tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post1888082320347657620..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: A Multilogue on Free WillRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger251125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75768555806201240482023-05-25T01:12:23.201-07:002023-05-25T01:12:23.201-07:00The Good Place
Chapter 19, Season 2, Episode 6 &#...<b>The Good Place</b><br /><br /><a href="https://youtu.be/DtRhrfhP5b4" rel="nofollow">Chapter 19, Season 2, Episode 6 'The Trolley Problem'</a><br /><br />Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-8851049268429820182018-02-12T06:00:39.761-08:002018-02-12T06:00:39.761-08:00@Ron:
> But I've never been a big fan of q...<a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/01/a-multilogue-on-free-will.html?showComment=1518419373408#c389301685955409344" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>:<br /><br />> But I've never been a big fan of quibbling over terminology.<br /><br />That may be true, but it can be … frictious to get to the point where one realizes the discussion <i>is</i> quibbling over terminology. :-p Or maybe you and I Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3893016859554093442018-02-11T23:09:33.408-08:002018-02-11T23:09:33.408-08:00> Just because we can't tell whether or not...> Just because we can't tell whether or not some method halts in the general case doesn't mean that we can't tell whether or not a specific method halts. We can.<br /><br />Sometimes. Not always. For example, it is straightforward to write a program that will systematically search for a counterexample to the Goldbach conjecture and halt if it finds one. I think it's silly toRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1786203204517581512018-02-11T19:10:39.516-08:002018-02-11T19:10:39.516-08:00@Ron: "With all due respect to Don Knuth, add...@Ron: "With all due respect to Don Knuth, adding this condition to the definition is not terribly useful because the question of whether a "computational procedure" is or is not an algorithm is undecidable."<br /><br />I'm really puzzled by your take on this. Just because we can't tell whether or not some method halts in the general case doesn't mean that we can&#wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89077901239068787002018-02-11T18:47:59.609-08:002018-02-11T18:47:59.609-08:00@Ron:
> FWIW: when I answered "no" t...<a href="#c6921385753320663438" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>:<br /><br />> FWIW: when I answered "no" to " Can you provide algorithmic definitions of 'coherence' and 'simplicity'?" I meant specifically that I personally at the present time cannot write down such algorithms (and I certainly can't do it in a blog comment). I did not mean to imply that it was Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-83990466947424277612018-02-11T18:29:22.216-08:002018-02-11T18:29:22.216-08:00Well, I stand corrected.
With all due respect to ...Well, I stand corrected.<br /><br />With all due respect to Don Knuth, adding this condition to the definition is not terribly useful because the question of whether a "computational procedure" is or is not an algorithm is undecidable.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85127185658545286882018-02-11T18:09:36.934-08:002018-02-11T18:09:36.934-08:00@Ron said, "Nope... Go look up the actual def...@Ron said, "Nope... Go look up the actual definition of 'algorithm' on Wikipedia..."<br /><br />Here it is:<br /><br />"An algorithm is an effective method that can be expressed within a finite amount of space and time[1] and in a well-defined formal language[2] for calculating a function.[3] Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4] the wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10098459157036829232018-02-11T18:01:03.542-08:002018-02-11T18:01:03.542-08:00> By definition, an algorithm terminates.
Nop...> By definition, an algorithm terminates.<br /><br />Nope. That would not be a very useful definition because termination is undecidable. Go look up the actual definition of "algorithm" on Wikipedia or the dictionary, and while you're at it read up on the "halting problem."<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-28516058268740836232018-02-11T17:22:30.351-08:002018-02-11T17:22:30.351-08:00@Luke wrote: "Such "algorithms" oug...@Luke wrote: "Such "algorithms" ought not be trusted if they're going to be used to conclude something like "even a small Δv model of free will is impossible". <br /><br />Why? Because any evidence that man does not have free will cannot be admitted? Or you have other reasons in mind?<br /><br />@Luke: "It actually doesn't matter where the imprecision is wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40508536363405755992018-02-11T17:00:03.749-08:002018-02-11T17:00:03.749-08:00@Ron wrote: "I also think that my inability t...@Ron wrote: "I also think that my inability to do this is completely irrelevant to any discernible point that anyone could possibly be trying to make in this discussion."<br /><br />If Luke can give an example of something that humans can do, but can't make a computer do, then humans are better than Turing machines. A result devoutly to be wished by the free-will camp.<br /><br />@wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69213857533206634382018-02-11T15:58:38.855-08:002018-02-11T15:58:38.855-08:00@Luke and @wrf3:
FWIW: when I answered "no&q...@Luke and @wrf3:<br /><br />FWIW: when I answered "no" to " Can you provide algorithmic definitions of 'coherence' and 'simplicity'?" I meant specifically that I personally at the present time cannot write down such algorithms (and I certainly can't do it in a blog comment). I did not mean to imply that it was impossible in principle.<br /><br />I also Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30681767833476075222018-02-11T14:53:46.889-08:002018-02-11T14:53:46.889-08:00@wrf3:
> You didn't add anything to the di...@wrf3:<br /><br />> You didn't add anything to the discussion by playing the pedant.<br /><br />Actually, I discovered that you meant to restrict everything to what is computable. That was a valuable result. If not to you, then I'll bet to others.<br /><br />> When I said, "this algorithm doesn't need to be precise", you took it to mean "be precise in its Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-48064554730518044192018-02-11T10:16:13.671-08:002018-02-11T10:16:13.671-08:00@Luke wrote, "I was convinced ... Is that … u...@Luke wrote, "I was convinced ... Is that … utterly useless?"<br />In the context of "these discussions" (i.e. free will, God, etc...), yes. And it gets worse.<br /><br />@Luke: "It is curious that you launched your participation off with "I really wish these discussions were more rigorous." You've violated your own principle in being so informal with &wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-71599671816992553162018-02-11T09:26:05.174-08:002018-02-11T09:26:05.174-08:00@Ron:
