5 ms·
> It can be shown that there is no algorithm that can generate the shortest program for computing arbitrary given data on a given computer [2, 9, 1]. In particu
by vecter 10y ago
> It can be shown that there is no algorithm that can generate the shortest program for computing arbitrary given data on a given computer [2, 9, 1]. In particular, our physicists cannot expect to find the most compact description of our universe.
This seems wrong to me. There exists no general algorithm to find the shortest program to compute arbitrary data, but we can surely find specific shortest programs to compute arbitrary data.
- tmsldd 10y agoIf you consider that our brain is a computer, then your argument isn't valid.
- vecter 10y agoPlease expand
- tmsldd 10y agoSee Marr's 3-levels hypothesis. If we "run" an algorithm able to find a program to compute arbitrary data, there must to exist that general algorithm. We (just) need to copy it and implement in silicon..
- goatlover 10y agoOur brain isn't a computer. That's the most recent metaphor we've used to try and make sense of the three pound organ in our heads.
- ThomPete 10y agoWe are pattern recognizing feedback loops with memory. How is that not like a computer?
- psyc 10y agoLike is the operative word. Also: https://imgur.com/a/Bg9WH https://imgur.com/a/Bg9WH
- NikolaeVarius 10y agoComputers were literally the name of people who number crunched for a living. Human brains are by definition the original computer
- tmsldd 10y agoCounter Argument: Please answer the question: 1+1=? Congratulations, you are a computer. (And that's probably a very difficult question, considering you had to acquire the concept of symbolism, numbers and relationships)
- chriswarbo 10y agoOur brain is a computer. That fact may or may not offer useful insights on the properties of brains that we care about. Likewise, our brains are engines, converting energy from one form to another, and hence governed by thermodynamics. Again, that fact may or may not be useful for investigating properties of the brain we care about. Our brains are also matter, meat, networks, made of atoms, and squishy. These are all facts, they may or may not be useful.
- tmsldd 10y agoProfound and inspiring! Thanks for your input.
- goatlover 10y agoOr our brain is a telegraph, the world wide web, an orchestra, a theater, a tv, millions of mindless bots, etc. We use metaphors to help understand things we lack a literal explanation for, or the full explanation is complex and ongoing (neuroscience, biology, chemistry).
- RobertoG 10y ago"we can surely find specific shortest programs to compute arbitrary data." That would be what the scientific method is about.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Ono-Sendai 10y agothe general problem is uncomputable. but for some specific data outputs we may be able to find the shortest program.
- vecter 10y agoWoops, that's what I meant to write.
- vidarh 10y agoFor any given state of matter and energy, there is a maximal number of possible states. Then, for any given computer existing in our universe there is a finite amount of accessible states, given that the expansion of the universe creates a horizon beyond which creates a limit to the volume we can read back data from. Couple this with the fact that you can not create an algorithm that can arbitrarily compress any given input string, and then for any given computer you can find input strings that requires more state to represent than said computer can contain. Even if you allow for output over time, for any given such computer you can find an input string that is sufficiently incompressible that finding the shortest possible representation requires more intermediate state than the computer can contain, and that can be true even if a sufficiently large computer will make it possible to find patterns that makes the data very compressible. In fact, that is what the article is pointing out: The universe may be a lot more regular than it appears, but it is possible that we may never be able to determine what the patterns are because it may be impossible to hold or compute over enough state to be able to determine what the patterns are in a way that lets us identify the patterns. It is also possible that it turns out to be possible to easily create such a minimal program, but the article also points out that the vast majority of possible universes are incompressible. For us to be able to compute the most compact description of our universe we 1) need to be in a compressible universe (or the description will subsume the totality of the universe itself), 2) need to be in one where the shortest possible description can be computed with the intermediate states possible to contain within the observable universe. As the article points out, without additional knowledge of what type of universe we are in, the odds are firmly against us in that respect.