Originally posted by KazetNagorra At least, this is what I learned when I applied my iota of intellectual capacity to studying quantum physics and Bell's inequality from my armchair.
😵 Am I supposed to be impressed?
Does that iota then make you admit that this is wrong?
It does not exist. The universe is undeterministic, which prohibits such a function from existing.
Forget about the final example; I can't think of anything simpler than lexicographic order on the reals. The chess thing I have in mind works, I think, but is is even more unwieldy than the previous examples and I don't really want to write it down unless someone genuinely does not understand the real lexicographic thing. Instead, I'll ask a question:
Is there some part of theory which deals with putting preference-orders on sets of preference-orders on some set, etc.?
I promise I am asking this for non-topologically-masturbatory reasons. I wonder how "meta-preferences" like that might be useful in modelling consensus, and preferences which change over time (which smells relevant to behaviour-predicting).
Originally posted by Palynka 😵 Am I supposed to be impressed?
Does that iota then make you admit that this is wrong?
It does not exist. The universe is undeterministic, which prohibits such a function from existing.
Hmm, well maybe it's not wrong. If you consider quantum events like getting cancer, these type of events have an enourmous impact on decision making, not just for a single person but potentially for mankind as a whole. For example, if Hitler would have gotten cancer at age 20, I probably would not exist or would be making different decisions. It's hard to see how you could model this in practise, taking into account all the different possibilities.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Hmm, well maybe it's not wrong. If you consider quantum events like getting cancer, these type of events have an enourmous impact on decision making, not just for a single person but potentially for mankind as a whole. For example, if Hitler would have gotten cancer at age 20, I probably would not exist or would be making different decisions. It's hard ...[text shortened]... see how you could model this in practise, taking into account all the different possibilities.
How do "quantum events", or any sort of nondeterminism, prevent an embedding (wrt the order topology) of a connected, separable linearly ordered set into the reals, which is the type of function whose existence is being discussed? Presumably determinism (or its absence) becomes an issue later, when we start to use this function, since "determinism" doesn't even have a meaning in the context of order theory and topology, which context is the only one on which Palynka's presentation has relied thus far.
Why not criticise the parts of the theory that have already been presented, instead of basically dooming your criticisms to imprecision before you even make them? Later, when the issues you want to discuss actually arise in a well-formulated way, it will be possible to discuss them meaningfully.
Originally posted by ChronicLeaky How do "quantum events", or any sort of nondeterminism, prevent an embedding (wrt the order topology) of a connected, separable linearly ordered set into the reals, which is the type of function whose existence is being discussed? Presumably determinism (or its absence) becomes an issue later, when we start to use this function, since "determinism" doe ...[text shortened]... actually arise in a well-formulated way, it will be possible to discuss them meaningfully.
I'm not sure about the cardinality of the infinite set you'd get. Maybe it's higher than the reals, maybe it's not. In any case, indeterminism rules out any possible practical application, were one to succeed in constructing such a function. Determinism is an issue because any decision making requires a finite amount of time, during which randomness inevitably occurs.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I'm not sure about the cardinality of the infinite set you'd get. Maybe it's higher than the reals, maybe it's not. In any case, indeterminism rules out any possible practical application, were one to succeed in constructing such a function. Determinism is an issue because any decision making requires a finite amount of time, during which randomness inevitably occurs.
Lol, you really are desperate.
We've addressed some issues regarding cardinality earlier on and established the conditions a set requires in order for such a function to exist. If you had (could?) read, you'd know them.
The presence of stochasticity is not a problem here because there is strong persistence in preferences, which creates a window for models of human behaviour (which is the question here). Your argument rests on the assumption (whether you recognize it or not) that stochasticity implies any decision is white noise. This is patently false, as I've mentioned before.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra The way I understood it, one of the ways (not sure there are more) to get cancer is if an incoming photon damages the DNA of a human cell.
In that case (almost) everything is a quantum event... 🙄
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I'm not sure about the cardinality of the infinite set you'd get. Maybe it's higher than the reals, maybe it's not. In any case, indeterminism rules out any possible practical application, were one to succeed in constructing such a function. Determinism is an issue because any decision making requires a finite amount of time, during which randomness inevitably occurs.
You missed the point. I'm not talking about indeterminism at all, because I don't know about the theory Palynka is presenting. The discussion has not yet progressed to a point where determinism is even an issue; if you'd read the earlier posts, you'd know that so far we have only discussed the circumstances under which a specific type of function with one specific property -- unrelated to time, in finite amounts or otherwise -- exists. Please like maybe hold those horses of yours so that Palynka can keep presenting the theory instead of getting bogged down in your premature extrapolations.
31 Jan '09 19:121 edit
Its A Question Of Science
Back to Top