You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

prase comments on Completeness of simulations - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: RolfAndreassen 24 August 2012 10:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: prase 25 August 2012 02:22:18AM 2 points [-]

Is the fact that the simulated subject is a human important for the proposed thought experiment, besides that it activates all sorts of wrong intuitions about free will and makes the lookup table unimaginably huge or even infinite?

Is it clear that an accurate X exists?

It is not, why should it be? By assumption the subject does whatever the GLUT predicts but it doesn't follow that the GLUT includes a proposition "if the subject is confronted with the information that the GLUT predicts that he will do X, he will do X".

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 25 August 2012 04:25:44AM 1 point [-]

Is the fact that the simulated subject is a human important for the proposed thought experiment, besides that it activates all sorts of wrong intuitions about free will and makes the lookup table unimaginably huge or even infinite?

I don't think so, any Turing machine will do.