Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

ergo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#151

Post by GoblinSlayer »

voidhorse wrote: post #98
jibal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked for proof of claims and I just get "it absolutely does" and a bunch more assertions, and word salad like "the validity of the scientific method is ultimately a metaphysical extension of our intuitions about inductive reasoning and causality" -- there's nothing "metaphysical" about it ... the scientific method is a disciplined application of an effective process of discovery. And '"Our intuitions" is why I sai…

There is no single "scientific method" to speak of. Your epistemic position is ultimately just as faith based as you claim faith in God etc. is, the sciences (plural) just have a set of operations which, as you point out, seem to have practical utility and seem to be better than certain alternatives for building up shared epistemic structure. The attitude of "we can't do better" is precisely the kind of attitude that…

Agnosticism is an example that nobody wants a theory that works but not empirically. If a theory works, then it must work empirically, in this sense empiricism is tautological.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#152

Post by Diogenesian »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #150
Diogenesian wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science absolutely does depend on metaphysics. Most famously: the validity of the scientific method is ultimately a metaphysical extension of our intuitions about inductive reasoning and causality. There is no scientific proof that the scientific method is valid. ("Our intuitions" is why I said metaphysics is tautologically the domain of humans. This is essentially Kant's philosophical legacy: science will describe w…

Isn't it obvious that scientific method is fallible? It's just statistically better than pure reason, which should be possible to demonstrate statistically. It's a product of trial and error, and there were many errors, I don't think there's much metaphysics there.

The problem is not that it's fallible, but that there's no noncircular explanation for why it seems to work. Inductive reasoning doesn't have a rational explanation, only an intuitive one.

I don't think your claim is possible to prove statistically - what does "pure reason" mean? And of course it's "pure reason + empirical observations": even if they're not running reproducible experiments they still see natural phenomena.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#153

Post by GoblinSlayer »

RandomLensman wrote: post #106
peter_m1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a quantum Turing Machine as radioactivity is a quantum process.

How would that work as current understanding from quantum theory is that we cannot predict which atom decays next? Is there a quantum algorithm that can do that?

The decay process is calculated as

sqrt(1-exp(-t/T))|1> + sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#154

Post by GoblinSlayer »

peter_m1 wrote: post #110
sgt101 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, if our universe is undecidable it must be the case that computable processes can be executed within it, and it might be the case that all of the processes that are ever executed within it are computable... but it might be that some of the processes that are executed are not computable... because the machine may.. or may not?

Quantum mechanics is intrinsically probabilistic.

Deterministic processes can be modeled probabilistically and are computable, so existence of a probabilistic model doesn't say much about computability.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#155

Post by voidhorse »

pegasus wrote: post #145
voidhorse wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but my point is that "information" is not really a substantive concept. It is an abstraction. It is a useful technical tool. For the record, I am a nominalist when it comes to mathematics. Thinking that information is some "real thing" with meaning independent of theoretical context and interpreters is a definitely Platonisist perspective (the idea that our mathematical representations are not merely useful tec…

This stance is very tempting because it appears so straightforward and no-nonsense. But there are issues which undermine it in my mind. Because, at a closer inspection, it itself doesn't seem informative, in the end coming down to a question of semantics, i.e. how we define the word "reality". Which then determines whether it encompasses the realm of mathematics or not. I wonder what definition you favor, but the lan…

Let me try again. We use miles to measure distance. Hopefully you agree with me that, miles, being a system of measurement to express relationships of distance, have no ontological existence themselves. I would find it completely bizarre, for example, for someone to argue passionately that, "no miles are the real deal and something that exists in the universe and meters are a fabrication". Distance surely is a real phenomenon, but "miles" are a system of expression.

Bits and information are the same thing. They are a system of measurement to express relationships of difference. Difference and change as physical phenomena exist, but bits do not.

So, yes, pointing out that the limits of computation give us some useful facts about the way things change in reality is a useful perspective. Going further and saying something like "computation is the basis of reality" or similar extremes is too reductive and too abstract to really be a useful piece of knowledge in my view. Finally, to claim that information is somehow the important fundament of existence is patently absurd to me, since it would've similar to arguing that miles have some very special epistemic and ontological status.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#156

Post by voidhorse »

jibal wrote: post #141
jibal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked for proof of claims and I just get "it absolutely does" and a bunch more assertions, and word salad like "the validity of the scientific method is ultimately a metaphysical extension of our intuitions about inductive reasoning and causality" -- there's nothing "metaphysical" about it ... the scientific method is a disciplined application of an effective process of discovery. And '"Our intuitions" is why I sai…

> Your epistemic position is ultimately just as faith based as you claim faith in God etc. This lie is so tiresome. It's notable that science has a history of effectively producing confirmable fact whereas religion produces only falsehoods.

You are missing the point. Let me use "fabulashinaism" which is a theory I just made up that posits that the universe is made up of little gnomes called atoms.

There is a sense in which all of my observations hence will be "theory laden". When I seek "proof" i'm likely to do so within the constraints of fabulashinaism.

Science proceeds in the same way. Only crises, which are unpredictable and may have much more than simple "new data collected" behind them actually drive theory change. Beyond the theoretical assumptions, many of which are not proven but are constraining hypotheses, there are the social value assumptions I mentioned as well. As someone else said in the thread, science cannot prove science. You can be of the opinion that it's been more effective than alternatives, and I would agree, but there is no way to prove this because it is ultimately a question of theoretical assumptions and of values.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#158

Post by RandomLensman »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #153
RandomLensman wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work as current understanding from quantum theory is that we cannot predict which atom decays next? Is there a quantum algorithm that can do that?

The decay process is calculated as sqrt(1-exp(-t/T))|1> + sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>

How do you use that to predict which atom decays next?

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#159

Post by jibal »

jibal wrote: post #141
jibal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked for proof of claims and I just get "it absolutely does" and a bunch more assertions, and word salad like "the validity of the scientific method is ultimately a metaphysical extension of our intuitions about inductive reasoning and causality" -- there's nothing "metaphysical" about it ... the scientific method is a disciplined application of an effective process of discovery. And '"Our intuitions" is why I sai…

> Your epistemic position is ultimately just as faith based as you claim faith in God etc. This lie is so tiresome. It's notable that science has a history of effectively producing confirmable fact whereas religion produces only falsehoods.

I'm not missing any point and I have no interest in engaging with anyone who opens with that sort of strawman ad hominem.

Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept

#160

Post by Diogenesian »

pegasus wrote: post #146
curiousest wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say things like, “In the domain of physics, X,” “Assuming the scientific method, X,” or “Assuming the premises of logic, X.” But “computation is a fundamental aspect of the universe”, in the way it's being understood in this thread (as opposed to the article) does not remain within any of those frameworks. It makes a claim about reality as a whole. Once you make that kind of universal claim, all the assumptio…

The Church-Turing thesis (the fact that all models of computation we've been able to come up with are equivalent) gives the necessary weight to that claim.

The Church-Turing thesis is a statement about symoblic processes, and symbolism is simply not fundamental to the universe. It is fundamental to how humans understand the universe. That's the distinction.
Post reply on HN