6 ms·
This appears to be crank garbage, which is unfortunately not hard to run into when reading online about computability and related topics. Anything not computabl
by dooglius 8y ago
This appears to be crank garbage, which is unfortunately not hard to run into when reading online about computability and related topics. Anything not computable by a Turing Machine is almost certainly not physically realizable (Church-Turing thesis), and if it were it would surely involve esoteric physics like black holes, not anything readily available to human brains.
- chowells 8y agoI wonder if the author realizes Turing machines can be partial halting oracles. SAT/SMT solvers do that job pretty well over most of the same problem space as humans. And any technique humans invent can be added to a solver to use as well.
- dooglius 8y agoWell, the definition given specifically says stronger than Turing Machines, what you're describing is more what I hoped the article would be about, making certain theoretical oracle machine algorithms partially realizable by putting a human in the loop, to e.g. come up with lower bounds on Chaitin's constant.
- yters 8y agoThis is what I'm working on, a human in the loop approach to Solomonoff induction.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> and if it were it would surely involve esoteric physics like black holes, not anything readily available to human brains. To be fair, until we know in detail how brains work, we can't eliminate the possibility that esoteric physics are key to the their operation; we only rule that out with an adequate model that does not invoke such physics.
- ummonk 8y agoWe know the physics of how brains work (i.e. the physics of neurons). So yes, we can rule out any such exotic physics.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> We know the physics of how brains work (i.e. the physics of neurons). We know the physics of how some bits of brains work, but no model that goes from those bits to human cognition, so no basis beyond speculation and optimism for claiming that we know all the physics of how brains work.
- yongjik 8y agoWhenever this issue comes up I just link to this: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws... "The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood" Worth reading.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoNow give a full mathematically rigorous explanation of consciousness. Give three examples. Do not use the word "Obviously..."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tree_of_item 8y agoRefuting the Strong Church-Turing thesis: http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/strong-cct.pdf http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/strong-cct.pdf It's not clear that all physically realizable things are Turing computable.
- ScottBurson 8y agoCarl Hewitt has been making a similar argument for decades: https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/231495-what-turing-and-church-left-out/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/231495-what-turing-and-...
- SilasX 8y agoNot to endorse it, but that's the point Roger Penrose disputes, that human brains have access to some kind of Turing-uncomputable physics that gives them powers beyond Turing machines.
- adrianN 8y agoDo we even have examples of physics that is not computable? Quantum computers can be simulated by a TM; closed timelike curves don't give you extra power either. As far as I know all the physics the we currently understand can be simulated to arbitrary precision on a TM. I don't really believe that brains have access to realms where quantum mechanics breaks down.
- yters 8y agoAs far as I know you are correct. All physics is computable. Scott Aaronson, with expertise in quantum computing, claims all physical processes are Turing reducible.
- andrewflnr 8y agoProbably nonsense, sure, but my life is better for having had the phrase "The Facegramizon" introduced to it.