3 ms·

> ackchyually.jpg ;) I think you got my point, though? The rules of QM are not a busy beaver function. They are simple and they can be learned because the hum

by tbabb 9y ago

> ackchyually.jpg ;) I think you got my point, though? The rules of QM are not a busy beaver function. They are simple and they can be learned because the human mind is flexible. Yes, manipulating the algebra can be very complicated indeed, but that is because we are analyzing how the simple rules carry out and looking for an exact answer. It's like playing checkers vs. solving checkers; or learning the rules of Conway's Life vs. actually running a simulation. We can understand the rules and gain meaningful intuitions about both. If we want an exact answer it gets complicated.

Lambdanaut 9y ago
If I were to be bold enough to rephrase what you so elegantly said. We're looking at the universe as the pre-copricornians were. Seeing chaos and logging the data, believing that the order behind the masterpiece was all locked away in God's noggin, hidden from man's grasp. Instead we should be looking at the universe as Copernicus did. Re-frame our base assumptions. Among all this chaotic data is a simpler pattern. It may make no sense whatsoever to our human assumptions about reality, but if we are to know reality, then we must evolve within reality.
sgt101 9y ago
I looked the jpg up, and you are a bit mean!!! I am trying not to cry real tears ;) I get the busy beavers thing, humans can't do that, nor computers - it says nothing much! But... are there things that are not computable that aren't formalised either - for example the choosing to determine when shifting system is needed to prove something that may or may not be proved in a particular system?
- tbabb 9y ago
  Sorry, maybe that was a bit harsh. :) [Recurse Center](https://www.recurse.com/manual https://www.recurse.com/manual) (explained in the section 'social rules') has a social rule against "well-actuallys" which is intended to discourage nitpicking. If someone does it, you just point out "hey, that's a 'well-actually'", and they go 'oh sorry' and you move on. That was my way of pointing out a well-actually. :) > the choosing to determine when shifting system is needed to prove something that may or may not be proved in a particular system? Sorry, I am having a hard time parsing this. What do you mean?

by tbabb 9y ago

Lambdanaut 9y ago

If I were to be bold enough to rephrase what you so elegantly said. We're looking at the universe as the pre-copricornians were. Seeing chaos and logging the data, believing that the order behind the masterpiece was all locked away in God's noggin, hidden from man's grasp. Instead we should be looking at the universe as Copernicus did. Re-frame our base assumptions. Among all this chaotic data is a simpler pattern. It may make no sense whatsoever to our human assumptions about reality, but if we are to know reality, then we must evolve within reality.

sgt101 9y ago

I looked the jpg up, and you are a bit mean!!! I am trying not to cry real tears ;) I get the busy beavers thing, humans can't do that, nor computers - it says nothing much! But... are there things that are not computable that aren't formalised either - for example the choosing to determine when shifting system is needed to prove something that may or may not be proved in a particular system?

tbabb 9y ago
Sorry, maybe that was a bit harsh. :) [Recurse Center](https://www.recurse.com/manual https://www.recurse.com/manual) (explained in the section 'social rules') has a social rule against "well-actuallys" which is intended to discourage nitpicking. If someone does it, you just point out "hey, that's a 'well-actually'", and they go 'oh sorry' and you move on. That was my way of pointing out a well-actually. :) > the choosing to determine when shifting system is needed to prove something that may or may not be proved in a particular system? Sorry, I am having a hard time parsing this. What do you mean?