For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That's an incomplete specification.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:17 am There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt
You don't understand computational determinism.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:37 amThat's an incomplete specification.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:17 am There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt
It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.
Your ignorance doesn't amount to understanding; or knowledge.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:40 am You don't understand computational determinism.
I have two patents on deterministic finite automata, thus I know computational determinism.
Here's your problem.... You have a a deep and profound misconception and a misunderstanding.
H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:11 amWhere's the impossibility?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:09 amWhatever H says D does the opposite making it logical
impossible for H to correctly say what D will do.
D does EXACTLY what H guessed (but didn't say).
Of course, H can't SAY what D will do. Because D will do the opposite.
but H can correctly guess what D will do.
Preciselycommonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.
That's not true.
They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour. D is deterministic.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.
Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:46 pmPreciselycommonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.
That's not true.
H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says.
They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.
D is designed that way. To do the exact opposite of what H says.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:51 pm Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?
OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:52 pmD is designed that way. To do the exact opposite of what H says.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:51 pm Yes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?
So we can design H with the knowledge of D's behaviour too; and we can leverage this knowledge to predict/cause the future.
This is how all science works in principle... We understand how nature behaves. We can cause the future somewhat deterministically.
Sure. Obtain the historical knowledge. After a handful of attempts you should spot the pattern of its contrarianism.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:10 pm OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?
Computers are deterministic. They do what you tell them to.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:10 pm We can design H & D as we choose, but how can we recognize that we are achieving the goal we intend without prior experience?
OK. You’ve convinced me now. Thanks for your comments.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:13 pmSure. Obtain the historical knowledge. After a handful of attempts you should spot the pattern of its contrarianism.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:10 pm OK—I see. But how do we understand how nature behaves, or how anything behaves, without historical knowledge based on prior experience?
Your knowledge would be probabilistic, but despite never be 100% certain D will never disapoint you in its contrarianims.
Computers are deterministic. They do what you tell them to.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:10 pm We can design H & D as we choose, but how can we recognize that we are achieving the goal we intend without prior experience?
You might have to iterate a few times before you get it right, but ultimately H and D have very simple internal and are trivial to implement.
You know that Turing Machines have no volition so you resortedSkepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:37 amThat's an incomplete specification.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:17 am There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt
It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.
It is not actually words. I phrased it that way so that people thatcommonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:51 pmYes, but how does H know that H’s words determine D’s behavior?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:46 pmPreciselycommonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm H can only say the opposite of what H believes if it can be known that D will do the opposite of what H says and not the opposite of what H believes.
That's not true.
H can be 100% certain that D will do exactly the opposite of whatever H says.
They coincide. Precisely because H's words determine D's behaviour.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:40 pm Without such knowledge, H can make a guess but not an a useful prediction.
What volition are you talking about, idiot? Your constant meltdowns are getting tiresome.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:14 pmYou know that Turing Machines have no volition so you resortedSkepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:37 amThat's an incomplete specification.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:17 am There are only two possible things H can do:
(1) H says D halts making D loop
(2) H says D loops making D halt
It makes no mention of what H believes D will do.
back to trollish behavior that you know has nothing to do with
an honest dialogue.
Code: Select all
prediction=True/False # We predict D will or won't halt
return not(prediction) # We return the negation to D