> I agree it's a digression. I vehem...@Ron:<br /><br />> I agree it's a digression. I vehemently disagree that "truth" can plausibly be taken to mean "that which is important, of which we want to obtain more." Money is important, and most people want to obtain more. But conflating money and truth is absurd. (To say nothing of the fact that many people actively eschew truth. As a former creationist you Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-65662562822199791282018-02-11T09:04:06.803-08:002018-02-11T09:04:06.803-08:00@Luke:
> So you disagree with the non-bold tex...@Luke:<br /><br />> So you disagree with the non-bold text (that's text you excluded from your quoting)?<br /><br />To wit (AFAICT):<br /><br />"The intersecting meaning of "truth" would be "that which is important, of which we want to obtain more". But that's a digression [for now]."<br /><br />I agree it's a digression. I vehemently disagree that &Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12182912362870834182018-02-11T07:21:29.101-08:002018-02-11T07:21:29.101-08:00@wrf3:
> Another reason is that these discussi...<a href="#c2209007060195096332" rel="nofollow">@wrf3</a>:<br /><br />> Another reason is that these discussions never end, nor do they make any progress (except, perhaps, to strengthen one person's position that the other person is utterly wrong. ;-) )<br /><br />I was convinced from creationism → ID → evolution via internet discussion. I was also convinced to reject what I see as standardLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-59977776079736000402018-02-10T18:30:12.941-08:002018-02-10T18:30:12.941-08:00@Ron: [correction]
Ooops, the formatting of the f...<a href="#c1427764758191789989" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>: [correction]<br /><br />Ooops, the formatting of the first chunk was supposed to go like this:<br /><br />> > Interesting; <b>to say "true telescope" is weird, but "She's a true scientist" is not</b>. The intersecting meaning of "truth" would be "that which is important, of which we want to Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10373436681273154832018-02-10T18:29:05.908-08:002018-02-10T18:29:05.908-08:00@Ron:
> > Interesting; to say "true te...<a href="#c1427764758191789989" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>:<br /><br />> > Interesting; to say "true telescope" is weird, but "She's a true scientist" is no<b>t</b>. The intersecting meaning of "truth" would be "that which is important, of which we want to obtain <i>more</i>". But that's a digression [for now].<br /><br />> This is a quirk of Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22090070601950963322018-02-10T14:38:04.541-08:002018-02-10T14:38:04.541-08:00@Luke asked @Ron: "Can you provide algorithm...@Luke asked @Ron: "Can you provide algorithmic definitions of 'coherence' and 'simplicity'?"<br /><br />Ron said no, I'll say yes. By definition, a definition is algorithmic: a label is input, a set of labels is output. One can create a neural network that does this. (Note: it may be that there is some confusion between "algorithmic" and "precisewrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14277647581917899892018-02-10T10:45:01.766-08:002018-02-10T10:45:01.766-08:00@Luke:
> to say "true telescope" is ...@Luke:<br /><br />> to say "true telescope" is weird, but "She's a true scientist" is not<br /><br />This is a quirk of the English language. The word "true" has multiple meanings. It means something completely different in the context of "true scientist" than it does in the context of "true statement." Whether or not someone is a "Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22128621310344071352018-02-10T10:24:46.263-08:002018-02-10T10:24:46.263-08:00@Gregory:
Welcome!
If you want less whimsy, you ...@Gregory:<br /><br />Welcome!<br /><br />If you want less whimsy, you might enjoy these:<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/03/causality-and-quantum-mechanics.html<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/03/causality-and-quantum-mechanics_20.html<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-real.html<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-80049321841648070962018-02-10T10:12:45.023-08:002018-02-10T10:12:45.023-08:00Cute. This is thought provoking in that it challen...Cute. This is thought provoking in that it challenges the more simplistic ideas of reality that are popular today, but I don't know how much it would help someone make progress towards the truth. Humor can help us see things in a different light, but too much silliness makes the reader wonder if there is any substance at all. This is my first time to read your blog, so I will have to check Greg Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290074804358990591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69964588102773085022018-02-10T07:56:58.853-08:002018-02-10T07:56:58.853-08:00@Ron: (2/2)
> > Can you provide algorithmic...<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="#c3228861507824933198" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>: (2/2)<br /><br />> > Can you provide algorithmic definitions of 'coherence' and 'simplicity'?<br /><br />> No, I can't. So what?<br /><br />Can you come up with some sort of expected timeline where if we don't find algorithmic definitions of them by then, the hypothesis "Humans Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40056436242199679612018-02-10T07:56:14.048-08:002018-02-10T07:56:14.048-08:00@Ron: (1/2)
I really need to rewrite the software...<a href="#c3228861507824933198" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>: (1/2)<br /><br />I <i>really</i> need to rewrite the software I wrote which makes "extract conversation" (what I've done below) a one-click operation. The following has to do with my use of 'homomorphism'.<br /><br />> <a href="#c7159212035873728707" rel="nofollow">Ron</a>: Yes, some values are necessary for Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-63169308723856100812018-02-09T15:57:13.709-08:002018-02-09T15:57:13.709-08:00> So when *I'm* the one who introduces &quo...> So when *I'm* the one who introduces "God" into the conversation, *you* get to fill that word with whatever *you* want?<br /><br />No. I don't subscribe to <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/550389-when-i-use-a-word-it-means-just-what-i" rel="nofollow">Humpty Dumpty's theory of language</a>. But when you ask me my opinion ("... would that be so bad?")Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.com