Human is constrained by options. He however is to choose an option freely. We need the freedom to decide when the options are equally liked. You are free to decide because things are indifferent to you.
You are fully aware when you make a decision.
Human is constrained by options. He however is to choose an option freely. We need the freedom to decide when the options are equally liked. You are free to decide because things are indifferent to you.
You are fully aware when you make a decision.
You can't explain what the word "freely" means....
How do you decide between "equally liked options" except rolling a dice? e.g random choice - entropy.
So is the algorithm - it's aware of all the possible options.
I did. It is when you minimally like options equally. Or even when you go for the option you don't want for no reason.
I just do it. It looks random from third perspective but not from the first perspective.
Everything is conscious. Consciousness is needed for any change. I however don't think that computer is conscious like us.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:24 amSo is the algorithm - it's aware of all the possible options.
What you are talking about has a name in computer science: control flow.
This is incoherent.
Non-deterministic algorithms are all about 1st person perspectives. From the POV of the algorithm the choice is random.
You are just tripping up over the discretisation.
Yes, it is. But we can do it. That is why we are different from machines.
No, it doesn't mean that.
Free decision is not non-deterministic algorithm.
You pick up the one you decide.
Things has absolute length therefore there is a lower bound so called infinitesimal. The length L by definition contains L infinitesimals.
You can't explain how you do it - you are no different to a machine.
Then what does it mean?
Then what is it?
Which one did you decide and how?
This is circular. How do you measure length? What is your unit?
I am able to stop to write you whenever I want in spite of wanting to write you. Machine just follow a chain of causality. Mind can break and create a chain of causality whenever it wants. Like stop writing.
You can like an option more yet pick out another option just because you want.
The one that you cannot write an algorithm for it.
The point is that a machine can resolve a problem in a point that there is a equal conflict of interest. A mind can.
It is not.
Everything has an absolute length. That is why we can measure them. We use a good constant to assign a standard length to things.
The true unit is infinitesimal. We don't have access to it so we use other thing which are made of infinitesimal.
So can a machine.
You mean you can choose the least preferred option? Sure!
You haven't given me any procedure for which i can't write an algorithm yet.
The way I resolve my own conflicts is by flipping a coin.
Yeah. it is. It's no different to the Integers.
OK, but the length is always divisible by 2. Hence your problem.
So the Integer 1. Which is indivisible by 2 (if the division is to be closed).
No. I don't use an algorithm when I want to stop a chain of causality or create one.
Yes, but not freely.
You don't use any algorithm when you decide freely. Do you? That is the very meaning of freedom.
Yes, but you can resolve that issue without flipping a coin too. You simply decide.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:48 pmThe way I resolve my own conflicts is by flipping a coin.
Here's a bunch of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_ ... algorithms]Deadlock prevention algorithms.
Integers don't have any absolute length.
You cannot divide infinitesimal to two.
Infinitesimal has a absolute length. Integer is mathematical construct.
Then what do you use?
It's as "freely" as you are doing it. That's why it's non-deterministic to the programmer.
Of course I do. I choose the thing which maximises my utility, whatever that may be given my utility function.
In the cases where I can decide - I decide.
The "absolute length" of the 1st integer is 1 - its distance from 0.
Exactly. Dividing 1 by 2 is open, not closed e.g the answer is not in the domain of the integers.
I use my mind.
Non-deterministic means that you cannot anticipate it. Free decision is non-deterministic. It is also free.
Yes, we all use maximum utility when we follow a chain of causality. We however are free not to use it.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:58 pmOf course I do. I choose the thing which maximises my utility, whatever that may be given my utility function.
You can always decide.
In real number yes. In integer number no.
Yes.
As far as I can tell your mind is a Turing machine.
Exactly. As the programmer I can't anticipate precisely what a non-deterministic algorithm will decide, even though I wrote it.
Code: Select all
I choose not to choose!
[78, 80, 26]
[79, 8, 46]
I choose not to choose!
[60, 56, 31]
So you are minimising, not maximising utility. Is just an inverse.
That's true thanks to my coin.
The real number 1 is exactly the same distance from 0 as the integer 1.Said differently.
So Integer(1) is what you are looking for?
Not when it comes to experience, decision and causation.
Yes, your program is non-deterministic but it is not free.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:58 pmExactly. As the programmer I can't anticipate precisely what a non-deterministic algorithm will decide, even though I wrote it.
Like this: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalBlindNetbsdCode: Select all
I choose not to choose! [78, 80, 26] [79, 8, 46] I choose not to choose! [60, 56, 31]
No, I am not either thinking of minimising or maximising when I decide freely.
You could do it without a coin. I do it all the time.
There is no distance in integer number.
No. I was looking for how one can get a consistent mathematical framework that allows us the measurement at the same time explain how one can get continuum from infinitesimal.
How do you test for "freedom"?
You still haven't told me how and why you do it. If you don't know know how; and you don't know why - then why are you so sure you are doing it "freely" ?
Then what is subtraction?
What you are really asking is how one can get a "continuum" from discrete elements. The simple answer is - you can't.
Physical entities are discrete, and, you are right that language and mathematics are discrete (a very astute and correct observation, by the way). But all physical relationships are analog, which is why no mathematical measurement is ever absolutely exact (except by accident) because measurement is in terms of arbitrary discrete units of measure.