I mean for jar-opening, how easily you can open a jar would also depend on the sizes of the hands, not just the grip strength.
Tridiv Sharma
Karma: −14
0xmadlad’s Shortform
In a representative democracy, all parties are incentivized to worsen the education system since then it is easier for them to seem right, which is what an election is really about, not actually being right. Making you dumber is one of the few things all parties would actually work on together.
I don’t think it would be able to predict much then, I think we’d figure out a way to interfere. But the assumption was that it was able to predict anything. If you’re saying it is able to take human action into account, ultimately its prediction must be something that human will cannot override, a power higher than human will but less in strength than the laws of nature—but human will seems to be leading us pretty close to the laws of nature so that gap is very tiny.
Agreed, this is likely the actual case but this was a thought experiment where the question involved the assumption that the proof for determinism was constructive, in other words, someone constructed a machine that worked to assist their proof.
That being said, what I meant by “its efficiency is another matter” was that I’m assuming we will be able to get at least one perfect prediction from it and then have some amount of time between reading the prediction and the event actually occurring to do something about it. Yeah, I guess I should have said that though.
But the initial condition is absurd