But defecting in this case, I claim, is totally crazy. Why? Because absent some kind of computer malfunction, both of you will make the same choice, as a matter of logical necessity.
Is this definitely true when you take into account quantum randomness? Maybe it is, but, if so, I think it might be worth explaining why.
I’m imagining computers with sufficiently robust hardware to function deterministically at the software level, in the sense of very reliably performing the same computation, even if there’s quantum randomness at a lower level. Imagine two good-quality calculators, manufactured by the same factory using the same process, which add together the same two numbers using the same algorithm, and hence very reliably move through the same high-level memory states and output the same answer. If quantum randomness makes them output different answers, I count that as a “malfunction.”
OK thanks, and I have read through now and seen that you discuss randomness in section 4.
Overall a very interesting read! Out of interest, is this idea of “acausal control” entirely novel or has it/something similar been discussed by others?
Not sure exactly what words people have used, but something like this idea is pretty common in the non-CDT literature, and I think e.g. MIRI explicitly talks about “controlling” things like your algorithm.
I haven’t read the whole post, but:
Is this definitely true when you take into account quantum randomness? Maybe it is, but, if so, I think it might be worth explaining why.
I’m imagining computers with sufficiently robust hardware to function deterministically at the software level, in the sense of very reliably performing the same computation, even if there’s quantum randomness at a lower level. Imagine two good-quality calculators, manufactured by the same factory using the same process, which add together the same two numbers using the same algorithm, and hence very reliably move through the same high-level memory states and output the same answer. If quantum randomness makes them output different answers, I count that as a “malfunction.”
OK thanks, and I have read through now and seen that you discuss randomness in section 4.
Overall a very interesting read! Out of interest, is this idea of “acausal control” entirely novel or has it/something similar been discussed by others?
Not sure exactly what words people have used, but something like this idea is pretty common in the non-CDT literature, and I think e.g. MIRI explicitly talks about “controlling” things like your algorithm.