It seems to come down to the simplicity measure... if you can have simplicity(Turing program P that generates lookup table T) < simplicity(compressed lookup table T)
then the Turing program P can be considered part of a scientific explanation... On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM, William Pearson <wil.pear...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2008/12/29 Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org>: > > > > Hi, > > > > I expanded a previous blog entry of mine on hypercomputation and AGI into > a > > conference paper on the topic ... here is a rough draft, on which I'd > > appreciate commentary from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject: > > > > http://goertzel.org/papers/CognitiveInformaticsHypercomputationPaper.pdf > > > I'm still a bit fuzzy about your argument. So I am going to ask a > question to hopefully clarify things somewhat. > > Couldn't you use similar arguments to say that we can't use science to > distinguish between finite state machines and Turing machines? And > thus question the usefulness of Turing Machines for science? As if you > are talking about a finite data sets these can always be represented > by a compressed giant look up table. > > Will > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx ------------------------------------------- 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
