In the day I would be reminded of those men and women,
Brave, setting up signals across vast distances,
Considering a nameless way of living, of almost unimagined values.
- Do not say a thing which you would not have said if the other person had all the information you had
- Do not do that which you don't wish to say you did, unless you also wish that the other person wouldn't have wanted you to say it if they knew what it was
- If you can predict you will do a thing, then either deliberately intend to do that thing or find a way to change your prediction
- Say a thing which you would regret not having said if the other person knew you could say it
- If P is true conditional on you believing P is true, then believe P is true iff P being true is good
I'm confused. (As in, actually confused. The following should hopefwly point at what pieces I'm missing in order to understand what you mean by a "problem" for the notion.)
I don't really get why this would be a problem. I mean, "agency" is an abstraction, and every abstraction becomes predictably useless once you can compute the lower layer perfectly, at least if you assume compute is cheap. Balloons!
Imagine you've never seen a helium balloon before, and you see it slowly soaring to the sky. You could have predicted this by using a few abstractions like density of gases and Archimedes' principle. Alternatively, if you had the resources, you could make the identical prediction (with inconsequentially higher precision) by extrapolating from the velocities and weights of all the individual molecules, and computed that the sum of forces acting on the bottom of the balloon exceeds the sum acting on the top. I don't see how the latter being theoretically possible implies a "problem" for abstractions like "density" and "Archimedes' principle".