Oddbean new post about login | logout Yo fam do you think determinism was proved wrong by that box experiment
that box experiment did not disprove determinism bitcoin mining works by the same type of mathematics, it is just complexity obscuring observability babies think they disappear when they cover up their eyes, that's not the same thing, though superficially schroedinger's box might be said to have this property, since probably there is ways to figure out if the cat is alive non-invasively using NMR or MRI or some similar magnetic mechanism as this does penetrate lead
Sorry, I should have said: Do you think the results from the Monty Hall statistical problem disproves determinism? See answer with 15 upvotes: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/96826/the-monty-hall-problem I have a reason why it doesn’t but I’d like to hear your thoughts first https://image.nostr.build/253b989c147af0f3a46f119dec6102b3737bb97d0b2c3068322c3c3b193f4b52.jpg https://image.nostr.build/8f172feac813443f0304ed100e918c1c9088f985d1fffe51ab40aab0eac26a81.jpg
this is the best answer > The person who changes his choice will win if and only if his first choice was wrong, and there is a probability of 2/3 on that. > > The person who does not change his choice will win if and only if his first choice was right. There is a probability of 1/3 on that. both decisions are based on information you don't have, and the average of 1/3 and 2/3 is 1:2 it's a coin flip either way, unless you know you were right in which case you hold, if you know you were wrong you switch you don't know this, so this doesn't change the odds since it is 100% certain that one is right and one is wrong the average of the odds described in this answer average to 50/50, literally a coin flip flipping a coin to decide won't change that, as this information is not known to the host either the only thing that could be at play is the host is trying to read you and tries to use all kinds of unconscious signals to provoke you to change when they know you were right
https://youtu.be/4Lb-6rxZxx0?si=E1616S2yL00AA9z5 She explains the phenomenon well
Free will vs determinism argument makes sense if you've first assumed that you are separate from your environment, which seems true from a very local perspective. What happens if you consider the opposite? Sure, science must encapsulate phenomena in some way to imply consequences, but an encapsulated and formalized nature is not nature.
Despite the experiment feeling arbitrary, as most statistical problems are, it’s a test in mechanical reality demonstraring that probabilities are not static
Theories have limits, and the theory is not the phenomena. How are you going to define free will or determinism? You need to find a scope for a definition which implies that the definition will fail outside of the scope. As such, and any mechanistic model of a Complex System can at most be a tangent plane approximation of the system's behavior. And then you have to factor in the assumption that the system cannot be influenced by its observers. In the case of free will vs determinism you are essentially focusing the camera on the display, which is self referential - a feature that formal systems don't play nicely with.
