> In contrast, the originally worded question "Is f computable" is a modally invalid question, analogous to the Sleeping Beauty or Red Envelope paradoxes. It's

> In contrast, the originally worded question "Is f computable" is a modally invalid question, analogous to the Sleeping Beauty or Red Envelope paradoxes. It's like, grammatically incorrect. I don't think these paradoxes are relevant here. They only highlight a fact that application of the pure mathematical notion of probability to the actual reality is sometimes a non-trivial process. It's not a surprise, if you think of it the fact that the probability theory works _at all_ when applied to reality is extremely puzzling and has been a subject of various scientific and philosophical inquiries (see "probability interpretations"). Now the resolution you propose ("would" f be) doesn't seem to resolve anything. The purpose of "god" question is to force the reader to abstract away from a particular P-NP problem and understand that the whole concept of computability is useless for constant functions. So what you suggest is helpful only if you could also apply it to the original P-NP question, which I don't see so far. How the modalities approach come into play here, for a well-defined mathematical question?