4 ms·
> Thus I think the element that's incompatible with closed timelike curves is intentional thinking itself. Interesting. I think I followed you.. Expanding on
by studentrob 11y ago
> Thus I think the element that's incompatible with closed timelike curves is intentional thinking itself.
Interesting. I think I followed you.. Expanding on that,
We do not know for certain whether intentional thinking exists or if everything is fated. We do not know if true randomness exists. Our intuition says both intentional thinking and randomness do exist, yet there may or may not ever be a science that proves this.
- joe_the_user 11y agoActually, I think science, quantum mechanic in particular, points to hard randomness being an inherent part of the physical laws. On the other hand, I don't think you need any really specific physical laws to have intentional thinking - I would say that any computer program that works with tree search, alphoGo or even much simpler alpha-beta pruners, is going to be engaging in intentional thinking on a level where they act in the present to attain their most desirable outcome in the future - and if that future somehow loops back to the present then the only stable situation is one where the intentional-thinker's efforts are thwarted or otherwise stabilized - ie, the only stable solution is artificially constructed for the instance of the closed causation loop.