3 ms·
I've thought of free-will as related to computational complexity. A complex (e.g. NP-hard) problem is one that cannot be solved by an algorithm significantly s
by fizx 16y ago
I've thought of free-will as related to computational complexity. A complex (e.g. NP-hard) problem is one that cannot be solved by an algorithm significantly simpler than brute force. Analogously, a "free-willed" human's actions cannot be modelled by anything significantly simpler than a full simulation of the human and its environment.
This definition hinges on predictability, not determinism. You can have a 'free-willed" human in a fully deterministic world, if no one has the computational power to predict his actions.
- joshuacc 16y agoI assume that "free-willed" in this case is being used ironically?
- jberryman 16y agoThat's interesting. It seems to me that rather than talking about NP-hard computation, you could say that free will is analogous to the undecidability of the halting problem. That is we can say that we have free will because the hypothetical act of predicting someone's future actions is equivalent to simply having their brain decide (i.e. running the computation)
- fizx 16y agoYeah, I'm not sure what the exactly correct formulation is. Your formulation may retain the spirit, but be more technically correct. I guess the important point is that I like to define free will as "the ability to make a decision faster than any available entity can predict the result of the decision." A computer running a some program doesn't have free will, because I can beat it to its own decision with more or faster computers. Also, I can force it to solve problems to which I already know the answer. Interestingly, I may have free will today, but "lose" it tomorrow, when a sufficiently advanced simulation of my mind is released.
- Qz 16y agoExcept that the whole point of this theorem is that a free-willed human implies a non fully deterministic world.
- philwelch 16y agoWhich is itself a matter of severe philosophical contention.