Live data from Hacker News

The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

rutherfordjournal.org

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#11
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if our mind were computational, we could detect if the universe was not.

Not really. You are still in the paradigm of computation. Detecting anything is signal processing. And if I am wrong about this - all the better! It is exactly the right kind of wrongness we need to progress science.

Let's say I have a computer that can only store 10 bits worth of information, but generates 100 bits of information. Then obviously the information cannot entirely originate in the computer.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#12
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. You are still in the paradigm of computation. Detecting anything is signal processing. And if I am wrong about this - all the better! It is exactly the right kind of wrongness we need to progress science.

Let's say I have a computer that can only store 10 bits worth of information, but generates 100 bits of information. Then obviously the information cannot entirely originate in the computer.

Sure it can. Compression. Kolmogorov complexity.

I don't need to 'store' the infinite set of natural numbers - that would require infinite space (memory).

But I can describe the infinite set in a single line of Python. Nat = lambda x=0: Nat(x+1)

It's just a space-time tradeoff.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#13
post #12
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I have a computer that can only store 10 bits worth of information, but generates 100 bits of information. Then obviously the information cannot entirely originate in the computer.

Sure it can. Compression. Kolmogorov complexity. I don't need to 'store' the infinite set of natural numbers - that would require infinite space (memory). But I can describe the infinite set in a single line of Python. Nat = lambda x=0: Nat(x+1) It's just a space-time tradeoff.

If the sequence isn't compressible, then you can eliminate that possibility.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#14
post #13
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it can. Compression. Kolmogorov complexity. I don't need to 'store' the infinite set of natural numbers - that would require infinite space (memory). But I can describe the infinite set in a single line of Python. Nat = lambda x=0: Nat(x+1) It's just a space-time tradeoff.

If the sequence isn't compressible, then you can eliminate that possibility.

You can never determine this with 100% certainty - that is what we have falsification for.

The non-compressibility of a sequence is a falsifiable claim.

All it takes is a single demonstration of successful compression.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#15
post #14
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the sequence isn't compressible, then you can eliminate that possibility.

You can never determine this with 100% certainty - that is what we have falsification for. The non-compressibility of a sequence is a falsifiable claim. All it takes is a single demonstration of successful compression.

for limited runtime you can

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#16
post #15
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can never determine this with 100% certainty - that is what we have falsification for. The non-compressibility of a sequence is a falsifiable claim. All it takes is a single demonstration of successful compression.

for limited runtime you can

So you were unable to compress the stream given the allocated time.

Perhaps you could've compressed it had you kept running for just a second longer?

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#17
post #16
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for limited runtime you can

So you were unable to compress the stream given the allocated time. Perhaps you could've compressed it had you kept running for just a second longer?

i mean run all the shorter bitstrings until time runs out or they terminate.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#18
post #17
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you were unable to compress the stream given the allocated time. Perhaps you could've compressed it had you kept running for just a second longer?

i mean run all the shorter bitstrings until time runs out or they terminate.

How does “time run out” in practice other than you putting an upper bound on your computation?

Obviously, the code will not halt until it compresses the stream successfully.

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#19
post #18
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i mean run all the shorter bitstrings until time runs out or they terminate.

How does “time run out” in practice other than you putting an upper bound on your computation? Obviously, the code will not halt until it compresses the stream successfully.

enumerate all bitstrings of length 10.

run them for N steps.

if none terminate on the target bitstring of length 100, then we've eliminated the computation hypothesis for 10 bits and N runtime

if we continue this approach and eliminate all the available storage and time available, then we eliminate the computation hypothesis altogether for our scenario

Re: The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010)

#20
post #19
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does “time run out” in practice other than you putting an upper bound on your computation? Obviously, the code will not halt until it compresses the stream successfully.

enumerate all bitstrings of length 10. run them for N steps. if none terminate on the target bitstring of length 100, then we've eliminated the computation hypothesis for 10 bits and N runtime if we continue this approach and eliminate all the available storage and time available, then we eliminate the computation hypothesis altogether for our scenario

You understand that "Number of bitstrings of length 10" is a function of the cardinality of your alphabet, right?

A binary alphabet has 2^10 such strings. A decimal alphabet has 10^10 such strings.

So before you can make the assertion you've made you first have to answer two question:

1. How many symbols does your alphabet contain? 2. How did you choose that number?

Down that path you arrive the Linear speedup theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_speedup_theorem

Post reply on HN