6 ms·

What does it mean for nature to implement an algorithm? That sort of language seems to smuggle in philosophical assumptions about the universe being mathematica

What does it mean for nature to implement an algorithm? That sort of language seems to smuggle in philosophical assumptions about the universe being mathematical, which would probably be a form of Platonism. It's fine if we want to take math as literally being the stuff of existence, but not so great if math is just a map. Because nature doesn't use any maps, being that it is the territory.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
RoyTyrell 9y ago
> What does it mean for nature to implement an algorithm? It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm. > assumptions about the universe being mathematical, Parts of the universe can be modeled with mathematics. If you extend mathematics to include algorithms and not just equations or systems of equations, then even more of the universe can. I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please?
- maksimum 9y ago
  The algorithm as expressed in the article is simply the result of observing simple mechanical actions. We don't know whether those mechanical actions are actually what the ants are 'thinking about' when they build a bridge. As a result we've 'mapped' actions that the ants take into terms that make sense to us. It's not clear what "the algorithm" looks like in the original space, i.e. in the ants' heads.
- goatlover 9y ago
  > I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please? When we say that A is B, or A implements C, which B is known for implementing, and we don't caveat it as an analogy or model, then we're making an existence claim about A's nature. We're saying that A is fundamentally B stuff. > It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm. Does that mean an ant nest IS A computer? Does nature literally compute? Or is that just a helpful way of looking at things? My point that the language of the article is smuggling in an ontological claim about nature. Maybe it's only meant as a useful mental model and not an actual existence claim. But maybe not. And some people will take it literally.
placebo 9y ago
I don't know enough about evolution so this could be way off, but I'd guess the idea is that nature "designs" the algorithm via evolution (imagine some Turing machine's code/neural net equivalent being slowly improved by trial and error over hundreds of millions of years) where the result appears like minimising a global cost/action-value function of the species and maximising its probability of survival. The question if this is different in principle from nature "implementing" a supernova or "implementing" electromagnetism or "implementing" a planet is an interesting one, but it seems like in both cases once it starts (cosmic evolution or life evolution) mathematics can be used as a map of the territory.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

RoyTyrell 9y ago

> What does it mean for nature to implement an algorithm? It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm. > assumptions about the universe being mathematical, Parts of the universe can be modeled with mathematics. If you extend mathematics to include algorithms and not just equations or systems of equations, then even more of the universe can. I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please?

maksimum 9y ago
The algorithm as expressed in the article is simply the result of observing simple mechanical actions. We don't know whether those mechanical actions are actually what the ants are 'thinking about' when they build a bridge. As a result we've 'mapped' actions that the ants take into terms that make sense to us. It's not clear what "the algorithm" looks like in the original space, i.e. in the ants' heads.
goatlover 9y ago
> I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please? When we say that A is B, or A implements C, which B is known for implementing, and we don't caveat it as an analogy or model, then we're making an existence claim about A's nature. We're saying that A is fundamentally B stuff. > It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm. Does that mean an ant nest IS A computer? Does nature literally compute? Or is that just a helpful way of looking at things? My point that the language of the article is smuggling in an ontological claim about nature. Maybe it's only meant as a useful mental model and not an actual existence claim. But maybe not. And some people will take it literally.

placebo 9y ago

I don't know enough about evolution so this could be way off, but I'd guess the idea is that nature "designs" the algorithm via evolution (imagine some Turing machine's code/neural net equivalent being slowly improved by trial and error over hundreds of millions of years) where the result appears like minimising a global cost/action-value function of the species and maximising its probability of survival. The question if this is different in principle from nature "implementing" a supernova or "implementing" electromagnetism or "implementing" a planet is an interesting one, but it seems like in both cases once it starts (cosmic evolution or life evolution) mathematics can be used as a map of the territory.