Your “read into where I was tending with the request” was more like it. Sorry if I was unclear. I was more interested in what phenomenon such a machine would have at its disposal—anything we can currently know/detect (sensors on the thumb, muscle contraction detection of some sort, etc.), only a prior history of coin flips, or all-phenomenon-that-can-ever-be-known-even-if-we-don’t-currently-know-how-to-know-it? By “accurate”
I was more meaning, “accurate given what input information?” Then again, perhaps your addition of “sufficiently” should have clued me in on the fact that you meant a machine that could know absolutely everything.
I’ll probably have to table this one as I really don’t know enough about all of this to discuss further, but I do appreciate the food for thought. Very interesting stuff. I’m intuitively drawn to say that there is nothing actually random… but I am certainly not locked into that position, nor (again) do I know what I’m talking about were I to try and defend that with substantial evidence/argument.
Then again, perhaps your addition of “sufficiently” should have clued me in on the fact that you meant a machine that could know absolutely everything.
Funny thing. Just a few hours ago today, I was having a conversation with someone who said, “I need to remember, {Logos01}, that you use words in their literal meaning.”
I’m intuitively drawn to say that there is nothing actually random...
It’s a common intuition. I have the opposite intuition. As a layman, however, I don’t know enough to get our postulates in line with one another. So I’ll leave you to explore the topic yourself.
Indeed. Whether I should have caught on, didn’t think about what you wrote or not, or perhaps am trained not to think of things precisely literally… something went awry :)
To my credit (if I might), we were talking fairly hypothetical, so I don’t know that it was apparent that the prediction machine mentioned would have access to all hypothetical knowledge we can conceive of. To be explicitly literal, it might have helped to just bypass to your previous comment:
know enough points of fact and you can make inerrant predictions; what’s really going to happen is set in stone before the trial is even conducted...I believe that there is and does exist material randomness and pseudorandomness; and I believe further that while we as humans cannot ever truly exactly measure the world’s probabilities.
That would have done it easier than reference to a prediction machine, for me at least. But again, I’m more of a noob, so mentioning this to a more advanced LWer might have automatically lit up the right association.
So I’ll leave you to explore the topic yourself.
Sounds good. Thanks again for taking the time to walk through that with me!
Your “read into where I was tending with the request” was more like it. Sorry if I was unclear. I was more interested in what phenomenon such a machine would have at its disposal—anything we can currently know/detect (sensors on the thumb, muscle contraction detection of some sort, etc.), only a prior history of coin flips, or all-phenomenon-that-can-ever-be-known-even-if-we-don’t-currently-know-how-to-know-it? By “accurate”
I was more meaning, “accurate given what input information?” Then again, perhaps your addition of “sufficiently” should have clued me in on the fact that you meant a machine that could know absolutely everything.
I’ll probably have to table this one as I really don’t know enough about all of this to discuss further, but I do appreciate the food for thought. Very interesting stuff. I’m intuitively drawn to say that there is nothing actually random… but I am certainly not locked into that position, nor (again) do I know what I’m talking about were I to try and defend that with substantial evidence/argument.
Funny thing. Just a few hours ago today, I was having a conversation with someone who said, “I need to remember, {Logos01}, that you use words in their literal meaning.”
It’s a common intuition. I have the opposite intuition. As a layman, however, I don’t know enough to get our postulates in line with one another. So I’ll leave you to explore the topic yourself.
Indeed. Whether I should have caught on, didn’t think about what you wrote or not, or perhaps am trained not to think of things precisely literally… something went awry :)
To my credit (if I might), we were talking fairly hypothetical, so I don’t know that it was apparent that the prediction machine mentioned would have access to all hypothetical knowledge we can conceive of. To be explicitly literal, it might have helped to just bypass to your previous comment:
That would have done it easier than reference to a prediction machine, for me at least. But again, I’m more of a noob, so mentioning this to a more advanced LWer might have automatically lit up the right association.
Sounds good. Thanks again for taking the time to walk through that with me!