I haven’t fully fleshed out the idea, but I think this is similar to my assertion that the universe is perfectly optimized: that the transition from potential to real, by definition, is the perfect solution to the set of constraints that comprise the present.
I would provide more detail on this random observation but I’m feeling sub-optimal.
Never play Powerball but now I have an urge to pick 10 random number sets, knowing they might be truly be random, but then is Powerball random? And would it matter?
Great essay. 'Random' is a judgement, not a concrete reality. In fact, we cannot know if something is 'random' because we cannot rerun the unfolding of the universe to see if the event would turn out differently. 'Random' and 'free will' are both tied in with each other at a deep level. There's a difference between 'not predicted' and 'unpredictable'. The former ascertainable, the latter is an assumption based upon a certain *feeling of not knowing*. From a purely instrumental view, if you cannot be the 'cause' of a thing, you cannot be said to 'know' that thing.
I haven’t fully fleshed out the idea, but I think this is similar to my assertion that the universe is perfectly optimized: that the transition from potential to real, by definition, is the perfect solution to the set of constraints that comprise the present.
I would provide more detail on this random observation but I’m feeling sub-optimal.
Never play Powerball but now I have an urge to pick 10 random number sets, knowing they might be truly be random, but then is Powerball random? And would it matter?
It's only random to the people who don't have the algorithm, and the ones who do cannot play.
Great essay. 'Random' is a judgement, not a concrete reality. In fact, we cannot know if something is 'random' because we cannot rerun the unfolding of the universe to see if the event would turn out differently. 'Random' and 'free will' are both tied in with each other at a deep level. There's a difference between 'not predicted' and 'unpredictable'. The former ascertainable, the latter is an assumption based upon a certain *feeling of not knowing*. From a purely instrumental view, if you cannot be the 'cause' of a thing, you cannot be said to 'know' that thing.
So we are back to arguing determinism again.
For the material world. Our mind lives in a different space.
I knew you were going to say that.
I can't help it.
U-SSG Briggs;
Is there a refutation of Bayesian models for governing people you can refer to?
People have free will, and these Bayes types are particularly stubborn.
I've done it in several ways, but perhaps not with the title to make an interest.
So i'll do another to make it clear. Thanks.
Feel free to remind me if I forget.
Thanks very much.
I question not the math, nor Bayes, but that we Humanity can be modeled and molded.
Me, too.
Uh
I’m going back to writing in lemon juice thanks
Dark Passage 1947 is title pic.
Perhaps I should be jailed so I can find a woman so devoted 🤣