Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

2013-10-06 Thread LizR
Thanks. I have a feeling I have already read this but will have a look.
(Admittedly I haven't finished the other one yet...)


On 5 October 2013 15:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 We did talk about this paper about a year ago - maybe on foar.

 I agree its interesting, though.


 On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
  Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson,
  which I think is more interesting than the one on Knightian freedom.
  It's also quite long (58pg). Section 4 is most relevant to AI and
  Turing tests.
 
  arXiv:1108.1791v3 [cs.CC] 14 Aug 2011
 
  Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity
  Scott Aaronson
  *
  Abstract
  One might think that, once we know something is computable, how
 efficiently
  it can be com- puted is a practical question with little further
 philosophical importa
  nce. In this essay, I offer a detailed case that one would be wrong.
  In particular, I argue that
  computational complexity theory--the field that studies the
  resources (such as time, space, and ra
  ndomness) needed to solve computational problems--leads to new
 perspectives on the nature
  of mathematical knowledge, the strong AI debate, computationalism, the
 problem of logical omn
  iscience, Hume's problem of induction, Goodman's grue riddle, the
 foundations of quantum mech
  anics, economic rationality, closed timelike curves, and several
  other topics of philosophical int erest. I end by discussing aspects
  of complexity theory itself that could benefit from philosop hical
  analysis.
 
  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1791.pdf
 
  Brent
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

2013-10-04 Thread Russell Standish
We did talk about this paper about a year ago - maybe on foar.

I agree its interesting, though.


On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson,
 which I think is more interesting than the one on Knightian freedom.
 It's also quite long (58pg). Section 4 is most relevant to AI and
 Turing tests.
 
 arXiv:1108.1791v3 [cs.CC] 14 Aug 2011
 
 Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity
 Scott Aaronson
 *
 Abstract
 One might think that, once we know something is computable, how efficiently
 it can be com- puted is a practical question with little further 
 philosophical importa
 nce. In this essay, I offer a detailed case that one would be wrong.
 In particular, I argue that
 computational complexity theory--the field that studies the
 resources (such as time, space, and ra
 ndomness) needed to solve computational problems--leads to new perspectives 
 on the nature
 of mathematical knowledge, the strong AI debate, computationalism, the 
 problem of logical omn
 iscience, Hume's problem of induction, Goodman's grue riddle, the foundations 
 of quantum mech
 anics, economic rationality, closed timelike curves, and several
 other topics of philosophical int erest. I end by discussing aspects
 of complexity theory itself that could benefit from philosop hical
 analysis.
 
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1791.pdf
 
 Brent
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.