garbageactual's Shortform

post by garbageactual · 2021-06-28T00:52:19.226Z · LW · GW · 11 comments

11 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by garbageactual · 2021-07-30T02:53:36.073Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed

Replies from: Viliam, TAG
↑ comment by Viliam · 2021-07-30T12:51:40.796Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You could use the random number generator to return a sequence of random characters. If they happen to be words that describe a thing you might possibly do, obey them, otherwise generate another sequence.

This removes the burden of having to list all your choices, including the ones about buying pokemons.

(But creates a new problem of what exactly is a meaningful command. For example, "go", without specifying where exactly to go; are you free to simply go to the place of your choice, or do you have to re-roll?)

Replies from: garbageactual
↑ comment by garbageactual · 2021-07-30T17:35:06.603Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed

Replies from: TAG
↑ comment by TAG · 2021-07-30T18:10:55.347Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The procedure of putting each item down comes with your promise that you WILL do it should it come up.

Why?

↑ comment by TAG · 2021-07-30T08:34:11.741Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Your brain can't contain an infinite list or branching diagram of choices, because it's finite. I have no idea why you think such a list us the only alternative to omnipotence. You are not omniscient either, so you can only make choices between the limited amount of ideas your brain can come up with. Why shouldn't an undetermined choice between two things count as free?

Replies from: garbageactual
↑ comment by garbageactual · 2021-07-30T17:28:31.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed

Replies from: TAG
↑ comment by TAG · 2021-07-30T18:04:48.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I’m not convinced immediate-omniscience is a necessary condition of Free Will, only eventual-omniscience is. As in, the number of choices you’re presented with needs to eventually accumulate to infinity,

..if you live infinitely long, but you don't. You need to show that the branching reaches infinity in a finite time. (Or you have a finite set of branches which somehow include something that requires omnipotence...?)

Did you mean “why should” here?

No.

Replies from: garbageactual
comment by garbageactual · 2021-07-27T20:02:24.802Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed

Replies from: Pattern, Josephine, zac-hatfield-dodds
↑ comment by Pattern · 2021-07-28T02:52:55.268Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Any sufficiently advanced magic, is an absolute pain to replicate with technology (even if it looks very easy).

Take walking for example, or just making a robot that can pour a glass of wine like a normal person.

↑ comment by Josephine · 2021-07-30T05:53:57.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is (one of the versions of) Niven's Law.