= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Decision theory: Why Pearl helps reduce “could” and “would”, but still leaves us with at least three alternatives - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (70)
For the other perspective see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Small fluctuations are often rapidly magnified into macroscopic fluctuations.
Computers sometimes contain elements designed to accelerate this process - in the form of entropy generators - which are used to seed random number generators - e.g. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Physical_phenomena_with_quantum-random_properties
I don't think anyone is talking about impossible things becoming possible. The topic is whether considered paths in a decision can be legitimately considered to be possibilities - or whether they are actually impossible.