Comment author: 25 December 2008 06:27:00PM 0 points [-]

If random number generators not determinable by Omega exist, generate one bit of entropy. If not, take the million bucks. Quantum randomness anyone?

Comment author: 09 July 2008 03:39:02AM 0 points [-]

Eliezer, I want to read more about design spaces. Is this a common term in computer science? Do you remember where you picked it up?

Comment author: 05 June 2008 05:43:00PM 0 points [-]

@Z. M. Davis

Thanks for the welcome. While I disagree with the etiquette, I'll try to follow it. A three post limit serves only to stifle discussion; there are other ways to deal with abusive posters than limiting the abilities of non-abusive posters. Also, I'm pretty sure my comment is still valid, relevant, and an addition to the discussion, regardless of whether I posted it now or a couple hours ago.

Back to the many worlds approach, as an individual observer of the universe myself, it seems to me that attempting to look at the universe "from the standpoint of eternity" in order to force universal determinism (and its implications) is equivalent to looking at a dice roll from the standpoint of a infinite series of dice rolls in order to force frequency. Its a perspective we'll never achieve and it subverts our intuition. Just a thought, as this blog seems to be about avoiding cognitive traps and not just shifting them to a higher level.

Comment author: 05 June 2008 03:30:00PM 0 points [-]

Let me further explain my point. Somewhere earlier said that reality only takes one path. Unless an observer is present, the electron double slit experiment proves that this assumption is false.

Comment author: 05 June 2008 03:11:00PM -1 points [-]

@Daniel:

You're attacking the wrong argument. Just look up the electron double-slit experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) Its not only about the observer effect, but how the probability that you say doesn't exist causes interference to occur unless an observer is present. The observer is the one who collapses the probability wave down to a deterministic bayesian value.

It sounds like both you and the author of this blog do not understand Schrodinger's cat.

Comment author: 05 June 2008 03:04:00PM -1 points [-]

You're equating perceived probability with physical probability, and this is false, when either you or anyone else ignores that distinction.

However, your whole argument depends on a deterministic universe. Research quantum mechanics; we can't really say that we have a deterministic universe, and physics itself can only assign a probability at a certain point.