Re: falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

Posted by gepr on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/falsifying-the-lost-opportunity-updating-mechanism-for-free-will-tp7597285p7597362.html

Do you mean "exogenous"? If so, I'm not asserting that it need be exogenous, only higher order. I.e. the composition of the distributions between 2 processes has to be a function of those distributions. In order for such a function to be a concrete mechanism, there has to be a mechanical memory of the entire distribution, which I think limits how Markovian it can be. This is part of why I talked about truncation in the original proposition. The scope of the composition function truncates the parts it ignores. And I can see how your river delta idea can be coerced to fit that. But I worry that it's too limiting and SteveS's comment about self-negating comes back into play. It's close to a strawman in that it'll obviously lack anything that even kindasorta looks like "free will".

On 6/22/20 12:46 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> In any
> case, I am unclear how the composition scope might need to be extraneous.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/