Zhodani without Psi

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Drifter

But if your movements, choices, votes can be statistically predicted, is that still free will?

"your" being the important word. My individual actions or time of death cannot be predicted, only how a large body of humans will act on average or average life expectancy.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

"your" being the important word. My individual actions or time of death cannot be predicted, only how a large body of humans will act on average or average life expectancy.

It's like how unpredictable single molecules of water are, yet we can be pretty sure when the pot of water as a whole boils.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

"your" being the important word. My individual actions or time of death cannot be predicted, only how a large body of humans will act on average or average life expectancy.

I'm thinking in the game/future/super science sense. I don't believe we can or will be able to predict with absolute certainty the action of anything (Heisenberg), but we can get pretty close.

In a game sense this can be a) scary for characters, and if handled correctly, for players, and b) boring and frustrating, if not handled correctly.

Spending time on crowded freeways I often think about how fluid dynamics probably predicts where some unlucky shmuck is going to rear-end someone else and cause a backup for miles. Just try not to be the unlucky schmuck.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Drifter

I'm thinking in the game/future/super science sense. I don't believe we can or will be able to predict with absolute certainty the action of anything (Heisenberg), but we can get pretty close.

In a game sense this can be a) scary for characters, and if handled correctly, for players, and b) boring and frustrating, if not handled correctly.

Spending time on crowded freeways I often think about how fluid dynamics probably predicts where some unlucky shmuck is going to rear-end someone else and cause a backup for miles. Just try not to be the unlucky schmuck.

Quantum physics doesn't matter that much for macroscopic reality. That's why it's so counter intuitive.
The real problem with predicting say the behavior of a human being isn't in the physics. It's in knowing every aspect of thier past and present.
How will I vote in a jury on a cop accused of a crime? You may learn that my father was a police officer. But you don't know that I met far too many of his bad coworkers to assume either way.
Or a priest accused of a crime? I'm very vocal about my distaste for religion. But my father and my best friend of over 14 years were Christian.

Unkowable in a practical sense is not random or unknowable in the philosophical sense.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The real problem with predicting say the behavior of a human being isn't in the physics. It's in knowing every aspect of thier past and present.

Actually, there's a problem that prevents accurate prediction even if you know: the person you're trying to predict may have information about the prediction mechanism, which tends to create examples of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Actually, there's a problem that prevents accurate prediction even if you know: the person you're trying to predict may have information about the prediction mechanism, which tends to create examples of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Any predictative program complex enough to deal with human behavior must be far too complex for any individuals to understand and predict.

[rust]

I am not even able to predict my own behaviour in all situations with absolute
certainty, there are just too many conscious and subconscious variables which
influence my decisions at any moment, and unless the situation in question is
a routine one, I am quite able to surprise myself and to wonder afterwards why
I did what I did. Attempting to predict the behaviour of another person in all
situations with any degree of certainty seems completely impossible to me.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It is news to me that the existence of dragons was ever seriously considered. Psi was for a while so I class it more with the jungles of Venus.

Well, dragons would be kinda, well, big. And visible. Not to mention hungry.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by rust

I am not even able to predict my own behaviour in all situations with absolute
certainty, there are just too many conscious and subconscious variables which
influence my decisions at any moment, and unless the situation in question is
a routine one, I am quite able to surprise myself and to wonder afterwards why
I did what I did. Attempting to predict the behaviour of another person in all
situations with any degree of certainty seems completely impossible to me.

Thus the super science 'ooo aaaah' aspect of this sort of game situation.

Then again a lot of human behavior is instinctual and ultimately predicatable. The million billion variables that effect it can be accounted for - by a AI wtih the motivation.

So AI assisted predictions to a individual level would be pretty close to mind reading and prognostication, if the AI didn't bother to tell you how it does it. Clarks Law has been noticable in its absence in these threads - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Well, dragons would be kinda, well, big. And visible. Not to mention hungry.

And leave big piles of dragon poop.

Beyond the mystic aspect nobody took dragons seriously.