible' only if my opponent IS me, but a clone is not me, but only a clone of me (and my clone has no history until he is created). So I say no, it is not possible that we have 'the exact same history'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh, that sure seems like an artificial distinction that you are making, and one certainly not explicit in the OP. Are you assuming he means a clone like Dolly the sheep? I don't think thats mandatory, and specifically its ruled out by the OP. And yes, I agree, if the clone had the exact same history as you, it WOULD be you, at least for an instant. You disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow--what is the artificial distinction that I am making? What sort of clone are we talking about?

What does it mean for something to be me 'at least for an instant'? Anything that is me cannot be me at one time, and yet not me at another time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second paragraph was the distinction (or assertion) that I was talking about. There is no reason two things cant be you, and there is no reason it cant be you for one instant and not you the next. Heck, YOU are only you for one instant and not you the next. And thats the interesting point of the fight. It only stops being you after its created, for all intents and purposes it was you up until that point. It has your memories and 'experiences' and is you.

BCPVP

12-07-2006, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're incredibely inept with a knife (by which, I mean you'd be trying to stab yourself instead of him), this would not be as easy as you think it would.

Philo

12-07-2006, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason two things cant be you, and there is no reason it cant be you for one instant and not you the next. Heck, YOU are only you for one instant and not you the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not possible for 'two things' to be me. The relation of identity is a unity relation--it is a relation between a thing and itself, not between two or more things. Where you have two or more things, you have plurality and distinctness, not unity and identity.

Let a=b, where '=' denotes the identity relation. If a and b are the same thing, then everything that is true of a must also be true of b, since a and b are the very same thing. Assume that a has some property that b does not have. Then a cannot be identical to b, since if a were b then a would have every property that b has.

Now think about the remark that 'you are only you for one instant and not the next'. This cannot be about identity, for while it is possible for me to change, it is not possible for me not to be me.

I think you are talking about qualitative similarity and change, not identity. The very concept of change implies an identity--in order for change to take place there has to be some thing that changes--some thing that had certain properties yesterday that it does not have today, or vice-versa, for example.

Suppose I weigh more today than I did yesterday. This only means that I changed, not that I ceased being me. To cease being me would be to cease existing altogether, so that we could not even say in that case that I weigh more today, since I would no longer even exist.

vhawk01

12-07-2006, 04:20 PM

Ok, I guess my point is that 'me' is essentially an illusion. Your memories are the only thing that allows you to believe there is some you that exists.

madnak

12-08-2006, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luck. Weapon? Advantage, but not all that much of one. A gun at long range would make me a huge favorite, but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know how to turn a knife against someone, doesn't your clone know how to use a knife to minimize this?
I'm pretty sure that if you give the clone a decent knife, you're screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to turn a knife against someone. I know how to turn a knife against me. Gross incompetence is the major factor.

madnak

12-08-2006, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're incredibely inept with a knife (by which, I mean you'd be trying to stab yourself instead of him), this would not be as easy as you think it would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Actually, I don't know if it's as much me stabbing myself (although it's certainly a possibility) as being unable to deal anything beyond superficial damage with a knife.

But then again, it's very possible it wouldn't be as easy as I think it would. If I knew these things, I might be decent with a knife.

vhawk01

12-08-2006, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're incredibely inept with a knife (by which, I mean you'd be trying to stab yourself instead of him), this would not be as easy as you think it would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Actually, I don't know if it's as much me stabbing myself (although it's certainly a possibility) as being unable to deal anything beyond superficial damage with a knife.

But then again, it's very possible it wouldn't be as easy as I think it would. If I knew these things, I might be decent with a knife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly your presence was missed from the "Who would win a fight to the death?" threads in SSF. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Punker

12-08-2006, 01:14 AM

I can't tell if you are trolling or being serious with your "I am not me" posts, but think of it this way. God exists, and is running two exactly identical parallel universes, where the entirety of every human action has been 100% the same.

