And what if the person doesn't like what the Demon says and does the very opposite? Then the Demon obviously cannot say the future what the person will do, because it will be the opposite (hence wrong) what the Demon says. — ssu

Well imagine that the Demon at the very next second that he will tell the person what to do the data will change.
And according to the new data that supposingly the Demon would have ,he could predict that the person would do the opposite thing just because he would want to prove the Demon wrong.

Remember we suppose the demon has available all the data at any second and has the ability to make the calculations also at the same time.

Only if he doesn't interact with us, he can know. Then it is really that computable extrapolation with total information of the past on forward. The Demon simply cannot interact with us. — ssu

Well i m not really sure why the Demon shouldn't interact with us as to be able to predict the future.Can you explain it a little more?

it really is a fictional character to us — ssu

Well he is fictional in any case indeed..

Well imagine that the Demon at the very next second that he will tell the person what to do the data will change.
And according to the new data that supposingly the Demon would have ,he could predict that the person would do the opposite thing just because he would want to prove the Demon wrong. — dimosthenis9

Nope. Doesn't go like that. If the Demon predicts that it's the opposite, then the person does what the prediction says, hence the Demon was wrong in it's forecast. The simple fact is that you or the Demon cannot say what you don't say. Even in a game theoretic model this is totally clear.

D's forecast: A The person actually does: not A
D's forecast: not A The person actually does: A
D's forecast: something else or no forecast The person actually does: A

From the above you can see it's impossible for the Demon to give the forecast.

Remember we suppose the demon has available all the data at any second and has the ability to make the calculations also at the same time. — dimosthenis9

Yes, yet the Demon a) doesn't control everything and b) has to give a prediction.

Besides, you should note just how the Demon makes a computation and uses extrapolation. This is really a simple matter of logic. You cannot compute something which is illogical and then declare it to be mathematically truthful.

Well i m not really sure why the Demon shouldn't interact with us as to be able to predict the future.Can you explain it a little more? — dimosthenis9

Because when it interacts, it is the subject. It's interaction effects what it should be looking objectively, that is the whole idea what Laplace was thinking about. Now it's the subject.

And if you think this isn't a problem, well, in physics the measurement effecting what is to be measured does complicate things.

I'll give you another example:

The Demon is interviewed in the media and ALL people really believe that it indeed has perfect knowledge of everything in the past and all the laws of nature etc. (because the Demon predicted a strong earthquake and got it's timing and location spot on and many lives were saved). So one person asks the Demon on live tv/radio: "What are the next lottery winning numbers tomorrow and how much will be won? Well, let's assume the Demon knows what the winning numbers will be, but how does he define how much will be won by the winners? That winning pot is divided by all those who bet on the winning numbers, and everybody believes that he is right, there's a problem. Let's say the lottery ticket costs 1 dollar and the winning pot is 10 million. Now there are 15 million listening to the broadcast and if everybody would pick the Demon's winning lottery number, when the winning lottery is only 10 million, then they would lose because the 66 cents that they would win doesn't go over the 1 dollar price of the lottery line.

Now, you might say that there's some Nash equilibrium which will happen, but the real problem is that here obviously what the Demon says affects what will happen and this isn't what Laplace had in mind with his extrapolations. It's not something that you can simply extrapolate from the past: what the Demon says, actually does have an effect.

Or do you think it's mathematically reasonable to say this statement is true ...because I say so?

Not determined in the same way? — frank

Right. if there is free will. If everything we think, feel, and do is not determined solely by progressions of arrangements of all the constituent parts of our brains, which change from one arrangement to the next because of the ways the laws of physics act upon them.

Now, you might say that there's some Nash equilibrium which will happen, but the real problem is that here obviously what the Demon says affects what will happen and this isn't what Laplace had in mind with his extrapolations. It's not something that you can simply extrapolate from the past: what the Demon says, actually does have an effect. — ssu

Well it is a nice example but the problem isn't if Demon will affect the result.Of course he would do it.But he would have known that will happen indeed even with his interference.

He would knew that people would react this way suppose he had access to everybody's neurons data.

By the way i could predict that too as to be honest..haha

Well, let's assume the Demon knows what the winning numbers will be, but how does he define how much will be won by the winners? — ssu

He could change his answer every second calculating exactly humans brains activity plus etc etc.And when the bets are closed he could also say the result.

