On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that **there is no way for science to ever establish the existence of a nonalgorithmic process**, because science deals only with finite sets of finite-precision measurements.
I suppose it would be more accurate to state that every process we can detect is algorithmic within the scope of our ability to measure it. Like with belief in god(s) and similar, the point can then be raised as to why we need to invent non-algorithmic processes when ordinary algorithmic processes are sufficient to explain everything we see. Non-algorithmic processes very conveniently have properties identical to the "supernatural", and so I treat them similarly. This is just another incarnation of the old "unpredictable versus random" discussions.
Sure, non-algorithmic processes could be running the mind machinery, but then so could elves, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and many other things that it is not necessary to invoke at this time. Absent the ability to ever detect such things and lacking the necessity of such explanations, I file non-algorithmic processes with vast number of other explanatory memes of woo-ness of which humans are fond.
Like the old man once said, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".
Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
