At the risk of more downvotes, presumably for rejecting the hypothetical, I reject the hypothetical.
There’s an uncomfortable (to me) dualism in this kind of question—the idea of an omnicient observer with that granularity implies non-embeddedness. It can’t be INSIDE the volume under analysis AND contain more than itself in it’s knowledge (and probably not even itself—there will be a loss in efficiency in legibilizing it’s own state).
The obvious but unhelpful answer is “of course it’s possible to calculate future states—the actual universe does make this calculation. However, it only reveals it internally in real-time (thus the term)”.
The question as asked, though, is kind of nonsense. From inside, it’s impossible to determine what’s “quantum randomness” and what’s plain old measurement/calculation error.
This is a relatively straightforward question in the context of quantum mechanics. There is a fact of the matter of how much amplitude the world states get where one person wins an election vs. the other one. This question is about how much such decoherence there will be.
In this conception of uncertainty there is no answer to the matter of which of the two outcomes really happens. Both events get some magical reality fluid, as Eliezer would call it.
I’m not sure there IS a fact of the matter, as far as any agent upstream of the macro-scale event will be able to measure. There is a mathematical abstraction about it that seems to match some extremely micro observations, but it’s extremely unclear how that can be used to predict future experiences of instantiated beings.
At the risk of more downvotes, presumably for rejecting the hypothetical, I reject the hypothetical.
There’s an uncomfortable (to me) dualism in this kind of question—the idea of an omnicient observer with that granularity implies non-embeddedness. It can’t be INSIDE the volume under analysis AND contain more than itself in it’s knowledge (and probably not even itself—there will be a loss in efficiency in legibilizing it’s own state).
The obvious but unhelpful answer is “of course it’s possible to calculate future states—the actual universe does make this calculation. However, it only reveals it internally in real-time (thus the term)”.
The question as asked, though, is kind of nonsense. From inside, it’s impossible to determine what’s “quantum randomness” and what’s plain old measurement/calculation error.
This is a relatively straightforward question in the context of quantum mechanics. There is a fact of the matter of how much amplitude the world states get where one person wins an election vs. the other one. This question is about how much such decoherence there will be.
In this conception of uncertainty there is no answer to the matter of which of the two outcomes really happens. Both events get some magical reality fluid, as Eliezer would call it.
I’m not sure there IS a fact of the matter, as far as any agent upstream of the macro-scale event will be able to measure. There is a mathematical abstraction about it that seems to match some extremely micro observations, but it’s extremely unclear how that can be used to predict future experiences of instantiated beings.