Knightian uncertainty is uncertainty where probabilities can’t even be applied. I’m not convinced it exists. Some people seem to think free will is rescued by it; that the human mind could be unpredictable even in theory, and this somehow means it’s “you” “making choices”. This seems like deep confusion to me, and so I’m probably not expressing their position correctly.
Reductionism could be consistent with that, though, if you explained the mind’s workings in terms of the simplest Knightian atomic thingies you could.
Can you give me some examples of what some people think constitutes Knightian uncertainty?
Also: what do they mean by “you”? They seem to be postulating something supernatural.
I decided I should actually read the paper myself, and… as of page 7, it sure looks like I was misrepresenting Aaronson’s position, at least. (I had only skimmed a couple Less Wrong threads on his paper.)
This doesn’t seem related to reductionism to me, except in that most reductionists don’t believe in Knightian free will.
Sort of in the sense of human minds being more like fixed black boxes that one might like to think. What’s Knightian free will, though?
Knightian uncertainty is uncertainty where probabilities can’t even be applied. I’m not convinced it exists. Some people seem to think free will is rescued by it; that the human mind could be unpredictable even in theory, and this somehow means it’s “you” “making choices”. This seems like deep confusion to me, and so I’m probably not expressing their position correctly.
Reductionism could be consistent with that, though, if you explained the mind’s workings in terms of the simplest Knightian atomic thingies you could.
Can you give me some examples of what some people think constitutes Knightian uncertainty? Also: what do they mean by “you”? They seem to be postulating something supernatural.
Again, I’m not a good choice for an explainer of this stuff, but you could try http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1438
Thanks! I’ll have a read through this.
I decided I should actually read the paper myself, and… as of page 7, it sure looks like I was misrepresenting Aaronson’s position, at least. (I had only skimmed a couple Less Wrong threads on his paper.)