God then decides to put you and the you from the other dimension in a room (who are identical in every way, both physically and emotionally and in terms of experiences) and fight to the death and who wins? That's the question.

Magic_Man

12-08-2006, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't tell if you are trolling or being serious with your "I am not me" posts, but think of it this way. God exists, and is running two exactly identical parallel universes, where the entirety of every human action has been 100% the same.

God then decides to put you and the you from the other dimension in a room (who are identical in every way, both physically and emotionally and in terms of experiences) and fight to the death and who wins? That's the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that even a question? Put that way, the answer seems trivial. Either:

a) The universe is non-deterministic, in which case the outcome will be determined by random chance. You may both live, both die, or one may live. In any case, UniverseAme has an EV of 0 against UniverseBme.

b) The universe is deterministic. But in this case, you have gone all wacky and changed the laws of physics by introducing God and another universe. If we consider the MULTIverse to be non-deterministic, then (a) still applies. Otherwise, the question is moot. If the multiverse/universe is deterministic, then there will be a winner, but there is no way to know who it is.

~MagicMan

vhawk01

12-08-2006, 01:33 AM

I think it was meant to be a joke, a light-hearted question along the lines of the Fight threads in the SSF. Some nits hijacked, I made it worse, and we've lost some of the fun. Madnak tried to bring it back, I tried to help, now we're here.

Magic_Man

12-08-2006, 01:42 AM

I saw it as a joke at first, but then we got into undertones of free will and branching histories and such. On a side note, the free will thread is starting to give me second thoughts...

~MagicMan

vhawk01

12-08-2006, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I saw it as a joke at first, but then we got into undertones of free will and branching histories and such. On a side note, the free will thread is starting to give me second thoughts...

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Which direction?

Magic_Man

12-08-2006, 02:05 AM

I voted for "exists," but I'm willing to entertain thoughts the other way.

Edit:
I have a friend at school who pulled out the old determinism school of thought a while back. I asked him if he thought that if I gave him the state of every particle in the universe, and he had a working "theory of everything," whether he could then predict the future 100% accurately. He answered yes, I answered no, with the basic explanation of randomness involved in quantum theory. I've always thought this equated with an argument about free will, but thinking about it, they are separate issues. The universe can be non-deterministic in this sense, and free will can still not exist. Just because the output of the wave functions of all our brain's particles isnot predetermined doesn't mean that we necessarily have the ability to affect the output. I'm getting dizzy...

~MagicMan

vhawk01

12-08-2006, 02:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I voted for "exists," but I'm willing to entertain thoughts the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely don't want to get into it here, but I think most of my arguments for 'doesn't exist and isn't even a meaningful term' were made in the thread.

Philo

12-08-2006, 03:15 AM

Not sure if you're responding to me, but if so...

I never said anything about "I am not me." I think the OP is confused in thinking that bringing in the concept of identity (or rather, 'clone') makes the fight question an interesting philosophical one. I don't think there is any special philosophical issue here--I think my clone with an 'identical history' to me is nothing more than someone who is qualitatively very similar to me, and has very similar mental and physical attributes.

So, the question asked by the OP is just like asking if there could be a winner in a fight between two qualitatively identical people. That's not the question I think he thought he was asking.

As for god putting me and my twin from the parallel universe in a room together--that is the same question again--whether or not someone could win a fight against someone else whom they are qualitatively identical with. The answer is yes, it's possible in just the same way that it's possible for someone to win a fight against another, actual, person who is qualitatively very similar to them.

There's no special issue having to do with the similarities that makes it impossible for one of the two to win the fight.

BCPVP

12-08-2006, 03:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but a knife or something I could turn against me with relative ease.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're incredibely inept with a knife (by which, I mean you'd be trying to stab yourself instead of him), this would not be as easy as you think it would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Actually, I don't know if it's as much me stabbing myself (although it's certainly a possibility) as being unable to deal anything beyond superficial damage with a knife.

