On 15 Sep 2011, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that make
the simulation hypothesis possible.
But this is really astonishing, and in quasi-contradiction which what
you say above. We just don't know any phenomena which are not Turing
emulable. As a theorician, but only as a theorician, I can show the
theoretical existence of non simulable phenomena, but that really
exists only in theory, or in mathematics. Worst, most non simulable
phenomena will be non distinguishable from randomness, and if we are
machine, we will never been able to recognize a non Turing emulable
phenomenon as such. It seems that the question is more like "how can
we believe something non Turing emulable could exist in Nature".
Let me repeat your statement: "We just don't know any phenomena
which are not Turing emulable." I am not sure that it is so evident.
Ah? You have a counter-exemple?
As I have written, the simulation hypothesis just does not work in
practice.
I don't understand what that means.
Hence your statement cannot be deduced just from empirical studies,
it is already based on some beliefs.
All statement on reality based on empirical (or not) is based on some
beliefs. I try to minimize the starting beliefs.
Let me quote for example Laughlin (A Different Universe, The
Emergent Age)
"The transition to the Age of Emergence brings to an end the myth of
the absolute power of mathematics. This myth is still entrenched in
our culture, unfortunately, a fact revealed routinely in the press
and popular publications promoting the search for ultimate laws as
the only scientific activity worth pursuing, notwithstanding massive
and overwhelming experimental evidence that exactly the opposite is
the case."
This witness a deep misunderstanding of mathematics. Mathematics
single out our absolute modesty. It is not an instrument of power, it
is a realm of exploration, and we know about nothing about it.
The search for ultimate laws is what interest us, independently of the
nature of math and reality. You can't argue against a taste or a
passion.
Of course there are other path, like mediation, self-observation, art,
the plant. Those are not incompatible. But in science, math is both a
useful simplifying tool and an object of infinite exploration, and
delightful surprises.
In fact, the very age of emergence can be dated from Gödel 1931, which
contains the premisse that the whole of math is not enough to
understand what emerge in arithmetic from inside. After Gödel we know
that there are typhoon in Platonia.
Laughlin expose only its reductive view of math, but it is not his
fault, math is not really taught at school, and the actual teaching
perverts it and disgusts people from it. What a pity!
Bruno
Evgenii
After all, "Human brain is similar to the Nelder-Mead simplex
method. It often gets stuck in local optima."
That can happen. But I am not sure it can makes sense to doubt about
mechanism. You need to study hard mathematical theories to even
conceive non-comp. Non-comp seems possible in theory, and has an
important role in the epistemology of machines, but in nature and
physics, it simply does not exist. It might even be a reason to doubt
comp, because comp might predict the existence of more non computable
phenomena that what we "see" in nature (basically the personal
outcome of self-superposition).
Also, the UD simulates not just the computable phenomena, but also
the non-computable, yet computable, with respect to oracles, and this
is even more complex to verify for a 'natural' phenomenon.
The winning physical histories/computations are those who are very
long and deep, and are symmetrical and linear at the bottom,
apparently, but this must be extracted from addition and
multiplication, and it is partially done with the gifts of
distinguishing the truth (about a machine), and the many modalities:
the observable, the feelable, the communicable, the provable, the
believable, the knowable, etc (with reasonable modal axiomatics and
their arithmetical realization.
The ideally correct universal machine has a particularly rich and
intriguing theology, which is made refutable, because that theology
contains its physics. So we can compare with nature, and if comp is
false, we can measure our degree of non computationalism.
Best,
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
