Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Nykytyne2's Determinism Thought Experiment Begs the Question

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
262 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jul 17, 2010

Determinism holds. The machine proposed would affect the system.. its predictions would affect Nykytyne2's actions -- the ones it's trying to predict -- so it must therefore also be able to predict its own actions. But we proposed this machine because the acting agent is unable to predict its own actions.. and now we're asking the machine to do the very thing we said it couldn't do. The only way for the machine to work is for it to not be part of the system (the Universe), but then it can't provide Nykytyne2 with its predictions (because those would be causal inputs to the system).. so the problem isn't with determinism, it's with the construction of the thought experiment itself. Determinism still holds.

For computer science geeks, this is similar to the halting problem and other undecidable problems. The principle of computability in general still holds, there are just some problems that are practically-speaking unsolvable or uncomputable.

This is my first real "talkie" video on YouTube, so it's nothing great but ya gotta start somewhere, right?

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (AcidRain64)

  • The funny thing is I can write a simple 4 line computer program that always does the opposite of what I predict. Does this mean the computer program has free will ?

  • @FatGermanBastard lol. Can you elaborate, or give an example? What exactly does it do? Can you show us the code?

see all

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • You look like a fucking nerd

  • @AcidRain64

    I guess I'll make a video response to Nyk...

  • The halting problem IS the reason Nykytyne2's argument is invalid. It is a rock solid proof that the machine he is talking about cannot be created. It is just not physically possible to make a machine with the predictive power needed to do what he wants. So his argument is simply moot and shows he hasn't taken the CS classes.

  • I like the way you put this, the similarity with the halting problem jumped out at me too.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more