Given that there is chaos and randomness in both universes, they would gradually go out of synch. But Usain Bolt is still likely to win the 100m in both universes. A better question would be 'would the weather be identical in 6 month's time.'
This strikes me as a misunderstanding of what chaos is. Chaotic systems are unpredictable because of their sensitive dependence on initial conditions. So, if the other universe was identical in almost everything, the chaotic nature of reality would probably lead them to nevertheless diverge signifcantly over time.
If they really were exact duplicates, as YellowJay asked, then it wouldn't matter how chaotic they were, they would evolve identically. Chaotic systems are wholly deterministic. Their apparent randomness is only a reflection of their complexity. If we understood the rules which governed them perfectly, and the exact value of every relevant variable, we would be able to predict outcomes precisely.
Now, if the world is really probabilistic on a quantum level you may be right, since this could be a genuinely random element, but I've never been able to get my head around quantum physics.
I think that the point of chaos is that it magnifies the effects of random events. Small chance fluctuations in a non-chaotic universe would take much longer to have a significant effect.
It would also magnify the effects of very small differences, so an apparently but not exactly identical universe would also tend to diverge from ours.
Not necessarily. It's possible to make certain small changes to a chaotic system without altering the outcome at all. A slightly different small change, however, could have dramatic effects, but it is theoretically possible to have two slightly different universes which are indistinguishable (once again, I'm ignoring quantumness (quantumity?)).
Do you believe that where each individual seed lands has been preditermined?
Or do you think it more likely that that can not be true given the enormous number of variables involved - almost all of which are random and/or chaotic.
The number of variables is of no relevance to the question of determinism. If there are billions upon billions of variables to consider, the result would still be predetermined if the processes that decide those variables and the way they interact are deterministic. All that matters is whether the world actually is deterministic at a basic level, and if it's not then the result is no predetermined, regardless of whether there are a billion relevant variables or only one,
As far as human free will is concerned, it has been shown that the thing in your brain sitting in the "consciousness" chair, that you call YOU is actually not in the driver seat instead is directed by our subconscious brain.
It has been asserted; it has not been shown. I find these experiments unconvincing of anything, as the idea that we're able to report the moment at which we decide to act with accuracy measured in fractions of seconds is absurd. I suspect that the conclusion is right, but don't see how this experiment is supposed to demonstrate it.
I admit that I do not understand how Bell's Theorem proves that there can be no undiscovered variables.
I've been trying to read some about Bell's theorem, and whilst I'm a bit confused it seems that it doesn't. What it is supposed to prove is that there can be no undiscovered local variables. If, however, your extra variables allow an event somewhere to have a causal effect somewhere else in less time than you could travel between the two at the speed of light, then such an undiscovered variable is not disproven. It has been suggested, for example, that information could be passed through higher dimensions in which two points are close to one another, despite being distantly separated in normal space.
I'm struggling to grasp this, so I may have badly mangled the above!
It seems to indicate at least seven full seconds of lag time before the conscious mind is aware and decides to do what the subconscious tells it to do.
I'm not sure this is any more convincing. Let's consider what they're actually demonstrating here. Someone was told to do something as soon as they'd decided which of two things to do and when. Retroactively analysed, we can see that certain sorts of brain activity beginning up to 7 seconds before the did the thing predict the outcome.
Fantastic. How is that brain activity supposed to be distinguished from 'beginning to make a willful decision'? There's no requirement that the timelag between beginning to make a conscious decision and completing it be less than 7 seconds, is there?
I don't go for either of those alternatives. I just say that if our world is predetermined, I can't change the outcome. If I can't change the outcome, i do not have choice - all I have is the appearance choice.
But to get back to some highschool philosophy, there's two options available:
1. Your actions are predictable based on past events, and therefore pre-determined, which you consider incompatible with free will.
2. Your actions are not predictable based on past events, and therefore random and arbitrary. Random behaviour means living by the flip of a metaphorical coin - there's still no room for free will.