5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace

maru · 15 Feb 2005, 15:26 · from 2005-February.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: marudubshinki at gmail.com (maru)
Date: Tue Feb 15 15:26:03 2005
Subject: (urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace
In-Reply-To: <BAY102-F32F720CEDE561C435EBD98866B0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BAY102-F32F720CEDE561C435EBD98866B0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42128505.9060302 at gmail.com>

The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.
Your effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe
Now, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is 
omniscient, and we've
carefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only 
possible perturbing
factor is the self-same Demons deeds.
However, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what he 
will do, and
what effects that will have,  he knows himself!  He knows what he wants 
or will do, and so
can factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.
The problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or will 
be self-similar/self-fulflling.

An entirely different problem from free will.

~Maru
The lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible.

Chris wrote:

> There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon 
> (well, granted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than one. 
> But working with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the demon 
> is inside the universe or apart from it on some higher level? If the 
> latter then either he's not available for your thought problem or your 
> universe isn't deterministic, and if the former you run into the whole 
> drawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.
>
> Civet
>
> -- 
> "[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential 
> knowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What 
> everyone knows on the other hand, so that the difference is the 
> trivial one of how it is known, that is a waste of effort to be 
> concerned about - for one cannot possibly become self-important 
> through knowing it."
>
>
>> Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?
>> Then he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.
>> He will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.
>> That too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?
>> Furthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.
>> But, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be 
>> able to
>> upset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I 
>> will begin to ignore
>> you (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).
>> That number being finite, he can easily  work out what my final 
>> desires will be, and give the answer
>> which will both start the sequence and end it.
>> Even better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the 
>> only unkown will be himself.
>> So he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make 
>> his predictions on that basis
>> or self-fulfilling.
>> If this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.
>>
>> ~Maru
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net