This just seems to speak to foolishness of modeling overly complex things, not
whether complex things can choose their physical basis and could do otherwise.
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 12:43 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [
Let's say that understanding neural enzyme catalysis is vexing because the
molecular modeling is too expensive. Does the scientist hide behind
computational complexity or devise experiments to tighten the hyperdimensional
ball radius?
It seems to me the burden needs to be on the person making
Right. But no matter how falsified the model, making all models perfect won't
be possible (unless the modeling component is The One perfect inferencer in the
universe, ala Wolpert). So there will always be a truncation error on all (or
the overwhelming majority of) models. And how the modeling
The philosophy of free will depends on having a hard minimum threshold radius
on that high dimensional ball. Empirical evidence can then drive past that
threshold to falsify models that assume such a threshold. For illustration, one
might ablate the Anterior Cingulate Cortex of an objectionable
There is a type of rule related to error (as opposed to randomness) or
precision. One part may approximate another part if there's some rule about how
accurate is accurate enough. As long as the wiggle (random or not) is within
some high dimensional ball, the model's good enough. Slight variati
I don't think that multi-mode input is important to the discussion. I was just
trying to get that out of the way as a valid topic of discussion. Literally
just a different way to use symbols.
One of the objections to superdeterminism is the impossibility of science,
supposedly due to a lack of
Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. I can't help but wonder where the
scaffolding platforms are in the composition from, say, a protozoan up to a
human. It would be counterintuitive if it were a smooth scale. I.e. a
paramecium has just a tiny bit of choice, a nematode has a bit more, etc.
This was in a way the point I was arguing a while back, and the reason I
repeated it now.
Marcus asked (two days ago) in rhetorical mode whether, if the MLs didn’t only
exchange characters of text, but also had cameras and some other modes of
input, what wouldn’t we grant them? (It was more th