Anyway Laplace's Demon is way too fictional and can arise vague issues.Including observation effects in quantum physics as you mention.That isn't even clear either if indeed the observer affects the result.It is still an open issue.But it is a possibility.

agreed.

What, in your opinion, are some reasonable inferences one can draw from these examples?

But it is illogical then to think that we, being part of the universe and actors in the universe, could then now this future, because there is a correct model of the future. It's similar basically to the measurement problem. — ssu

OK, I see what you mean now. It doesn't follow from the fact that there will be a definite future that we can, or could even in principle, know what that future will be. I agree with that.

Well it is a nice example but the problem isn't if Demon will affect the result.Of course he would do it.But he would have known that will happen indeed even with his interference. — dimosthenis9

But here's the point. The Demon isn't omnipotent. From Laplace's example, it "simply" knows a) everything from the past and b) all the laws of nature. And using a) and b) it should through extrapolation forecast perfectly the future. But now it is an actor! That information a) and b) doesn't have the future effect on what the extrapolation (the forecast) will have. Why? Because you can have diagonalization: negative self reference to the extrapolation.

He would knew that people would react this way suppose he had access to everybody's neurons data. — dimosthenis9

Which is waiting for what the Demon will say. And that's my whole point. You notice that this isn't anymore straight forward extrapolation, because the extrapolation itself defining how the humans do. And if you just assume that well, there's a way for the Demon to get around this, because there obviously is a correct model of what is going to happen. Nope! When that correct model is the opposite (or simply something else) than the forecast that the Demon gives, it's game over. Not a chance!

That's how powerful Cantor's diagonalization or simply negative self reference is.

OK, I see what you mean now. It doesn't follow from the fact that there will be a definite future that we can, or could even in principle, know what that future will be. I agree with that. — Janus

Or don't know, yes.

Laplace's idea that with all information from the past and all the existing laws, one can extrapolate at the present the future. Now this would be totally correct, if the extrapolation wouldn't itself have an effect. Some occasions there's no effect, some occasions the effect can be taken into account. But unfortunately in one occasion (at least) it's impossible.

And I think here is still some very basic logical issue that mathematics, and basically philosophy has to get right. Because a typical philosophical question now is that if there's complete determinism, do we have free will? Or if we have free will, is there then determinism?

Why is this important? Well, because you have missing rule in logic/math to tell you why there separate issues.

I think that mathematics and logic has an clear answer to this. The problem now is we have just the paradoxes (Russell etc) and then the undecidability results showing that math is "incomplete". Those don't explain just what is this realm of non-computable math, which should be defined. My working thesis is that all that non-computable math, those Gödel numbers that are true but unprovable, are defined with the negative self-reference.

Perhaps it's for the this Forum to come up with it. :razz:

We do not have access to all the information necessary to say with certainty why any particular event happens.
— Harry Hindu
Not even so. Even if you have all the information, it still isn't possible. Let me explain:

Even if you would have all the information necessary to say with certainty why any particular event happens, that doesn't mean you can say the what will happen. You are part of the universe. You saying something can effect what is going to happen. Hence you saying anything, doing anything, can have an effect on what you ought to forecast. And what about when the future depends totally on what the forecast you give about it? You basically have the possibility of negative self reference and you cannot overcome that law of logic: you cannot say what you don't say. — ssu

I don't see how any of this disagrees with what I said. All you are doing is just describing another instance of us lacking information about all the causes that lead to a particular effect.

Not only that but it is deeply flawed. Upon reading my post did you not formulate a response in your mind and then harness your intent to communicate it by typing it out and then clicking the Submit button? Did your response appear on the screen as you had intended? If yes, then you obviously can make predictions about the future that involve your own actions and what you have to say.

The fluttering of a butterfly's wings in Africa has no effect on your typing your post and submitting it. You don't need to know everything to be able to predict something. How were NASA engineers able to predict the New Horizons spacecraft's rendezvous with Pluto when it is billions of miles away and takes years to get there? How is it that the technology that you rely on keeps working as predicted? Your argument only carries weight if we are talking about the future of the universe as a whole, but not for particular instances of a local system within the universe. A lot of information is irrelevant to making predictions about specific, small-scale events.

