Comment

Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox

Oka@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Then the experiments may be flawed. We dont know what we dont know, but we have calculated a lot of “supernatural” phenomenon like gravity, physics, and light, to be computable mathematical formulae. Is it unthinkable to believe that everything can be computation then, if we were aware of every variable involved?

There are a near infinite number of variables involved, but if we knew every variable, we could solve it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Then the experiments may be flawed. We dont know what we dont know

That’s the same excuse flat Earthers make. Yes every single observation made over the past 100 years could have been wrong and tomorrow we find out that all of quantum mechanics is wrong.

There are a near infinite number of variables involved, but if we knew every variable, we could solve it.

Take a single electron. You can’t define it’s position and motion (momentum) simultaneously. It is fundamentally unsolvable. There aren’t even hidden variables that we are unaware of. Bell’s inequality has been experimentally proven many times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

source
- Oka@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Ok, so electrons act weird, that’s strong evidence that we still havent completely figured them out. They defy our expectations based on what we know. There’s the possibility that there’s something else at play that we don’t know, and maybe cannot fathom. We don’t know what we don’t know.
  
  source
  - Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    There’s the possibility that there’s something else at play that we don’t know, and maybe cannot fathom.
    
    The possibility that there is something hidden that we are not aware of is why Bell’s Theorem was such a revolution in physics. The experimental proof of Bell’s theorem won the nobel prize. There are no hidden variables. Probability is fundamental, not a result of some unknown process.
    
    The premise wasn’t that the computer was 100% perfect. It was 99.9% perfect. That is its good enough such that you should assume its correct. The premise could have said 75% and it wouldn’t change anything. Saying 99% makes it simpler for the reader to assume that the computer is correct.
    
    The computer is not supernatural. The premise does not say the computer is 100% accurate. The premise does not say that the computer can violate known laws of physics. The premise is that the computer knows your behavior.
    
    source