Caledonian: Yes, I did. So: can’t you always do better in principle by increasing sensitivity?
That’s a little bit like saying that you could in principle go faster than light if you ignore relativistic effects, or that you could in principle produce a demonstration within a logical system that it is consistent if you ignore Godel’s Fork.
There are lots of things we can do in principle if we ignore the fact that reality limits the principles that are valid.
As the saying goes: the difference between ‘in principle’ and ‘in practice’ is that in principle there is no difference between them, and in practice, there is.
If you remove the limitations on the amount and kind of knowledge you can acquire, randomness is inferior to the unrandom. But you can’t remove those limitations.
There are lots of things we can do in principle if we ignore the fact that reality limits the principles that are valid.
As the saying goes: the difference between ‘in principle’ and ‘in practice’ is that in principle there is no difference between them, and in practice, there is.
If you remove the limitations on the amount and kind of knowledge you can acquire, randomness is inferior to the unrandom. But you can’t remove those limitations.