ellauri096.html on line 55: Michael Scriven (1964) tried to refute predictive determinism (the thesis that all events are foreseeable), by conjuring two players, “Predictor” who has all the data, laws, and calculating capacity needed to predict the choices of others. Scriven goes on to imagine, “Avoider”, whose dominant motivation is to avoid prediction. Therefore, Predictor must conceal his prediction. The catch is that Avoider has access to the same data, laws, and calculating capacity as Predictor. Thus Avoider can duplicate Predictor’s reasoning. Consequently, the optimal predictor cannot predict Avoider. Let the teacher be Avoider and the student be Predictor. Avoider must win. Therefore, it is possible to give a surprise test. This sounds silly. The Predictor can predict that the Avoider double guesses her. Both can fiture out that this will go on and on, until time runs out, and they still just sit on their asses doing nothing. Thing is, you must remember that the players are part of the game, not outside of it as idealists would have it.
ellauri096.html on line 57: Idealizing the teacher and student along the lines of Avoider and Predictor fails to solve the puzzle. It falsely presupposes that two equally super clever agents are co-possible. It is like asking ‘If Aku is smarter than Anu and Anu is smarter than Aku, which of the two is the smartest?’ Its like Abott and Costello going thru the door, after you, no after you, until in the end they, predictably, try to go thru it at once. There is no equilibrium in the game, so shit just happens.
2