‘If you stand on the outside and take a global perspective—looking down from above at the sequence of cubes and the little people perched on top—then these two facts say everything there is to know about the sequence and the people.’
It seems to me that Bostrom simply has had a question answered differently than the answer given to the cube folk. Start Bostrom in the same initial state of information as the cube folk: Suppose there are cubes, that there are numbered (1, 8, 27, 64, 125…), that there are people that include Bostrom standing, and that only one is not standing on a cube.
It seems to me that ‘Who is not standing on a cube?’ is the start of the search for predictability. The answer to that question seems to have been begged in the assumption that places Bostrom ‘not standing on a cube’, outside looking in.
Being global (not standing on a cube) requires having an answer that contains a ‘bit of information certainty’ as a possibility for the question asked. A ‘bit of information certainty’ is that bit that when acquired, allows prediction to occur. In ‘Who is standing on a cube?’, ‘I am’ = no ‘bic’. ‘I am not’ = ‘bic’.
For everyone else, a bic is still missing even though they all now understand that they are all on cubes:
‘‘But if you are one of the little people perched atop a cube, and you know these two facts, there is still a third piece of information you need to make predictions: “Which cube am I standing on?”’
Accurate representation of Indexical Uncertainty?
If so, does it make sense that Indexical Uncertainty is not having acquired the bic?
No pen intended.
(I’ll confess that I do not really understand how to treat infinities, but what I have gathered is that they, and zeros, are often hidden in calculations and discussions.
When you have two of the three, the common sense, and the consistency, information is still needed. Not just any information. The information has to be bounded, treating infinities as a finite or series of finites. Change my facts from ‘’only one is not standing on a cube’ to ‘at least one is not standing on a cube’. Neither ‘I am standing on a cube’ nor ‘I am not standing on a cube’ contain a bic that allows prediction to begin because there is no bic available until the infinity is resolved.).
‘If you stand on the outside and take a global perspective—looking down from above at the sequence of cubes and the little people perched on top—then these two facts say everything there is to know about the sequence and the people.’
It seems to me that Bostrom simply has had a question answered differently than the answer given to the cube folk. Start Bostrom in the same initial state of information as the cube folk: Suppose there are cubes, that there are numbered (1, 8, 27, 64, 125…), that there are people that include Bostrom standing, and that only one is not standing on a cube.
It seems to me that ‘Who is not standing on a cube?’ is the start of the search for predictability. The answer to that question seems to have been begged in the assumption that places Bostrom ‘not standing on a cube’, outside looking in.
Being global (not standing on a cube) requires having an answer that contains a ‘bit of information certainty’ as a possibility for the question asked. A ‘bit of information certainty’ is that bit that when acquired, allows prediction to occur. In ‘Who is standing on a cube?’, ‘I am’ = no ‘bic’. ‘I am not’ = ‘bic’. For everyone else, a bic is still missing even though they all now understand that they are all on cubes: ‘‘But if you are one of the little people perched atop a cube, and you know these two facts, there is still a third piece of information you need to make predictions: “Which cube am I standing on?”’
Accurate representation of Indexical Uncertainty?
If so, does it make sense that Indexical Uncertainty is not having acquired the bic?
No pen intended.
(I’ll confess that I do not really understand how to treat infinities, but what I have gathered is that they, and zeros, are often hidden in calculations and discussions.
When you have two of the three, the common sense, and the consistency, information is still needed. Not just any information. The information has to be bounded, treating infinities as a finite or series of finites. Change my facts from ‘’only one is not standing on a cube’ to ‘at least one is not standing on a cube’. Neither ‘I am standing on a cube’ nor ‘I am not standing on a cube’ contain a bic that allows prediction to begin because there is no bic available until the infinity is resolved.).