Gregory's Server@RAOF or even the contrapositive (? Did I use that word right) of that argument, "the magic box literally does not exist in reality, because this is a thought experiment, therefore I can make the argument it cannot exist"
|
6 comments
 @AlexandreZani @RAOF Well… no, I think I'd argue the supernatural powers *are* necessary, because if the predictor is like a really good friend then suddenly I have to start asking questions like, *is* there any person on earth who I've revealed enough of myself to they can predict how I'd behave in extreme situations, and suddenly I'm judging against "how well do they know me" and not the probabilities the thought experiment is supposed to be about. @AlexandreZani @RAOF And if the assigning the weights on the inputs to the probability function that comprises the thought experiment turns out to be a harder problem than executing the logic of the probability function itself, then… isn't what the thought experiment has ultimately shown, is that the probability function isn't useful? Because that was my point to start with– if we're allowed to bring "this entire methodology seems to be working kind of poorly" in as a possibility… |
@mcc That is another perfectly sensible option!
Either you work within the logic of the hypothetical, where the magic box demonstrably exists, and so working out how to rationalise the behaviour of the magic box existing isn't very interesting, or you reject the magic box and the whole thing is void.