But then again, it's very possible it wouldn't be as easy as I think it would. If I knew these things, I might be decent with a knife.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not going to be as exact as this scenario, but give a friend a marker and have him use it as a knife and you try and take the marker away. Don't wear anything nice if you're going to do this, though! /images/graemlins/blush.gif It's pretty tough to disarm a knife if you don't know what you're doing without getting seriously "cut".

drudman

12-09-2006, 03:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In a controlled fight against your clone (who has the exact same history as you), could there be winner? Does it help if one of the fighters get a weapon? Would letting the fighters plan strategy prior to the fight help?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a REALLY EASY question guys.

If two perfect chess computers played against each other who would win?

White.

Both will try to gain initiative. Someone will get it. That one will win.

Jeff W

12-09-2006, 05:37 AM

It's a coin flip.

soon2bepro

12-09-2006, 09:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Both will try to gain initiative. Someone will get it. That one will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily so. There are situations when making the first move allows the other guy to make the first counter-move, which gives him the advantage.

In chess white wins because he's getting an extra move, not because he moves first. In a real-time fight this isn't necessarily so.

Magic_Man

12-09-2006, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In chess white wins

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for the record, this is assumed, but not known. It could be that black wins.

~MagicMan

arahant

12-09-2006, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In chess white wins

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for the record, this is assumed, but not known. It could be that black wins.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I always guessed it would be a draw, just based on the large percentage of draws in top level matches.

I don't see how a fight to the death can be a draw though...unless my clone and i simultaneously knock each other into a persistent vegatative state...

madnak

12-09-2006, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a fight to the death can be a draw though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Futurama and Arrested Development demonstrate this nicely.

Breauxdel

12-09-2006, 11:33 PM

(long time lurker, registered cuz of this thread, incredible forums BTW)

Under the assmption that my clone has my same exact current body condition and exact same brain. There is one advantage that I believe I would have over MY clone: Making him realize that he IS a clone.

this may not hold true for everyone, but since we all know how we think, convincing an identical thinker would not be hard. I am pretty sure that if I or my clone realized that I or my clone were a clone, respectively, then I'm pretty sure that I'd be stunned at the moment of realization. While my clone is mentally stunned, I would gain an advantage of pouncing while he is mentally preoccupied.

In an assumed identical fighter match, any one advantage, no matter the size, would stand to reason be the determining factor of who would win.

This may not work for everyone/thier clone, I am a christian and believe that I have a soul, and also believe that clones do NOT have a soul. I also personally believe that I was created through my 'Higher power's' will. My clone would come into the fight with the same mentality as me.

Sephus

12-10-2006, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
(long time lurker, registered cuz of this thread, incredible forums BTW)

Under the assmption that my clone has my same exact current body condition and exact same brain. There is one advantage that I believe I would have over MY clone: Making him realize that he IS a clone.

this may not hold true for everyone, but since we all know how we think, convincing an identical thinker would not be hard. I am pretty sure that if I or my clone realized that I or my clone were a clone, respectively, then I'm pretty sure that I'd be stunned at the moment of realization. While my clone is mentally stunned, I would gain an advantage of pouncing while he is mentally preoccupied.

In an assumed identical fighter match, any one advantage, no matter the size, would stand to reason be the determining factor of who would win.

This may not work for everyone/thier clone, I am a christian and believe that I have a soul, and also believe that clones do NOT have a soul. I also personally believe that I was created through my 'Higher power's' will. My clone would come into the fight with the same mentality as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

imagine your confusion when, upon seeing you, your clone instantly beings to try and convince you that you're the clone. the real question, is do you have any reason to believe there's a greater than 50% chance you're not actually the clone at that point?

vhawk01

12-10-2006, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(long time lurker, registered cuz of this thread, incredible forums BTW)

Under the assmption that my clone has my same exact current body condition and exact same brain. There is one advantage that I believe I would have over MY clone: Making him realize that he IS a clone.

this may not hold true for everyone, but since we all know how we think, convincing an identical thinker would not be hard. I am pretty sure that if I or my clone realized that I or my clone were a clone, respectively, then I'm pretty sure that I'd be stunned at the moment of realization. While my clone is mentally stunned, I would gain an advantage of pouncing while he is mentally preoccupied.