Possibilities and probabilities are just ideas in the present moment.
— Harry Hindu
Or I would say a great way make a useful model of the future what we cannot exactly know, especially many times when we do have this kind of interaction going on.

They do not exist apart from the process of our making some decision in the present moment.
— Harry Hindu
So, cannot we then define the future to be what really will happen? We can, but that doesn't help us much. Far better models perhaps can be the idea of a multiverse where we end up in some distinct reality. — ssu

I don't understand this. Can you clarify?

I was simply asking what the ontology of a "possible future" is. Are "possible futures" ideas that only exist in minds? Or are they external to the mind in the form of a quantum wave function or multiverses?

All you are doing is just describing another instance of us lacking information about all the causes that lead to a particular effect. — Harry Hindu

No, It's not the lacking information, it's that interaction creates new information/situation. With negative self reference, there really isn't the capability just to extrapolate it from the old information.

Upon reading my post did you not formulate a response — Harry Hindu

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps I didn't get the point.

Your argument only carries weight if we are talking about the future of the universe as a whole, but not for particular instances of a local system within the universe. A lot of information is irrelevant to making predictions about specific, small-scale events. — Harry Hindu

Obviously we can forecast a wide variety of things by extrapolation. And we can also take into account the effect of our own actions. Yet at many times, we cannot and the factor isn't about us not knowing all the data, it's that us being an actor makes the Laplacian idea of "just having all info & laws" the extrapolation impossible. That's my main point.

I don't understand this. Can you clarify? — Harry Hindu

I'll try, I hope you have the time and the patience to go through it. If I repeat too much, mark then just understood and I go further.

Let's define "the future" as the all the events that really happen. Hence it is incoherent of talking that the "future" changed, the future is what happens.

A correct prediction of "the future" is a model, that is a true model that depicts the future.

Classic determinism starts from this kind of World view that "the future" is this line of events that will happen in the block universe going from the present to the future. Hence everything is determined.

Now Laplaces argument goes that with all information of the past and present and knowledge how things work, an entity can then extrapolate the future precisely, extrapolate the correct model of the future.

What's the problem? The entity being an actor in the universe. A lot of his actions don't have an effect on the future (the Milk Way will collide with Andromeda 4,5 billion years from now or something...), and some of his effects of his actions can be taken into effect. But in some situations, the entity simply cannot predict the future from the way Laplace stated. The extrapolation is simply impossible, yet still, there does exist a "the future" and thus a correct model of the future.

Are you still with me or did I loose you?

What does then this mean. Well, you can say that the future is determined, but that there's a logical reason why we cannot know everything about the future. Why? Because the our actions at the present make a simple (hardly simple, but anyway...) extrapolation from the past information impossible.

Hence we have to use other many times not so exact models to describe the future. NASA engineers and astronomers can still rely basically on Newtonian physics to calculate the future state of the planets, but in some cases it isn't so.

No, It's not the lacking information, it's that interaction creates new information/situation. With negative self reference, there really isn't the capability just to extrapolate it from the old information. — ssu

Can you give a real-world example?

ANY interaction between the moment I predict a possible future and that potential future event occurring can render my prediction wrong. My actions are no different that anyone, or anything else's interaction with the world that causes certain effects.

Upon reading my post did you not formulate a response
— Harry Hindu
Sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps I didn't get the point. — ssu

After reading my post did you have some idea about how you would respond and then predict that typing on the keyboard would display your response on the screen? How did your interaction with the computer change your prediction that the computer will display your response on the screen? You had to have some model of the future in typing your words, or else why would you be tapping your fingers on the keyboard in the first place? Your model of the future was of your ideas being on the screen for me to see. If your interaction with the computer changes the outcome then how can you ever hope that what you intend to be on the screen is what ends up on the screen?

I'll try, I hope you have the time and the patience to go through it. If I repeat too much, mark then just understood and I go further. — ssu

If one does not have patience then one should not be engaging in philosophy. :cool:

Let's define "the future" as the all the events that really happen. Hence it is incoherent of talking that the "future" changed, the future is what happens.

