An intreging discussion

While populating a forum, I came across a curious hypothetical quandary. It is a follows: 

Both are identical in EVERY conceivable way, strength,intelligence, paint job, etc. So how would the fight end and which one would be victorious?
Edit: Ok, even the environmental conditions are the same, even the space between the two robots facing each other are the same, even the two grandmothers in the crowd cheering them on are the same, all conditions are equal for both sides of the conflict. And both robots are fighting because they both think of the other as a copy. And...

this image was used by the OP

 

Think about your answer. I encourage you to take a moment to scrawl it down before reading on.

Ok
The most notable opinions made by most fellow commenters was this: in the world of reality, no two systems can be truly identical. More over, some brought on a little chaos theory stating, "that two systems with initial starting conditions will begin to deviate in small ways that will eventually lead to them operating differently." I think the leaning towards logical proofs is a curious reflection of this forum. Most illustrated the pointlessness of such a hypothetical. Because the two robots are the same, it doesn't matter which is the win because which ever automaton is victorious the same as the robot that entered the battle. Still other preferred a direct view: the one the strikes first, or the one on the left, or the one that strikes last.

I approached this problem from the learned consul of my classes. Assume the Robots are, indeed functionally identical from stats to subatomics and given identical environmental conditions (assuming their not fighting in a void) at the start of the battle. The motion and activity of the brawl would still affect the environment. The dirt and dust and discarded robot parts would begin to cluster the field and introduce inequality to the setting by randomized placement of the litter.  Is this train of thought is unhelpful in reaching a conclusion? What of methods introduced to maintain the environment's near-perfect homogeneity?  Well, nothing occurs in stasis. Only the perspectives of the Robots can alter significantly from beginning to end. Eventually, an event outside the arena but within the Robots' range of detection would introduce a non-shared experience (presumably, the robots are not synchronizing data). It would be first noticed by one robot sooner then the other.We'll call this one Observer Robot. Even if the other robot, Oblivious Robot, sees the event too, the delay in observation time results in the two no longer being identical. Observer Robot, in a battle for individuality, would begin to calculations to determine an advantage from this event. It may even favor a strategy favoring knowledge supremacy for this event. Now Observer Robot is redirecting part of it's processing power towards these new calculations, effectively reducing processing capabilities for it's combat routines. Now Oblivious Robot has the advantage of singular goal at the cost of situational awareness. The robots are no longer equal. The outcome is dependent on the nature of the event. Should the event prove advantageous to Observer Robot, will deliver a death stroke to it's counterpart and leave the battle field secure in it's identity. However, driven by a singular goal and higher task specific processing aim towards the fruition of that goal, Oblivious Robot will defeat Observer Robot. In victory it will wonder why it's Once-was-twin changed battle tactics. It will search to attribute its own personal characteristics to the other's behavior. It will find none. Oblivious Robot will begin to see it as distinct from itself and become tormented by the final moments of Observer Robot, the fight and question it's own identity. It will seek enlightenment and answers. In doing so, Oblivious Robot will construct two Identical Robots and force them to fight.

What do you think? Comment below.
Thanks for reading.
-Mr. Wordy

On me

 For now, i have an income. I suppose that's something to be proud of because, recentally, there was threat against my current employment. But all this has got me thinking of things. Things I own, would like to own and my own self.

As I write this I am drunk. Drunk as hell. So take me with liberty when i say I've never been had much attachment fir possessions. I grew up with Buddhist thought. I was given a car by me parents for which has given me much aid and support. yet, it is not in owning the car but the experience of it that I value most.  Recently, however, I've been pulled into enjoying ownership of things. Things around me. Not so much that I care more about the objects. No, rather that people I care about - a person I want around me- has need for items in her life. Specifically, plants. Plants to surround and beautify the area. (one could do worse then have want for beauty and growth.) My upbringings have taunt me the eight-fold path and the four noble truths. of which include the despisement of objectification. I should not want objects not desire  for - make an object out of- a living thing.

Why? I now ask. Why? Don't i deserve something? Don't I deserve things -reward- for my toils? The love and hardships my closest companion express are to create, to grow, to expand and enjoy the fruits of her (or his) hard work. I can't see how that could be a bad thing.

Perhaps I've strayed from the beliefs of my upbringing. Where before I cared not but for others I think of myself, of my own gain and loss.  Where once there was contentment there is, now, distension. I want. I desire. I need. I postulate having and not having. I addition to my growing selfishness is the feeling of ambition. I want recognition for my works. I'm no longer content to do. To work enough to drink and play is no longer enough. I want to express my deepest thoughts and cry My Desires to the sky.