In an assumed identical fighter match, any one advantage, no matter the size, would stand to reason be the determining factor of who would win.

This may not work for everyone/thier clone, I am a christian and believe that I have a soul, and also believe that clones do NOT have a soul. I also personally believe that I was created through my 'Higher power's' will. My clone would come into the fight with the same mentality as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

imagine your confusion when, upon seeing you, your clone instantly beings to try and convince you that you're the clone. the real question, is do you have any reason to believe there's a greater than 50% chance you're not actually the clone at that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is how this thread should have been from the beginning.

ScottySo

12-10-2006, 05:12 PM

paperjam

12-11-2006, 09:34 AM

Wow...I posted this and completely forgot about it for a week - glad I found it again.
For the question, forget the word clone or any technicalities by which these two fighters are not the same. They are both the same "me" until the moment of the fight.

Nobody really addressed the second main question (for me, the more interesting one): Would planning for the fight help either party? Would you 1st, 2nd, 3rd level think ad inifinitum? How about this question:

One of the "yous" gets a weapon, say a hunting knife, but he (you) have never been in a knife fight before. He gets no time to prepare. He is held in a suspended state while the other you:

Gets no weapon, but is allowed to prepare/practice with the same weapon for a sufficient time (don't be concerned with how long). He is also allowed to strategize.

paperjam

12-11-2006, 09:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(long time lurker, registered cuz of this thread, incredible forums BTW)

Under the assmption that my clone has my same exact current body condition and exact same brain. There is one advantage that I believe I would have over MY clone: Making him realize that he IS a clone.

this may not hold true for everyone, but since we all know how we think, convincing an identical thinker would not be hard. I am pretty sure that if I or my clone realized that I or my clone were a clone, respectively, then I'm pretty sure that I'd be stunned at the moment of realization. While my clone is mentally stunned, I would gain an advantage of pouncing while he is mentally preoccupied.

In an assumed identical fighter match, any one advantage, no matter the size, would stand to reason be the determining factor of who would win.

This may not work for everyone/thier clone, I am a christian and believe that I have a soul, and also believe that clones do NOT have a soul. I also personally believe that I was created through my 'Higher power's' will. My clone would come into the fight with the same mentality as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

imagine your confusion when, upon seeing you, your clone instantly beings to try and convince you that you're the clone. the real question, is do you have any reason to believe there's a greater than 50% chance you're not actually the clone at that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Though, this is a great hijack. I wouldn't mind if the thread went in this direction.

Philo

12-11-2006, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For the question, forget the word clone or any technicalities by which these two fighters are not the same. They are both the same "me" until the moment of the fight.[ QUOTE ]

They can be qualitatively identical, but this poses no special problem when it comes to one or the other of them being able to win the fight.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody really addressed the second main question (for me, the more interesting one): Would planning for the fight help either party? Would you 1st, 2nd, 3rd level think ad inifinitum?[ QUOTE ]

This question seems to presuppose that there is some special difficulty in one or the other 'twin' being able to win the fight because they are qualitatively identical, and have parallel histories; there isn't, and the question never arises once you understand that fact.

[ QUOTE ]
How about this question:

One of the "yous" gets a weapon, say a hunting knife, but he (you) have never been in a knife fight before. He gets no time to prepare. He is held in a suspended state while the other you:

Gets no weapon, but is allowed to prepare/practice with the same weapon for a sufficient time (don't be concerned with how long). He is also allowed to strategize.[ QUOTE ]

The answer is, either of them could kill the other with a knife, a gun, or whatever other potentially lethal weapon you might introduce. It's no different than two people with very similar mental and physical abilities fighting one another--something which happens in the real world quite frequently, in fact.

