4 ms·
This is the worst top comment I've seen on hn in a long time. The text isn't about the computational equivalence but about how vastly different aliens and there
by nathias 4y ago
This is the worst top comment I've seen on hn in a long time. The text isn't about the computational equivalence but about how vastly different aliens and therefore their tech is, and how the effort of translating alien tech into our own would be equivalent to inventing it ourselves. This point of vast differences requires Wolffram's ontology, which I don't philosophically agree with, but it's as good as any current one.
As for the first point, it is actually insane. You don't start being cruel to animals because you are doing ontology.
- throwaway290 4y agoSadly, philosophy can and (whether they should or not) certain philosophical positions do apparently make it acceptable to hurt others. It doesn't make it legal, but it can make it ethically inconsequential and render relevant laws as nonsensical in the eye of the holder of such views. See A Glitch in the Matrix, for example.
- nathias 4y agoFirst of all I know what you mean, and I disagree, but this isn't the issue at all. Ontology talkes about being qua being on the largest possible abstraction, so saying that merely making abstraction somehow implies whatever is beyond idiotic.
- sentirism 4y agoI will freely admit that Wolfram's thoughts are over my head and there are very few thoughts that fall into this category. I imagine many are in the same boat, if they admit it or not. I also imagine that Wolfram isn't the best at compressing his ideas into a form that is easier to digest for those of us of more average intelligence.