3 ms·

Please at least read the Wikipedia articles on computability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability) and hyper

Please at least read the Wikipedia articles on computability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability) and hypercomputation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation) before making arguments like this. There is literally zero evidence that anything in our known universe can perform hypercomputation - and that includes all quantum mechanical effects that we've been able to measure. So the Bayesian prior for human intelligence being computable is somewhere near 100%, and it would take very, very extreme evidence to contradict that. "Is it true there is no truth?" is not even close to a compelling argument, there are rigorously defined notions of truth within any of the eminently computable logical frameworks that we use.

yters 9y ago
Humans seem to perform hyper computation all the time. Eg in programming we can decide a whole lot of programs halt. We seem to do something close to Solomonoff induction. Etc. computational presuppositions are the only reason to not find this compelling, and materialism and hard atheism are the only reasons to be committed to computationalism.
- ewjordan 9y ago
  No, that's a misunderstanding of what hypercomputation is. If you can write down or talk yourself through a proof of why a program will halt, you have solved a computable problem. By definition. When you say "we can decide a whole lot of programs halt", you're talking about plain Jane computation. If you have knowledge that any program that I give you will or will not halt, then you're a hypercomputing oracle for the halting problem, and you can do magic, basically. There's a world of difference between the two situations. And I'm fairly sure (but not positive) that there's no way for you to prove in finite space and time that you are an oracle for the halting problem. Edit: for more on that last bit, see https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19f9/0c34cdda43efdcf0831b2f9a037b57ddac21.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19f9/0c34cdda43efdcf0831b2f...
yters 9y ago
Regarding truth, no program can know if it is consistent, so truth goes right out the window.

yters 9y ago

Humans seem to perform hyper computation all the time. Eg in programming we can decide a whole lot of programs halt. We seem to do something close to Solomonoff induction. Etc. computational presuppositions are the only reason to not find this compelling, and materialism and hard atheism are the only reasons to be committed to computationalism.

ewjordan 9y ago
No, that's a misunderstanding of what hypercomputation is. If you can write down or talk yourself through a proof of why a program will halt, you have solved a computable problem. By definition. When you say "we can decide a whole lot of programs halt", you're talking about plain Jane computation. If you have knowledge that any program that I give you will or will not halt, then you're a hypercomputing oracle for the halting problem, and you can do magic, basically. There's a world of difference between the two situations. And I'm fairly sure (but not positive) that there's no way for you to prove in finite space and time that you are an oracle for the halting problem. Edit: for more on that last bit, see https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19f9/0c34cdda43efdcf0831b2f9a037b57ddac21.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19f9/0c34cdda43efdcf0831b2f...

yters 9y ago

Regarding truth, no program can know if it is consistent, so truth goes right out the window.