I think it is confused to believe that being 'twins' means that there would be some special difficulty with one or the other of them winning the fight.

Maybe someone can state what has seemed to remain implicit in many posts here--why do you think there would be a special problem with one or the other person winning the fight? Why would it be in principle especially difficult/impossible for someone to win a fight against someone else who is physically and psychologically similar to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk01

12-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Because they aren't similar they are exactly the same. If me and you are amazingly similar, the variance will be extremely high but one of us HAS to have an edge. In this case its exactly like flipping a coin...no edge, all variance. But thats not the fun answer. The fun answer is me 3687th levelling myself into thinking I would fall for the old "Hey look over there" eleven times in a row, because OBVIOUSLY after the tenth time I knew it was a trick, and so I never would have tried it the eleventh time, unless there really WAS something coming this time....OR WOULD I?!?!?!

Hoover

12-11-2006, 05:50 PM

I'm pretty sure my clone would kick my butt. He'd be pretty pissed off when I call him a clone. He'd probably insist he's not, and take it out on me. If I decided not to tell him, then we'd probably have a close fight.

Philo

12-11-2006, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because they aren't similar they are exactly the same. If me and you are amazingly similar, the variance will be extremely high but one of us HAS to have an edge. In this case its exactly like flipping a coin...no edge, all variance. But thats not the fun answer. The fun answer is me 3687th levelling myself into thinking I would fall for the old "Hey look over there" eleven times in a row, because OBVIOUSLY after the tenth time I knew it was a trick, and so I never would have tried it the eleventh time, unless there really WAS something coming this time....OR WOULD I?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'exactly the same' you mean qualitatively identical, I don't see how that would preclude either of us from being able to win the fight. Suppose I am exactly as strong, agile, and smart as my opponent. Why does this mean that one of us could not gain the advantage?

If that were the case, then I clearly could not gain the advantage over anyone who is actually smarter and stronger than I am, but that is not the case--sometimes the less intelligent, weaker opponent actually wins. Upsets happen.

BCPVP

12-11-2006, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One of the "yous" gets a weapon, say a hunting knife, but he (you) have never been in a knife fight before. He gets no time to prepare. He is held in a suspended state while the other you:

Gets no weapon, but is allowed to prepare/practice with the same weapon for a sufficient time (don't be concerned with how long). He is also allowed to strategize.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you actually do some training with knives and fighting, you'll find that how long and how realistic you train matters quite a bit. A man with a knife >>>> a similar-trained man with no knife. Now give one a knife the other a bat and we have a real debate... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

vhawk01

12-11-2006, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they aren't similar they are exactly the same. If me and you are amazingly similar, the variance will be extremely high but one of us HAS to have an edge. In this case its exactly like flipping a coin...no edge, all variance. But thats not the fun answer. The fun answer is me 3687th levelling myself into thinking I would fall for the old "Hey look over there" eleven times in a row, because OBVIOUSLY after the tenth time I knew it was a trick, and so I never would have tried it the eleventh time, unless there really WAS something coming this time....OR WOULD I?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'exactly the same' you mean qualitatively identical, I don't see how that would preclude either of us from being able to win the fight. Suppose I am exactly as strong, agile, and smart as my opponent. Why does this mean that one of us could not gain the advantage?

If that were the case, then I clearly could not gain the advantage over anyone who is actually smarter and stronger than I am, but that is not the case--sometimes the less intelligent, weaker opponent actually wins. Upsets happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...I don't think anyone said it would be an endless stalemate. The point is it would be entirely variance, unless you can come up with some reason it wouldn't be. Yes, one of you would win. There is luck involved, someone would get the advantage. But whom? Figuring THAT out is the fun part.