Classic determinism starts from this kind of World view that "the future" is this line of events that will happen in the block universe going from the present to the future. Hence everything is determined. — ssu

I agree. Let me go further and say that I'm kind of in line with Einstein with his idea of block time, or block universe. One might say that the future has already "happened" and we are just playing it all out and perceive the flow of time as a result of participating in this block universe. Think about it like a first person computer game that has been coded in its entirety. The beginning, middle and end are all coded, but you as the player must play it out from beginning to end, with some parts of the world you never interact with even though they exist as code and are there to be called if you ever visit that part of the game world. You can even play the game differently each time doing things in different order but still eventually arriving at the end of the game. The game code is like the block universe in that everything has already happened and you are just a participant. It is the playing of the game that gives rise to the flow of time as a participant in this block universe.

A correct prediction of "the future" is a model, that is a true model that depicts the future. — ssu

Right, so the model and the future are two separate things. The model exists in the present moment as an idea and the other is the actual events that are "yet to happen".

It is the model, not the future that causes you to behave in certain ways so that your prediction is realized. This is why you tapped your fingers on the keyboard because you predicted that the appropriate letters would appear on the screen as you typed them and that the post would be successfully submitted after you click the Post Comment button.

Now Laplaces argument goes that with all information of the past and present and knowledge how things work, an entity can then extrapolate the future precisely, extrapolate the correct model of the future.

What's the problem? The entity being an actor in the universe. A lot of his actions don't have an effect on the future (the Milk Way will collide with Andromeda 4,5 billion years from now or something...), and some of his effects of his actions can be taken into effect. But in some situations, the entity simply cannot predict the future from the way Laplace stated. The extrapolation is simply impossible, yet still, there does exist a "the future" and thus a correct model of the future.

Are you still with me or did I loose you? — ssu

You simply said that the entity cannot predict the future but provide no reason as to why it would be impossible. But we know that we can predict the future accurately in many instances, but sometimes we cannot. What creates this distinction if not having access to the proper information or not?

I would need examples of what you are talking about - instances where we have a model of some moment in the future in the present moment that are not realized because of something we, as opposed to someone, or something, else. For instance, we can predict where a certain near-Earth asteroid will be in 100 years but some other event could happen within 100 years that could render our prediction wrong. It wasn't anything I did, or an interaction I had. It was something else entirely, like another asteroid colliding with it diverting its trajectory.

My point is that anything, not just you, could prevent your model from being correct. Any interaction you take is no different than any other interaction, like the two asteroids colliding, that could render your model as inaccurate. This is all that I mean by lacking information about what is happening now, in the past, or in the future that might affect your future model.

It depends on how far in the future we are talking about. Your model of the future where your ideas appear on the screen after typing them is more immediate than your model of where an asteroid will be in 100 years. There is a lot more information that needs to be known the more distant the future event is that you are tying to model, which is why you have less certainty of your model of distant events in the future.

What does then this mean. Well, you can say that the future is determined, but that there's a logical reason why we cannot know everything about the future. Why? Because the our actions at the present make a simple (hardly simple, but anyway...) extrapolation from the past information impossible.

Hence we have to use other many times not so exact models to describe the future. NASA engineers and astronomers can still rely basically on Newtonian physics to calculate the future state of the planets, but in some cases it isn't so. — ssu

But the present moment is the past relative the future model you have. For you to have an accurate model of the future, you must have an accurate model of not just the past, but the present and any future event that happens between now and the future you are predicting. Like I said, the further in the future you are trying to predict leads to a higher degree of uncertainty because its not just what is happening in the present that must be accounted for, but also any interaction in the future that happens before the event you are modeling. Again, all we are talking about is a lack of information about this block universe in all moments. Is it impossible to predict everything? Yes, because of a lack of information of all the events in the block universe, not for any other reason.

You simply said that the entity cannot predict the future but provide no reason as to why it would be impossible. But we know that we can predict the future accurately in many instances, but sometimes we cannot. What creates this distinction if not having access to the proper information or not?

I would need examples of what you are talking about — Harry Hindu

Can you give a real-world example? — Harry Hindu

Thanks for your patience. And good that we agree on a lot of things, so I'll try to give examples.

Here's a real world example:

Let's say I will write in the next post at the start either the number 1 or 2. Now before that you have to make a forecast of the number I will write. It's something that will happen in the future of this thread. To help you I'll give you here how I will choose the number.

