5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 16 Feb 2005, 10:13 · 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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Wed Feb 16 10:13:47 2005
Subject: (urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace
In-Reply-To: <BAY102-F399F963956FB06C812BCF0B96C0 at phx.gbl>
References: <42115130.8040009 at gmail.com>
	<BAY102-F399F963956FB06C812BCF0B96C0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1f7617370502161013313befb7 at mail.gmail.com>

> [T]he issue isn't what the demon knows, it's what _you_,
> as the person who has just been given the prediction, are correct in
> believing; the implication being that there's no determinate plan of your
> future actions that you'd be correct in believing if only you knew it.

If I were given a determinate plan of my future actions, the first
thing on the list would be "burn this document." And I would.

Obviously, a lot of this kind of speculation is reflected in 
myths and stories about the working-out of prophecies by those 
who try to avoid them (Oedipus, the Appointment in Samarra, 
etc.) - a great deal of effort has been gone to over the ages to 
show that predestination and free will are not inherently 
incompatible concepts.

> Thus, even if your actions are in some sense determined by the laws 
> of physics, this isn't quite the same as metaphysical determinism, 
> where you'd expect there to be a determinate plan of your future
> actions that would remain correct if you knew it.  I think.

I guess the question is whether the plan takes into account your
knowledge of the plan. 

Suppose I have been given such a plan and, foolishly, read the
first page of it. I would immediately be tempted to do something
other than the first thing it said. If I then returned to the plan,
would it say, "Reading the above, he decides to do something
else?" Would it have changed to show what I actually did do?
Or would it now be an utterly inaccurate plan? Might it self-
destruct?

I agree with what I take to be the point - a detailed foreknowledge
of one's own actions can be self-defeating.

> [1] It's due to an idea for a 'Black Easter' - style short story I keep
> thinking of writing, hampered mostly by my lack of talent, time and the
> unfortunate fact that I've never read 'Black Easter'.

You really should, but preferably in context - if you don't know (and
I am not assuming you don't, just not assuming you _do_ eithe),
it's part of the second volume of a trilogy - a _true_ trilogy, three 
thematically linked novels, rather than a three-novel series or a 
three-volume novels. The theme is the permissibility of secular
knowledge in the context of the Christian faith. The novels are
1. _Doctor Mirabilis_ - realistic/historical.
2.  _Black Easter_ and _The Day After Judgement_ - contemporary
    dark fantasies, sometimes published in one volume as _The
    Devil's Day_.
3. _A Case of Conscience_ - future SF.

--Dan'l

-- 
"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head"
     -- The Goodfeathers

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