/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12163484
>It's definitely not what usually happens and I have reasons to believe the thought experiment is not relevant to us making choices in general, namely that people don't behave in insanely random and unpredictable way.
First of all, by random here we mean simply unpredictable. Random behavior does not have to be insane or lacking basic human self-control or agency. A human's behavior might look completely orderly to another human but when it comes to describing the behavior in terms of smaller particles by laws of physics it will be impossible, i.e. in terms of physics it could be random. That's my whole point.
Indeed, if I described my quantum experiment to someone else the would not view me as insane or lacking basic self-control and agency. Nothing of the sort. This experiment would be a completely rational and interesting action to perform. I do not need to be insane to perform such an experiment. It's simply that my actions cannot be accounted for by laws of physics. It's random when viewed through the lens of physics.
This goes to show that randomness in physics is disconnected from what in large-scale life we describe as random, insane, disordered. My action might be completely rational and go according to all my beliefs, but when it comes to describing it in terms of my particles through physics, it could be impossible to do, i.e. seemingly random.
>So I fail to see the point of this thought experiment.
The point is to prove that a general Laplace's demon or anything of the sort is impossible, even theoretically, given our current understanding of laws of physics. To show that quantum effects are not restricted to small scale, and can indeed have massive influence on our regular-scale life.
>Would the predictors ability to predict be improved if he considered you a person making choices, rather than just a collection of atoms under this thought experiment?
Perhaps, I see no obstruction to this.
<...>