3 ms·

Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here. I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determin

Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here. I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determinism, given how obvious a deterministic universe becomes the more time you spend in computer science, and seem to insist there's some sort of metaphysical influence out there somewhere we'll never understand. There's not. Math is almost the definition of inevitability. Logic doubly so. Once there's a sophisticated enough human model to decipher our myriad of idiosyncrasies, we will all be relentlessly manipulated, because it is human nature to manipulate others. That future is absolutely inevitable. Might as well fall into the abyss with open arms and a smile.

chunky1994 10mo ago
But the world is not deterministic, inherently so. We know it's probabilistic at least at small enough scales. Most hidden variable theories have been disproven, and to the best of our current understanding the laws of the physical universe are probabsilitic in nature (i.e the Standard Model). So while we can probably come up with a very good probabilistic model of things that can happen, there is no perfect prediction, or rather, there cannot be
rando77 10mo ago
There is strong reason to expect evolution to have found a system that is complex and changing for its control system, for this very reason so it can't get easily gamed (and eaten).
mirrir 10mo ago
There is voodoo in begging the question though.
CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
>Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here. Idk if that's true. Navier–Stokes may yet be proven Turing-undecidable, meaning fluid dynamics are chaotic enough that we can never completely forecast them no matter how good our measurement is. Inside the model, the Navier–Stokes equations have at least one positive Lyapunov exponent. No quantum computer can out-run an exponential once the exponent is positive And even if we could measure every molecule with infintesimal resolution, the atmosphere is an open system injecting randomness faster than we can assimilate it. Probability densities shred into fractal filaments (butterfly effect) making pointwise prediction meaningless beyond the Lyapunov horizon
BobaFloutist 10mo ago
It's funny because a central tenet of quantum mechanics, that I find deeply frustrating, is "No determinism, sorry." So even as you chastise people for shying away from logically concluding the obvious, you're trusting your intuition over the scientific consensus. Which is fine, I've absolutely read theories or claims about quantum mechanics and said "Bullshit," safe in the knowledge that my belief or disbelief won't help or hinder scientific advancement or the operation of the universe, but I'd avoid being so publicly smug about it if I were you.
acituan 10mo ago
> I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determinism, given how obvious a deterministic universe becomes the more time you spend in computer science, and seem to insist there's some sort of metaphysical influence out there somewhere we'll never understand. There's not. You might be conflating determinism with causality. Determinism is a metaphysical stance too because it asserts absence of free will. Regardless of the philosophical nuance between the two, you are implicitly taking the vantage point of "god" or Laplace's Demon: infinite knowledge AND infinite computability based on that knowledge. Tech people ought to know that we can't compute our way out of combinatorial explosion. That we can't even solve for a simple 8x8 game called chess algorithmically. We are bound with framing choices and therefore our models will never be a lossless, unbiased compression of reality. Asserting otherwise is a metaphysical stance, implicitly claiming human agency can sum up to a "godlike", totalizing compute. In sum, models will never be sophisticated enough, claiming otherwise has always ended up being a form of totalitarianism, willful assertion one's favorite "framing", which inflicted a lot of pain in the past. What we need is computational humility. One good thing about tech interviews that it teaches people resource complexity of computation.
voidhorse 10mo ago
Welcome to the 1600s. If you start studying basically any field that isn't computer science you will in fact discover that the world is rife with randomness, and that the dreams of a Laplace or Bentham are probably unrealizable, even if we can get extremely close (but of course, if you constrain behavior in advance through laws and restraints, you've already made the job significantly easier). Thinking that reality runs like a clock is literally a centuries outdated view of reality.
_heimdall 10mo ago
Modeling will never be sophisticated enough to model the entire system. The question here isn't about determinism, the question is whether the universe could ever be modelled completely enough to understand and predict what may or may not be predetermined. Short of that level of modelling and understanding, determinism is based on belief or faith just like any other religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you must recognized it is only belief that can make one view any unproven understanding of the universe to be the true explanation for it.

chunky1994 10mo ago

But the world is not deterministic, inherently so. We know it's probabilistic at least at small enough scales. Most hidden variable theories have been disproven, and to the best of our current understanding the laws of the physical universe are probabsilitic in nature (i.e the Standard Model). So while we can probably come up with a very good probabilistic model of things that can happen, there is no perfect prediction, or rather, there cannot be

rando77 10mo ago

There is strong reason to expect evolution to have found a system that is complex and changing for its control system, for this very reason so it can't get easily gamed (and eaten).

mirrir 10mo ago

There is voodoo in begging the question though.

CGMthrowaway 10mo ago

>Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here. Idk if that's true. Navier–Stokes may yet be proven Turing-undecidable, meaning fluid dynamics are chaotic enough that we can never completely forecast them no matter how good our measurement is. Inside the model, the Navier–Stokes equations have at least one positive Lyapunov exponent. No quantum computer can out-run an exponential once the exponent is positive And even if we could measure every molecule with infintesimal resolution, the atmosphere is an open system injecting randomness faster than we can assimilate it. Probability densities shred into fractal filaments (butterfly effect) making pointwise prediction meaningless beyond the Lyapunov horizon

BobaFloutist 10mo ago

It's funny because a central tenet of quantum mechanics, that I find deeply frustrating, is "No determinism, sorry." So even as you chastise people for shying away from logically concluding the obvious, you're trusting your intuition over the scientific consensus. Which is fine, I've absolutely read theories or claims about quantum mechanics and said "Bullshit," safe in the knowledge that my belief or disbelief won't help or hinder scientific advancement or the operation of the universe, but I'd avoid being so publicly smug about it if I were you.

acituan 10mo ago

> I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determinism, given how obvious a deterministic universe becomes the more time you spend in computer science, and seem to insist there's some sort of metaphysical influence out there somewhere we'll never understand. There's not. You might be conflating determinism with causality. Determinism is a metaphysical stance too because it asserts absence of free will. Regardless of the philosophical nuance between the two, you are implicitly taking the vantage point of "god" or Laplace's Demon: infinite knowledge AND infinite computability based on that knowledge. Tech people ought to know that we can't compute our way out of combinatorial explosion. That we can't even solve for a simple 8x8 game called chess algorithmically. We are bound with framing choices and therefore our models will never be a lossless, unbiased compression of reality. Asserting otherwise is a metaphysical stance, implicitly claiming human agency can sum up to a "godlike", totalizing compute. In sum, models will never be sophisticated enough, claiming otherwise has always ended up being a form of totalitarianism, willful assertion one's favorite "framing", which inflicted a lot of pain in the past. What we need is computational humility. One good thing about tech interviews that it teaches people resource complexity of computation.

voidhorse 10mo ago

Welcome to the 1600s. If you start studying basically any field that isn't computer science you will in fact discover that the world is rife with randomness, and that the dreams of a Laplace or Bentham are probably unrealizable, even if we can get extremely close (but of course, if you constrain behavior in advance through laws and restraints, you've already made the job significantly easier). Thinking that reality runs like a clock is literally a centuries outdated view of reality.

_heimdall 10mo ago

Modeling will never be sophisticated enough to model the entire system. The question here isn't about determinism, the question is whether the universe could ever be modelled completely enough to understand and predict what may or may not be predetermined. Short of that level of modelling and understanding, determinism is based on belief or faith just like any other religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you must recognized it is only belief that can make one view any unproven understanding of the universe to be the true explanation for it.