Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:08 pm
Well maybe anything could be behind the curtains if we don't assume determinism.
No. What is behind the curtains was put there by the show staff, and Monty certainly knows since his job depends on knowing. It cannot change from what the staff put there. The contestant doesn't know, but one person not knowing in no way implies that what is behind each curtain isn't what the staff put there. I don't know what crazy ideas you have about indeterminism, but it doesn't change how classical physics works, and all the scenarios (Monty, Newcomb) are straight up classical scenarios.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:55 pm
Why couldn't they change to something else in indeterminism?
That would violate empirical (classical) physics. I can't put an apple in a box, close it, and then find an orange there when I immediately reopen it. Indeterminism (a whole class of views, not just one view) suggests nothing of the kind.
That sort of thing is for parlor tricks, pulling rabbits out of empty hats and such. Our 'Omega' is presumably not doing such cheats.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:08 pmI didn't see Omega as magical, it just somehow knows what people will choose.
That is also how I see it. It is has enough intelligence to predict well. There's actually three predictions: One box, two, or random, where something not based on prior state is used to make the decision, say a Geiger counter. Nozick addresses this third option. If the Omega predicts that the person will utilize randomness, then it will put nothing in the opaque box.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:28 pm
Omega is magical if you assume it has the ability to make perfect predictions.
Agree. The OP says 'near perfect', so only intelligence needed, not magic. I agree that it cannot ever be perfect, but due to the randomness clause, basing the choice on something other than your state will not be to your advantage.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:31 pmIndeterminism doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. It just means the future isn't (yet).
Depends on the definition of determinism, and a quick google of definitions gets you all sorts of vague and contradictory definitions that don't really distinguish it from what people here are calling 'indeterminism'. Most of them seem to only distinguish naturalism from supernaturalism, including Oxford. OK, it's identified as a philosophy definition, not a science one.
I will attempt a couple definitions:
X) All events are a unique inevitable result of prior state.
Key word is 'unique'. A particular measurement of spin can only result in say spin up and no other measurement is possible.
Y) There is no fundamental randomness to the nature of physics. No 'god rolling dice' as Einstein put it.
MWI is a nice example of something that meets this definition but not the X one.
Z) The entire history of the universe already exists. There is no future that isn't 'written' so to speak. The history is determined in the same way that a presentist would say that the past is fixed.
This definition doesn't work with what Flannel Jesus just said since the comment presumes the meaningful existence of 'the future'. The other two definitions are compatible with presentism.
Indeterminism seem to need to deny all three definitions. There can be multiple possible results to a measurement not yet performed. There must be fundamental randomness to natural physics.
Notice that philosophical notions of mind and will or anthropocentrism come into play with those definitions.