Hoover

12-11-2006, 07:31 PM

Me & a clone fight. Say it's not a draw, so one of us win. Any further fights would not necessarily be a coinflip. We'd both make adjustments from the first fight & our fighting methods, training, etc would evolve from that first result. We'd no longer be twins/clones after that first fight.

vhawk01

12-11-2006, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Me & a clone fight. Say it's not a draw, so one of us win. Any further fights would not necessarily be a coinflip. We'd both make adjustments from the first fight & our fighting methods, training, etc would evolve from that first result. We'd no longer be twins/clones after that first fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The winner would have extra confidence, the loser would have a chip on his shoulder. The second fight is where the rubber really meets the road in this hypothetical!

Philo

12-11-2006, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they aren't similar they are exactly the same. If me and you are amazingly similar, the variance will be extremely high but one of us HAS to have an edge. In this case its exactly like flipping a coin...no edge, all variance. But thats not the fun answer. The fun answer is me 3687th levelling myself into thinking I would fall for the old "Hey look over there" eleven times in a row, because OBVIOUSLY after the tenth time I knew it was a trick, and so I never would have tried it the eleventh time, unless there really WAS something coming this time....OR WOULD I?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'exactly the same' you mean qualitatively identical, I don't see how that would preclude either of us from being able to win the fight. Suppose I am exactly as strong, agile, and smart as my opponent. Why does this mean that one of us could not gain the advantage?

If that were the case, then I clearly could not gain the advantage over anyone who is actually smarter and stronger than I am, but that is not the case--sometimes the less intelligent, weaker opponent actually wins. Upsets happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...I don't think anyone said it would be an endless stalemate. The point is it would be entirely variance, unless you can come up with some reason it wouldn't be. Yes, one of you would win. There is luck involved, someone would get the advantage. But whom? Figuring THAT out is the fun part.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption seems to be that two qualitatively identical people with parallel histories will think, act and react in all the same ways (this is more or less explicit in many responses on this thread). This is why, I take it, you say that having a winner will be a matter of luck or variance.

But the assumption is false, and results from a conflation of numerical identity with qualitative identity. We are still talking about two distinct individuals, and their reactions, responses and reflexes will be individual as well. You are not fighting 'yourself' (a conceptual and metaphysical impossibility), you are simply fighting someone qualitatively identical to you.

This is no different than fighting someone whom we do not stipulate to be a 'clone', but simply describe as being equally as strong and agile and smart as you. There is no special problem with conceiving that one person can still outwit or outfight the other in that case, and neither is there in the case of two people who are qualitatively identical.

Sephus

12-11-2006, 11:11 PM

that's an awful lot of words just to say "i disagree."

Kimbell175113

12-11-2006, 11:22 PM

Philo: So you're saying one of them is the favorite?

madnak

12-12-2006, 12:30 AM

I don't think you're using the term "qualitative" correctly, but the point is that they're qualitatively and quantitatively identical. This is the idea, you can try to wriggle out of it all you want but it just ruins the fun of considering it. If you really want to believe in your soul or free will or whatnot, great, don't pollute this thread with that stuff, it's off the subject.

Consider two yous from identical universes if you like, or two clones of you and no "real" you, or however you like it. Use your [censored] imagination. The only relevant point is that it's not just about smarts, strength, agility - it's about personality too, weaknesses, habits... Everything.

Will it be a mirror image battle? Or will it all amount to quantum randomness? Or will the arena be shaped in just such a way as to give one the advantage?

Doesn't matter. That's really not the point of the thought experiment - the point is that there's no right answer, and no wrong one either.

(Well, now I've mucked things up even more...)

Sephus

12-12-2006, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Will it be a mirror image battle?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure of the best way to say this, but if the two are placed in the arena in such a way that not even on omniscient observer could find a difference between the two sides of the room, even down to the positions/velocities of the air molecules, (other than "they are different sides"), then you would have a situation where each would only punch the other's knuckles, they would speak in unison, etc.

i'm not sure whether the similarity between the two halves of the room would immediately begin to degrade, or how long it would take before randomness at the subatomic level would have a "noticable effect" on the fight. who knows, maybe there is no real randomness and it would last forever.

