Ooh, good point with those textbooks! …and a painful one to think about.
fractalman
Um...the halting problem+godel’s incompleteness theorem, aka you cannot predict yourself completely? I think i’m missing a piece or two, and I probably am thanks to having “incompleteness theorem and halting problem” as a cached thought.
At any rate, I made a comparison between free will and arbitrary code while thinking about this.
oh horrors.
meh. That first section reads like the missing dollar paradox...
M.ms==M.L (mary’s morningstar is equal to mary’s lucifer); M.es==M.V ; J.ms==J.V==J.es.
classical logic repaired. sortof. And you might not like the joke i’m about to make...
read essay.
translate problem into java notation.
??????
point to Godel’s incompleteness theorem and declare my work DONE.
It looks to ME like the theorem also requires perfect self-knowledge, AND perfect other-knowledge...which just doesn’t happen in finite systems. Yeah. Godel again.
I think nominul does understand it, and at one level higher than you do. he understands the principle so well he goes and makes a tradeoff in terms of memory used vs execution time.
Take a symetric matrix with a conveniently zero’d out diagonal… you could go and memorize every element on the matrix....(no understanding, pure rote memorization).… you could go and memorize every element AND noticing it happens to be symmetric...(understanding, what you seem to be thinking of...) Or noticing it happens to be symmetric and then only memorizing half the entries in the first place(nominull’s approach).
I go with nominull’s approach myself...I’m just a lot sloppier about selecting what info to rote memorize.
“unbiased”, “christianity/athiesm”… ok, I probably shouldn’t be laughing, but...well, I am laughing.
no, i think the incompleteness theorem means there’s going to be gaps in anyones self-awareness...and if a decision manages to spring from one of these, it may feel like an arbitrary choice.
That this is able to be seen as “free will” carries on because people DON’T generally understand the halting problem all that well-and so they do not feel like they could possibly be deterministic.
Those who do understand the halting problem...frequently also know a thing or two about quantum mechanics, just enough that they can salvage their belief in free will.
...
I notice that i am still horribly confused, (as manifested by a hundred “missing piece” explanations popping up)...but I also notice I now have a headache.
3^^^3 people? …
I can see what point you were trying to make....I think.
But I happen to have a significant distrust of classic utilitarianism: if you sum up the happiness of a society with a finite chance of lasting forever, and subtract the sum of all the pain...you get infinity-infinity, which is conditionally convergent. the simplest patch is to insert a very, very, VERY tiny factor, reducing the weight of future societal happiness in your computation… Any attempt to translate to so many people …places my intuition in charge of setting the summation up.
or else, y’know, “dust specks, because that happens to include the ability to get off this planet and produce more humans than atoms in the currently visible universe”.
chuckles… I wrote a whole bunch about string theory, but I’ve decided to simply mention it. I have a TON of mathematical notation to learn before I can subject that glittery...whatever...to analysis.
As for many worlds… I like the way many of the “”paradoxes” of quantum mechanics don’t even LOOK like paradoxes in many worlds. starting with-you don’t need to specify a special exemption to the no-ftl rule. “information” for “collapse” happens because the little pieces of the waves almost-touch and slip past each other when you perform the comparison operation...at least, that’s how I visualize it.
My eyes! my EYES! oh, why, oh why did I click on that link!
(I am now laughing. It is a tortured, whimpering sort of laughter. )
edit2: “4-day...cube”. that, alone, should have thrown a compiler error, and I should have recognized that as quite sufficient evidence for the stupidity of the contents… As an upside, I might be able to grok Nabokov for the next two weeks. best case scenario: the effect wears off the moment my nabokov paper is turned in.
After getting miffed by your plethora of retractions, I figure that someone, at some point, left out some statistical significance values.
number 2 is the only one i’d currently be willing to bet on being correct-but now I’m thinking about how soldiers go through boot camp, weakening the effect, and maybe whoever set up the study forgot to make sure the observers didn’t know whether they were observing a southern soldier or a norther soldier....
I am SO going to get through all of that.
...
Though, if I do capitulate, i’m going to program games. And torment players with a final puzzle requiring them to understand a “simple” quantum computer program. MWAHAHAHAHA!
I had to laugh....calculus is WAY easier and simpler than romance.
|I wish that the future will turn out in such a way that I do not regret making this wish
… wish granted. the genie just removed the capacity for regret from your mind. MWAHAHAH!
“I know what it means for you to rescue a toddler from the orphanage. What does it mean for you to could-have-not done it? Can you describe the corresponding state of the world without “could”, “possible”, “choose”, “free”, “will”, “decide”, “can”, “able”, or “alternative”″ …
Instantiate meta verse, what most people refer to as a multiverse. Contain at least two copies of our universe at the relevant point in time. in one copy, ensure child is rescued. In the other, ensure child is not rescued. resume run; observe results.
Flaw: lack of computational resources.
.… alternatively:Flip purely quantum coin. heads: rescue child. tails: do not rescue child.
Find a flaw in the matrix that lets you communicate with parallel histories. -and yes, I see the blatant flaw in how # 2 is most likely impossible.
I just figured I could manage to forego the first iteration of taboo words.
Well, yes, that is one way to remove the capacity for regret...
I mentally merged the possibility pump and the Mehtopia AI....say, a sloppy code mistake, or a premature compileandrun, resulting in the “do not tamper with minds” rule not getting incorporated correctly, even though “don’t kill humans” gets incorporated.
Haven’t you ever played the corrupt-a-wish game?
Wish granted: horror as the genie/ai runs a matrix with copy after copy of you, brute forcing the granting of possible wishes, most of which turn out to be an absolute disaster. But you aren’t allowed to know that happens, because the AI goes...”insane” is the best word I can think of, but it’s not quite corrrect...trying to grant what is nearly an ungrantable wish, freezing the population into stasis untill it runs out of negentropy and crashes...
Now that’s not to say friendly AI can’t be done, but it WON’T be EASY.
If your wish isn’t human-proof, it probably isn’t AI-safe.
It’s 6 hours, i think, regardless of the chain of time-turners)
And given the 6-hour limitation, all you have to posit is a 6-hour ritual for creating the time turner before it’s useable. presto, no going back to before the time-turner was created.
...but the BIG time machine in the ministry may or may not comply with the constraints of the smaller time turners. lastly, the 6-hour limitation itself… seems more like a way to premptively prevent a harry vs. quirremort TIME WAR than anything else.
4, actually, since “nobody loved draco and draco loved nobody”, we’re left with Hermione and Harry, which leaves a mere two one-directional options. 2^2=4.
And now I have the urge to build a mousetrap out of as many lasers and rocket launchers as I can get my hands on...which is not, of course, the least bit optimal for the purpose of catching mice.