It’s a good summary. Yes, the impossibility of observing a QM state without “collapsing” it (whatever the source of the apparent or actual collapse, be it MWI or gravity or whatever) limits the deterministic predictions, though not the probabilistic ones. Hence I followed Nate’s qualification of a “deterministic algorithmic agent”.
Yes, accurate self-prediction is an issue, in part because it results in self-modification. No, there is no such thing as causal indeterminism (an effect without a cause) except as a mind projection of incomplete information on the world. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by this term. Physics does not support this notion. That is precisely what I am stating in my post.
The whole notion of a counterfactual is a misapplication of incomplete knowledge, treating a low resolution map as the territory. There is no qualitative difference between the difficulty computing how a thrown die lands and the difficulty computing some distant digit of the decimal expansion of pi. The tools are different, though. In the former case one might need high-definition cameras with some high-performance physics modeling hardware and software, while in the latter… well, also some hardware and software.
Maybe the idea of a counterfactual is a useful abstraction in some cases, though I wonder if other, less misleading abstractions would do the job just as well.
No, there is no such thing as causal indeterminism (an effect without a cause) except as a mind projection of incomplete information on the world.
That is not a fact, and cannot be established as a fact by armchair arguments, including arguments about “mind projection”.
That argument from mind projection only establishes that it is possible for counterfactuals to exist in the mind, not that they cannot exist in reality as well. Moreover, it is countered
by another argument from mind projection: that physical laws have no real existence, and are just bookkeeping devices invented by humans. But how can you have real, out-there determinism without real out-there laws? If you want an asymmetric conclusion, that determinism is true and indeterminism false, you need an argument that applies to some things and not others, whereas mind-projection arguments are more of a universal solvent.
Physics does not support this notion.
Who told you that? When I studied physics, I was told that QM was based on real indeterminism. (Admitedly, it turns out that on further investigation things are somewhat more complex… )
To the best of my understanding, the only non-deterministic part of QM is collapse. Whether this is considered to be “real” indeterminism depends on the interpretation—Strong Copenhagen says yes, Bayesian might be agnostic, Many Worlds says it’s only indexical...
It’s a good summary. Yes, the impossibility of observing a QM state without “collapsing” it (whatever the source of the apparent or actual collapse, be it MWI or gravity or whatever) limits the deterministic predictions, though not the probabilistic ones. Hence I followed Nate’s qualification of a “deterministic algorithmic agent”.
Yes, accurate self-prediction is an issue, in part because it results in self-modification. No, there is no such thing as causal indeterminism (an effect without a cause) except as a mind projection of incomplete information on the world. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by this term. Physics does not support this notion. That is precisely what I am stating in my post.
The whole notion of a counterfactual is a misapplication of incomplete knowledge, treating a low resolution map as the territory. There is no qualitative difference between the difficulty computing how a thrown die lands and the difficulty computing some distant digit of the decimal expansion of pi. The tools are different, though. In the former case one might need high-definition cameras with some high-performance physics modeling hardware and software, while in the latter… well, also some hardware and software.
Maybe the idea of a counterfactual is a useful abstraction in some cases, though I wonder if other, less misleading abstractions would do the job just as well.
That is not a fact, and cannot be established as a fact by armchair arguments, including arguments about “mind projection”.
That argument from mind projection only establishes that it is possible for counterfactuals to exist in the mind, not that they cannot exist in reality as well. Moreover, it is countered by another argument from mind projection: that physical laws have no real existence, and are just bookkeeping devices invented by humans. But how can you have real, out-there determinism without real out-there laws? If you want an asymmetric conclusion, that determinism is true and indeterminism false, you need an argument that applies to some things and not others, whereas mind-projection arguments are more of a universal solvent.
Who told you that? When I studied physics, I was told that QM was based on real indeterminism. (Admitedly, it turns out that on further investigation things are somewhat more complex… )
To the best of my understanding, the only non-deterministic part of QM is collapse. Whether this is considered to be “real” indeterminism depends on the interpretation—Strong Copenhagen says yes, Bayesian might be agnostic, Many Worlds says it’s only indexical...
So?