Philo

12-12-2006, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're using the term "qualitative" correctly[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am.

[ QUOTE ]
but the point is that they're qualitatively and quantitatively identical.[ QUOTE ]

If by 'quantitatively identical' you mean that they are in fact one and the same person (i.e., numerically identical), that's impossible, per the logic of identity (two things cannot be numerically identical).

[ QUOTE ]
This is the idea, you can try to wriggle out of it all you want but it just ruins the fun of considering it.[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'wriggle out of it'--I'm explaining how the idea that there is some special issue about winning a fight against a clone who is qualitatively identical to you is motivated by a confusion about the nature of identity.

[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to believe in your soul or free will or whatnot, great, don't pollute this thread with that stuff, it's off the subject.[ QUOTE ]

I haven't brought in any special assumptions about free will. Determinism would be a special assumption--it's certainly not the default position for either philosophers or non-philosophers. In any case, I didn't take this thread to be about determinism vs. free will, and my point about conflating numerical identity with qualitative identity has nothing to do with the free will debate.

As far as polluting the thread, I can respond to any post I like and with what I take to be of interest--if you don't like what I have to say then don't respond.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider two yous from identical universes if you like, or two clones of you and no "real" you, or however you like it. Use your [censored] imagination.[ QUOTE ]

I have no trouble understanding what a clone is or imagining two people who are qualitatively identical to me. From your remarks I think it is you who has yet to grasp what I've been saying--and if you don't care for it then, as I said, don't bother to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
The only relevant point is that it's not just about smarts, strength, agility - it's about personality too, weaknesses, habits... Everything.[ QUOTE ]

I agree--who wins the fight will be about all of these things, and that leaves much more room for thinking there can be a winner. I thought the original point was supposed to be that it would be very difficult to figure out who could win such a fight because of the similarities between the two combatants--the more possible dissimilarities we introduce the easier it is to see that there is no special problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Will it be a mirror image battle?[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not, and to think that it might be is to confuse the two concepts of identity again (unless you are thinking that two molecule-for-molecule identical people would fight a mirror-image battle, but that would be assuming that determinism is true, and since this thread is not about determinism vs. free will I'll assume you're not).

[ QUOTE ]
Or will it all amount to quantum randomness? Or will the arena be shaped in just such a way as to give one the advantage?[ QUOTE ]

When you mention quantum randomness it sounds like you're playing on the idea of determinism, so I'm not sure what to say about that except that a fight between two clones would not depend for its outcome on quantum randomness any more than a fight between two non-clones would.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. That's really not the point of the thought experiment - the point is that there's no right answer, and no wrong one either.[ QUOTE ]

There's a right answer to the question of whether or not one of them could win the fight, which is the question I've been addressing. The answer is yes. And by the way, that question was the title question of the OP.

madnak

12-12-2006, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will it be a mirror image battle?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure of the best way to say this, but if the two are placed in the arena in such a way that not even on omniscient observer could find a difference between the two sides of the room, even down to the positions/velocities of the air molecules, (other than "they are different sides"), then you would have a situation where each would only punch the other's knuckles, they would speak in unison, etc.

i'm not sure whether the similarity between the two halves of the room would immediately begin to degrade, or how long it would take before randomness at the subatomic level would have a "noticable effect" on the fight. who knows, maybe there is no real randomness and it would last forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they wouldn't knock knuckles because they aren't actually mirror images. I could hit my clone in the left side of his face with my right hand, and he could hit me in the left side of my face with his right hand. If it were mirror-symmetrical, if he were a "left-handed" version of me, that would surely make for an interesting fight. Either way it'd be surreal.