For  those readers not known, the Eight Fold Path is a Buddhist teaching of life. they seek to teach Wisdom, Ethics and philosophy. All towards the attainment of the four noble truths: (which, as follows, should sound familiar to used to evangelical Christianism.) First: there is suffering and it is unavoidable. Second, the origin of your pain is beyond your ability to fix. third, you can cease your pain. The way to stop your pain is to follow the eight fold path. It is hard to turn away from what is/was taught to you. I don't know if it is for better or worse (not a plug for the gawd awful comic)  but i am turning from it. I am embracing ambition, desire and need. I want. I seek and I will attain.

   -Marcus Miranti, Freedman

Late-nite-thoughts

                                 

At some point I wish'd to expess thoughts of these stories. But now i feel as a fly buzzing away other's lives.
buzzz buzzz buzzz
like the question that lingers in my head:

-what does it mean to Exist?-

any one whose contemplated existence has wondered the cliche of purpose. the question of why am I here? Outside the caveat of answers ranging from simple biologics to complex ideologies, the question is often lost to us in the fray of Philosophical notions. Few people can ponder their own existence with out the improprieties of vanity, Emo-ism, or ponce-itude. (i like 50¢ words). However, there is a growing population of folks who've been brought to life with an express propose. To be clear, i don't think ill of families like the Goldbergs (see Henry Strongin Goldberg). nor do i believe that PGD or any genetics work is bad, malicious or unethical. What interests me is the notion that someone could have a concreteness to their being -their existence (outside of love, biology, survival instinct and all the other demands humans might have for children).

 The reason one might've been created is nothing more than first forced steps of life.
Life come to those who continue the journy.

Forever and Questioningly yours,
-Marcus Miranti

problem solving

in many ways i am too self agrandizing.

recentally i've been having an existentialist crisis.
Oscar Zeta Acosta is, perhaps, my favorate novelist. he wrote three books before disappearing mysteriously. until recentally I've always held the notion that great authors come from great feats. as such, i've lost sight of wat it means to be a writer.

Tony. a great wall of a man sat, leaning back, feet purched upon his coffee table. pragmatic would not be a word one might describe this aching body. his features, though old, never tired of thought. in the melon of a head lies the wisdom of ages, of love, of magic. but most of all, it is the life of experiances: an explorer in a world explored. in hortonville, wi, i've found my Delphi.

thank you.

thoughts

it's a wonder how the mere smallest seeming piece of information may be the most changing catalyst.

for your consisteration

i've started reading The Inferno again. and its got me thinking. I'm no theologian. i don't spend alot of time or interest on the dogmas of common religions. I've got my own belief and thats enough, i don't feel the need for reassurance from others on my own knowledge(or ignorance) of the spiritual world.

never the less, there is, in religious mythos things that are... confusing to me. Enough so to draw my interest. Yesterday, someone mentioned thewayofthemaster i explored the site and decided that if it had a laugh track it would've been hilarious. instead, thousands (and more then i care to count) follow this deity.

Anyways, inflammatory commentary aside, one of the things about the Christian god that is curious to me is this:
#1 his is the pinnacle of morality.
we might agree, the christian world and i, that God is morally prefect. in fact, i would go so far as to suggest the Christian faith portraits a god that is Perfect. Plato's perfect.
#2 we mortals are *not* perfect. different branches of Christianity express differing views to the imperfections of humanity. Ranging from unforgivably sinful to mildly making up for the sins of our forebears. Justhesame, it can be agreed that Humans make a poor comparison to God. Yet we are made in the image of God. from wat i understand of the Christian faith, this means that we're all little replicas of God running around. And as it's suggested in Genesis and Milton's Paradise Lost, Adam and Eve were perfect. Letme diverge here a second. lower case perfect is different that captial Perfect. if anyone's read anything by Plato or wat Plato said about wat Socrates had said then we know that the mortal realm is just copies of the celestrial realm. so, then if humans are imperfect and they are a copy of God, then God must be Imperfect. However, it would be said this is untrue as Humans are given Free Will, and thus have the capacity to choice (or be influenced to) be imperfect. thus the imperfections of Humans alone don't reflect on God's
#3m the problem i see, however, is that if Free Will is the hinge that turns perfect images of the Perfect into imperfections, then doesn't that suggest that God, the Christian view of God, has no Free Will?

hm.
it's a conundrum.

I've got more to say on this topic, but maybe another day.

-marcus