If you forecast me saying 1 - > I will write 2
If you forecast me saying 2 - > I will write 1
If you write something else, copy these rules or disregard this - > I will write 1
If you never even answer this thread (in the next week or so) - > I will write 1

Those are all the possible things for you to do, either make a forecast or not or then even disregard this message. And obviously everything depends now on your actions.

Is there a correct model of how things will go and what number I will write. Yes, there obviously is one.

Can you give the correct number? No, my action is based on the negation of your action or on your inaction. Or you have to hack to my account and write as me. Hence you have to have literally control me. So if that's not an option, then there is simply no way to say what would be the correct model of the future. This is the power of negative self reference. Hopefully you can spot the "diagonalization" from the rules that I will implement.

OK, does this go away by you sending a private message which says "I'll make SSU write 1" and then write something else disregarding this silly game example of mine, and then putting me to write 1. Nope, this actually just shows that your private message forecast didn't have an effect on the forecast, which just shows that Laplace's idea is OK when there is no interaction. The interaction part is the problematic thing.

And finally, is there something missing here at the present? Laplace's entity might well know what the correct model is when it isn't making the forecast itself. A what information is missing here, I gave above the rules of how I will start by next response by writing a number.

And if that problem isn't enough real word, I can give you a real world example of this from anti-aircraft gunnery.

But first, let's see what number I'm going to write after your next response. Hope you don't go away for a week... :yawn:

Right. if there is free will. If everything we think, feel, and do is not determined solely by progressions of arrangements of all the constituent parts of our brains, which change from one arrangement to the next because of the ways the laws of physics act upon them. — Patterner

Chalmers adapted LD to accommodate quantum physics by just making it open ended. In other words, the demon knows how events unfold, however that may be (I think that's what he meant anyway). So couldn't we have an LD that know mental states and however it is they evolve?

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Maybe I should have asked for an everyday real-world example - predictions that we make in our everyday lives that are either correct or incorrect, and how our correct or incorrect prediction came about by having or not having the proper information was not the case. Predicting that someone will write 1s or 2s at the beginning of their posts is not something we normally do.

Think about how I gave examples of sending a spacecraft to Pluto, or predicting where an asteroid will be 100 years from now, or your prediction that typing on a key on the keyboard will produce a letter on the screen, or your prediction that when you call a friend they will answer instead of going to voicemail, or what you will have for lunch tomorrow, etc.

It seems to me that there are many predictions that require your interaction to be correct, as in the case of you predicting that a k will appear on the screen when you type k on the keyboard. The k will not appear if you do not interact. In this case, your interaction is necessary for your prediction to come true, and necessarily absent for it to not be true (unless someone else comes along and types k on the keyboard for you).

Chalmers adapted LD to accommodate quantum physics by just making it open ended. In other words, the demon knows how events unfold, however that may be (I think that's what he meant anyway). So couldn't we have an LD that know mental states and however it is they evolve? — frank

LD is defined as knowing everything about everything, which I would assume would include the solution to the hard problem.

frank
LD is defined as knowing everything about everything, which I would assume would include the solution to the hard problem. — Harry Hindu

I think that's kind of what Chalmers was doing. That would make the LD irrelevant to the issue of free will, right?

Chalmers adapted LD to accommodate quantum physics by just making it open ended. In other words, the demon knows how events unfold, however that may be (I think that's what he meant anyway). So couldn't we have an LD that know mental states and however it is they evolve? — frank

I don't know how LD would deal with quantum events. I suppose it's possible that it would understand why things happen randomly, uncertainly, and, to it, the events would not be random and uncertain. If half the atoms of plutonium are going to decay in 81 million years, maybe it knows which half, and maybe even which one at which moment. I have no idea. But I am certainly willing to stipulate that for the sake of argument.

however, if consciousness is not the result of, or at least not entirely the result of, physical events, of which LD has absolute knowledge, then it would not have absolute understanding of consciousness. LD only knows what it knows knows.

This is what I was asking about before, is the randomness we observe really a product of our own ignorance, the state of our minds and the information we have access to at any given moment, or is the randomness something inherent to reality outside of our minds? If the former then LD will know how to solve the problem of integrating quantum mechanics with classical/macro physics. If the latter then LD is invalid.

