Algotrader and software engineer

Livestreams irregularly at https://twitch.tv/CodingAndCoffee

Shitposts and memes at @CodingAndCoffee@mastodon.social

  • 8 Posts
  • 50 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle








  • Yeah, I’ve thought about this a little bit but again my math isn’t so strong.

    I guess approaching this more from computer science (something I’m more familiar with) you could compare with stuff like the NP Hard class of problems. And thus I offer that unproveable does not mean “wrong”. We generally “know” that P=NP is wrong but we cannot prove it only because we lack omniscience. Us lacking the information (in the physics sense of the word i.e. Hawking radiation) doesn’t mean the information isn’t there to be quantified.









  • I like this take, but it also makes me feel like I could do a better job describing the intent of my question in more scientific terms. I hope to do so, here.

    If one were to have sufficiently advanced technology akin to future MRI machines that could image the state of the human brain at Planck time resolution, my argument is that the very process of “a decision” (act, choice, idea, etc.) could be quantified. And if that is the case, then there must be chemical triggers and causal events that could have predicted that state of the matter and energy. And if that’s the case, then we must really be products of our environment in an (currently) incomprehensibly large chemistry equation.

    If any one decision could be quantized, reverse engineered, and then predicted through such means, then it stands to reason every decision can be. And if that’s the case, free will cannot exist.