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they aren't similar they are exactly the same. If me and you are amazingly similar, the variance will be extremely high but one of us HAS to have an edge. In this case its exactly like flipping a coin...no edge, all variance. But thats not the fun answer. The fun answer is me 3687th levelling myself into thinking I would fall for the old "Hey look over there" eleven times in a row, because OBVIOUSLY after the tenth time I knew it was a trick, and so I never would have tried it the eleventh time, unless there really WAS something coming this time....OR WOULD I?!?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'exactly the same' you mean qualitatively identical, I don't see how that would preclude either of us from being able to win the fight. Suppose I am exactly as strong, agile, and smart as my opponent. Why does this mean that one of us could not gain the advantage?

If that were the case, then I clearly could not gain the advantage over anyone who is actually smarter and stronger than I am, but that is not the case--sometimes the less intelligent, weaker opponent actually wins. Upsets happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...I don't think anyone said it would be an endless stalemate. The point is it would be entirely variance, unless you can come up with some reason it wouldn't be. Yes, one of you would win. There is luck involved, someone would get the advantage. But whom? Figuring THAT out is the fun part.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption seems to be that two qualitatively identical people with parallel histories will think, act and react in all the same ways (this is more or less explicit in many responses on this thread). This is why, I take it, you say that having a winner will be a matter of luck or variance.

But the assumption is false, and results from a conflation of numerical identity with qualitative identity. We are still talking about two distinct individuals, and their reactions, responses and reflexes will be individual as well. You are not fighting 'yourself' (a conceptual and metaphysical impossibility), you are simply fighting someone qualitatively identical to you.

This is no different than fighting someone whom we do not stipulate to be a 'clone', but simply describe as being equally as strong and agile and smart as you. There is no special problem with conceiving that one person can still outwit or outfight the other in that case, and neither is there in the case of two people who are qualitatively identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing over whether this is a clone or not and that is almost entirely besides the point. Even if we hypothesize it is a rock with a face painted on it, as long as its identically strong, clever and 'every other relevant attribute' to me the point is the same. There is no way to determine WHICH will be the winner, nor even which one is the more likely to win. Its all variance.

I love semantical arguments more than almost anyone else on this forum but this one is exceedingly pointless.

Sephus

12-12-2006, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will it be a mirror image battle?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure of the best way to say this, but if the two are placed in the arena in such a way that not even on omniscient observer could find a difference between the two sides of the room, even down to the positions/velocities of the air molecules, (other than "they are different sides"), then you would have a situation where each would only punch the other's knuckles, they would speak in unison, etc.

i'm not sure whether the similarity between the two halves of the room would immediately begin to degrade, or how long it would take before randomness at the subatomic level would have a "noticable effect" on the fight. who knows, maybe there is no real randomness and it would last forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they wouldn't knock knuckles because they aren't actually mirror images. I could hit my clone in the left side of his face with my right hand, and he could hit me in the left side of my face with his right hand. If it were mirror-symmetrical, if he were a "left-handed" version of me, that would surely make for an interesting fight. Either way it'd be surreal.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, yeah. duh.

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will it be a mirror image battle?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure of the best way to say this, but if the two are placed in the arena in such a way that not even on omniscient observer could find a difference between the two sides of the room, even down to the positions/velocities of the air molecules, (other than "they are different sides"), then you would have a situation where each would only punch the other's knuckles, they would speak in unison, etc.

i'm not sure whether the similarity between the two halves of the room would immediately begin to degrade, or how long it would take before randomness at the subatomic level would have a "noticable effect" on the fight. who knows, maybe there is no real randomness and it would last forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they wouldn't knock knuckles because they aren't actually mirror images. I could hit my clone in the left side of his face with my right hand, and he could hit me in the left side of my face with his right hand. If it were mirror-symmetrical, if he were a "left-handed" version of me, that would surely make for an interesting fight. Either way it'd be surreal.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, yeah. duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif I'm sorry, there is something funny about someone saying "Oh yeah, OBVIOUSLY that would be the case in a crazy hypothetical world where two identical copies of a person were forced to fight to the death for our amusement, how SILLY of me!" /images/graemlins/grin.gif again for good measure.