= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Eliezer's Sequences and Mainstream Academia - 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
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
The instance I quoted. But as I said the point is trivial.
I don't think I used the word "mistake", at all. I didn't even imply that it's sometimes a mistake, let alone always.
Please name three problems you can't solve with determinism but you can solve with random-number generators. Besides encryption which depends on secrecy and therefore depends on not knowing what will come out, I can't think of any.
So you are saying that the sentence "Computer programmes can consult random-number generators where needed, including 'real' ones implemented in hardware." Should have read "Computer programmes can consult pseudo- random-number generators where needed, including 'real' ones implemented in hardware". Are you aware that your change renders the sentence contradictory? The point of real randomness generators is that, given certain assumptions about physics, they are not pseudo?
If you had used it, I would have had no need to ask the question. I was trying to put you vaguely negative comments about the use of randomness in software on a more precise basis.
I dont see why an example that works should be excluded becuase it works.
Another example I like is the way ethernet works: when two MAC's try to send simultaneously, then result is garbled and they need to back off and retry. However, backing off according to a deterministic algorithm would lead to another collision on the retry, ad infinitum. Backing off for a random time solves that simply.
The reason encryption requires randomness is not relevant to free will. The reason MACs need to back off for a random time likewise does not seem relevant to free will either.
I think I'll tap out at this point. I don't think there's anything I can contribute to this discussion beyond what I've already said.
I don't see what you mean. Randomness is relevant to FW because determinism is, prima facie. (Compatibilists feel the need to argue that it in fact isn't, rather than taking it as obvious). Randomness is relevant to solving problems. A kind of FW that allows you to solve problems is worth having. If you want a more obviously relevant example, consider that evading a predator with random moves is more effective than adopting a potentially predictable "evasive pattern delta"