If determinism is true why is a infallible prediction machine a paradox? The scientist is just a meat puppet so he should have stayed quiet like a good little cuck and the guy would have said "red"
>>17040582Deterministic doesn't mean predictable
are you not the product of past and laws of nature
>>17040582there are three prediction machines in the picture
Even if our universe followed completely predictable, game of life style rules, you couldn't simulate it perfectly and predict the future. You can't know the current universe state in order to feed it into the simulation. Matter outside our light cone is not visible to us. We can't even accurately measure the locations of all particles in something on Earth. The simulation would also require more matter than the universe it's simulating, as the universe can cheat and just gets to follow the laws of physics for free for each particle. We would need to calculate manually. You see the problems now?
>>17040622just let each particle do its own computing, it can tell the other particles where it is with gravity and trade energy with light
>>17040622Oh, and you'd need to have perfect knowledge of the real laws of physics. There is no requirement that the real laws are human friendly, or the constants involved have a non-significant number of digits. We can only experimentally derive the laws and constants the universe uses. Our Pi must needs be base10'ed and real'ed when calculating on a processor. The universe can just use the real thing.
>>17040625Ok, go ahead, I can tell you know what you're talking about. Teach protons to compute.
>>17040628the interacting fields create & alter algorithms on the fly, the math does itself
The Particle Cascade Prediction is what I want to see..
>>17040582That's not a paradox. It only demonstrates the impossibility of reliably and accurately communicating that prediction to an adversarial actor. An infallible machine would essentially be tasked with giving a response which results in a "winning" Nash equilibrium where the subject has no recourse but to give the same response as the machine. But when the "game" is simply:>machine says A>subject responds !AThen I don't believe such a response exists unless the machine is allowed to give a qualifier like "the timeline where he says 'red' is the one where he happens to win the lottery so that's what he'll pick if he's not stupid."
>>17040582>>17040585you guys seriously cant be this stupid
>>17040646OP probably isn't but in case he is the first post predictably destroyed him
I swear to God if one more nigger makes a determinism thread...
>>17040582Actually he will say red because if the prediction machine would really work(It is a hypothetical, so it must work) it would modify the environment in a way that it has a predictable outcome.
>>17040723What happens if I just put a photoresistor and a linear actuator in front of the button?
>>17040582>cartoon christian boy is a contrarian>in before he isn't>akshually he is, followed by some small contrarian pointI could go on
>>17040782it never lights on
>>17040776Not even that. The guy would just say red