LD is defined as knowing everything about everything with infinite precision. I would think "everything about everything" does not limit LD to "physical" phenomenon. It just might be the case that the world is not physical at all and LD would know this and therefore be able to explain what consciousness is and it's relation with the rest of the world.

LD would also know that under special relativity there is no universal now. It would know the entire universe without any frame of reference - a view from no where. For LD there would be no present moment. All events would be accessible to it without limitations.

That information a) and b) doesn't have the future effect on what the extrapolation (the forecast) will have. Why? Because you can have diagonalization: negative self reference to the extrapolation. — ssu

Demon can't predict the "veto" that someone could use you mean.
Well ok you do have a point.I m not exactly capable of wrapping my head around it but intuitively i think I m convinced.

What if though the Demon could progress exactly the data at the very same time?Seeing in "real time" through neurons analyzation how thoughts exachge in someone's brain??Seeing "yes,no, I will do the opposite,oh wait no... etc etc"??

Since every neuron activity that occurs in the present it simulatenously becomes past.As every moment in general does the same.
Wouldn't that mean that Demon can indeed have the "past" data( or better the present data also have the prediction effect) and make the calculations at the very same milliseconds??

I don't know how LD would deal with quantum events. I suppose it's possible that it would understand why things happen randomly, uncertainly, and, to it, the events would not be random and uncertain. If half the atoms of plutonium are going to decay in 81 million years, maybe it knows which half, and maybe even which one at which moment. I have no idea. But I am certainly willing to stipulate that for the sake of argument. — Patterner

Yea, I guess the revision is that however it works, LD knows how it works.

however, if consciousness is not the result of, or at least not entirely the result of, physical events, of which LD has absolute knowledge, then it would not have absolute understanding of consciousness. LD only knows what it knows knows. — Patterner

That's if you limit LD to so-called physical events, which automatically excludes non-physical things like numbers and mental states. We could imagine an LD that has knowledge of the non-physical stuff, right?

This is what I was asking about before, is the randomness we observe really a product of our own ignorance, the state of our minds and the information we have access to at any given moment, or is the randomness something inherent to reality outside of our minds? If the former then LD will know how to solve the problem of integrating quantum mechanics with classical/macro physics. If the latter then LD is invalid. — Harry Hindu

I really have no idea. All I know is that quantum mechanics is supposed to be an argument against the LD. I don't know if that argument prevails or not, but not knowing would be an argument against LD, wouldn't it?

1

Hope you see the point why you could not give an accurate forecast here. And it's likely that people don't bother to make a forecast when the game is told to them. First they'll think it's a 0.5 chance of getting it right or something.

Predicting that someone will write 1s or 2s at the beginning of their posts is not something we normally do.

Think about how I gave examples of sending a spacecraft to Pluto, or predicting where an asteroid will be 100 years from now — Harry Hindu

But this problem does come around in real world implications: anti-aircraft artillery could easily cover the airspace where modern aircraft fly, but they have a problem that cannot be overcome. Once you have made the firing solution, the shell follows a ballistic trajectory to the designated place where the gun was aimed. But with modern speeds the aircraft can change after the course the fire solution has been done and round has been fired. There's no way around the problem, however accurate the targeting radar and the fire control system is. One Finnish fighter pilot told the story that he flew while flying near Kronstadt, he flew in a direct line but immediately made a turn once he saw the muzzle flashes of the AAA on the Soviet line. He wasn't shot down and wasn't even hit by shrapnel.

The historical solution: the surface to air missile. And only few decades ago have SAMs system become so capable that just tight turns at the last minute cannot make the aircraft elude them.

When you think about, the problem is really similar: you can have all the flight data and tracking data of the target aircraft, know the perfomance specs of the aircraft and get a firing solution a the present for the future location some seconds in the future. If the aircraft isn't aware that it's shot and and follows the same line, it likely will get hit. But if the pilot has noticed your AA gun and will change the course after you have fired the artillery projectile, then no matter how accurate your targeting data and fire control was, you will miss or it's just a lucky chance you will hit the aircraft.

