One more time: the proof of Occam's Razor depends on whether the universe is computable by a Turing machine. It does not depend on whether the universe is computable by a machine that we could actually build. I never claimed it was practical to do all of science by simulating physics.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] "the universe is computable" ..PS > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:20 PM > Matt, > > What Mike is saying here may sound odd, but I think there > is a > reasonable way of interpreting it in light of the article > Richard > Loosemore posted in a recent thread (New Scientist: > "Why nature can't > be reduced to mathematical laws"). So, Mike is > entirely correct here > if we interpret the "potential" he is referring > to as the abstractions > that engineers *must* use to explore the space of possible > designs. In > other words: facts about the concrete universe could be > entirely > determinate, yet even the most concrete-seeming abstract > model could > contain logical indeterminacy. (How you *interpret* this > indeterminacy, that is, constructively or classically, is > of course > another issue.) > > --Abram > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Matt Mahoney > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> What are the shapes/forms (and range of > shapes/forms) of > >> atoms? > > > > The shapes are given by solving Schrodinger's > equation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation > > > >> And how would you or physics derive the properties > of > >> different materials from these shapes? > > > > By solving the equation for millions of atoms on a > very large computer. Computing chemical and physical > properties has never been done this way because > unfortunately the computation time increases exponentially > with the number of particles. > > > >> where will the S&P 500 > >> be at the end of Tuesday? > > > > Sorry, I would need a computer much bigger than the > universe to compute that (and it probably wouldn't > finish running by Tuesday). > > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
