(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace

maru marudubshinki at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 21:05:21 PST 2005

I'm afraid I'm simply not following you here: what do you mean by 

Chris wrote:

> Even if you carefully specify that it's completely deterministic, the 
> "careless" aspect stipulates just as firmly that it can't be 
> deterministic. Because the demon is outside the system, he can't 
> interact with it if it's a closed system. If he can interact with it, 
> then you have influences outside the universe affecting causality 
> within the universe, and it's not deterministic.
> If you extend your system to include the demon's interaction, then 
> you've effectively placed the demon inside the horizon of your 
> system/universe, and thus you get the other problem.
>> The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.
>> Your effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe
>> Now, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is 
>> omniscient, and we've
>> carefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only 
>> possible perturbing
>> factor is the self-same Demons deeds.
>> However, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what 
>> he will do, and
>> what effects that will have,  he knows himself!  He knows what he 
>> wants or will do, and so
>> can factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.
>> The problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or 
>> will be self-similar/self-fulflling.
>> An entirely different problem from free will.
>> ~Maru
>> The lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible.
>> Chris wrote:
>>> There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon 
>>> (well, granted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than 
>>> one. But working with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the 
>>> demon is inside the universe or apart from it on some higher level? 
>>> If the latter then either he's not available for your thought 
>>> problem or your universe isn't deterministic, and if the former you 
>>> run into the whole drawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.
>>> Civet
>>> -- 
>>> "[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential 
>>> knowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What 
>>> everyone knows on the other hand, so that the difference is the 
>>> trivial one of how it is known, that is a waste of effort to be 
>>> concerned about - for one cannot possibly become self-important 
>>> through knowing it."
>>>> Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?
>>>> Then he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.
>>>> He will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.
>>>> That too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?
>>>> Furthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.
>>>> But, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be 
>>>> able to
>>>> upset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I 
>>>> will begin to ignore
>>>> you (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).
>>>> That number being finite, he can easily  work out what my final 
>>>> desires will be, and give the answer
>>>> which will both start the sequence and end it.
>>>> Even better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, 
>>>> the only unkown will be himself.
>>>> So he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make 
>>>> his predictions on that basis
>>>> or self-fulfilling.
>>>> If this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.
>>>> ~Maru

More information about the Urth mailing list