It doesn't go away with the assumption that the fire control system "takes into account" the firing solution and the effect on the aircraft. The aircraft can have as a countermeasure a computer calculating what the fire control would give and help the pilot avoid a typical response.

It seems to me that there are many predictions that require your interaction to be correct, as in the case of you predicting that a k will appear on the screen when you type k on the keyboard. — Harry Hindu

Of course, but that's not the issue here!

The issue is if we have classical determinism, let's say Einstein's block Universe, wouldn't then if you assume determinism that if you know everything from the past, then you could extrapolate the future? And if so, is there free will? Well, of course there's already quantum physics telling you can forget, but also there's this simple logical reasoning why such extrapolation isn't possible even with full knowledge...assuming interaction.



The problem here isn't that we don't have all the relevant information, it's that you can use that relevant data even make an extrapolation and then do something else. That is basically negative self reference.

And perhaps this went too much to what I spoke with @dimosthenis9 about the Laplacian idea of determinism.

Demon can't predict the "veto" that someone could use you mean. — dimosthenis9

Exactly, you got my point. :grin:

What if though the Demon could progress exactly the data at the very same time? - Wouldn't that mean that Demon can indeed have the "past" data( or better the present data also have the prediction effect) and make the calculations at the very same milliseconds?? — dimosthenis9

This is a good argument.

If look at the discussion above with @Harry Hindu, I gave the example of the problem that conventional anti-aircraft artillery (firing dumb rounds) has in estimating a firing solution when trying to hit a fast aircraft at a distance. Missiles are the historical answer (meaning continuous correction of the projectile), but so would be a laser (if they would be powerful and economical enough). Now with a laser, you wouldn't need to anticipate where the aircraft will be, just point out. And obviously you don't have any warning of an incoming laser.

But there's the catch: that isn't interaction.

And even worse: that isn't a forecast.

Explaining something when it happens would be obviously a great thing, but when that earthquake is destroying large parts of Los Angeles, perhaps the most accurate Richter measurement isn't then what people have in mind.

So one could argue that let's simply forget such nonsense of negative self reference. Well, a lot of our forecasts are made that we do adapt to what is going to happen. The problem really is about subjectivity and how it wrecks the objective extrapolations of classical determinism.

Yet I find it very interesting that there's a mathematical or basically logical reasoning to this.

The quote can be found on anything number of sites...

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. — Laplace

I believe this is saying that LD knows everything about everything IF everything about everything is deterministic. That, I believe, is the point of Laplace's thought experiment.

But if all of reality is not deterministic, LD's calculations would not be able to figure everything out. Comparing what, based on its calculations, it says the universe would look like at any given point with what the universe actually looks like, there would be discrepancies. I suppose LD would say, "Something non-deterministic took place at that spot."

:up:

That's if you limit LD to so-called physical events, which automatically excludes non-physical things like numbers and mental states. We could imagine an LD that has knowledge of the non-physical stuff, right? — frank

That, I believe, is the point of LD. Maybe? If all is deterministic, then numbers and information, and consciousness and intent, are irrelevant. It can all be reduced to particle physics, just as thermodynamics can. I suppose it would know why brain states also feel like mental states to us. But if "feel like" is all there is, but they have no casual power, and are, themselves, determined by the physical events, then it doesn't matter. Itt doesn't interfere with the calculations.

That, I believe, is the point if LD. Maybe? If all is deterministic, then numbers and information, and consciousness and intent, are irrelevant. It can all be reduced to particle physics, just as thermodynamics can. I suppose it would know why brain states also feel like mental states to us. But if "feel like" is all there is, but they have no casual power, and are, themselves, determined by the physical events, then it doesn't matter. Itt doesn't interfere with the calculations. — Patterner

I agree. I guess where I was headed is that an idealist can also be a determinist. LD can be revised to know everything about a universe that is essentially mind.

Well though that leaves us to point zero again about free will problem it was an interesting ride.

The interaction effect in Laplace's Demon was something i hadn't considered before.

I agree. I guess where I was headed is that an idealist can also be a determinist. LD can be revised to know everything about a universe that is essentially mind. — frank

I don't see why not. If idealism is correct, the reality the minds are thinking up that we take to be physical has consistent properties, rules, etc. No reason LD couldn't know all there is to know about all those properties, rules, etc., regardless of their true nature.