6 ms·

The author's "triviality argument" doesn't hold up: > 1. To say that a physical system is a computer requires an external observer to map the physical states o

The author's "triviality argument" doesn't hold up: > 1. To say that a physical system is a computer requires an external observer to map the physical states of that system onto the abstract states of a Turing machine. > 2. Consciousness does not require an external observer to exist. > 3. Therefore, consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. A physical system may be a computer regardless of whether it is verified to be so by an external observer or not; it does not require an external observer at all.

3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
True. Quantum behavior is computing linear algebra ever since the Big Bang, and we came accross to discover this fact 15e9 years later.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's not a good example, as it's very hard to call particles following the laws of physics "a computation" - what would be the computer in this case? What is the program? A much better example is the machinery inside every living cell that is interpreting the DNA or RNA to produce certain proteins - there, it's much clearer there is a computational process happening. Certain specific structures inside the nucleus are the computer, and the DNA molecule is the program they are following. We even know that you can change the program and get predictable, different behavior.
  - 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
    How is it not? Quantum Mechanics and quantum field theory applies everywhere except for the black holes. Human can even harness the power by building quantum computer by that. So here you tried to deny the exist of quantum computing paradigm, a completely different computation approach?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, are "computing" how much electricity passes through them. The entire system of transistors arranged into logical gates arranged into a processor is doing computation of the program written in memory, but the subcomponents are only following the simple laws of physics. In a quantum computer, the same is true - the computer itself may be running Shor'a algorithm, but each individual qubit is simply doing the few things that the laws of physics allow it to do.
      - thom 4y ago
        I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon? (I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).
        3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        Well. FYI, unitary transformation, creation and annihilation operator, etc.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Are these physical objects? Do they have mass, energy, volume, a position or speed, charge, color charge, weak hyper charge, spin etc?
  - jamesrom 4y ago
    Have you verified if the particles in your CPU are following the laws of physics and doing computation as you read this?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      What do you mean by "verified"? We are discussing what is ultimately a matter of philosophy - "what is a useful definition of computation". I am claiming that the model of the electron and other particles, and how they interact to form an electrical circuit with transistors, and how these electrical circuits react to current when in the pattern we call "logical gates" do not conform to what is normally understood by "computation". I am also claiming that the ensemble formed from these logical gates does fit the concept of computation, that you couldn't derive its behavior directly from innate physical laws - the behavior is governed by the program it is manipulating, and can be changed. Finally, I am claiming that the living cell is more similar to our CPU than to the electrical circuit or moving electrons in the way it processes DNA to produce various proteins.
denton-scratch 4y ago
I think you may have missed the point (of course, it could be me that missed the point :-) The argument was that for a physical system to be a computer, an element of intent or interpretation is needed; otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff doing what stuff does naturally. Perhaps the (horribly flawed) iron bar example is making the point that whether some configuration of magnetic dipoles is a computer depends on your choice of mappings from that configuration to some state of some Turing machine - which is equivalent to an interpretation.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  You're just re-stating (1). I understood (1) fine and addressed it directly. Observation isn't required for Turing machines to exist. A computer is still a computer even if it has no user or doesn't compute anything deemed useful. i.e., Whether something is a computer or not doesn't depend on interpretation or observation. (Directly saying 1 is wrong)
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Yes, I'm restating (1). That's why my remark was introduced with the phrase "The argument was [...]". In particular, I was trying to rationalise the dumb "iron bar" example as a justification for (1). I don't think you addressed anything; you just flatly denied (1), without offering any reasoning. In particular, you don't seem to have tried to understand the author's attempt to justify (1) using iron bars. For my part, I'm not sure about (1). As far as I can see, there's a steady flow of people discovering that some X is a Turing-complete language, when X wasn't actually even meant to be a language at all. So it seems that some configuration of stuff is a computer IFF (a) it is capable of doing computation, and (b) someone is willing to consider it as a computer. Four odd socks could be considered a computer, by someone who was using them as a 4-bit adder.
    - 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
    - 4y ago

3g4o53g4o5 4y ago

True. Quantum behavior is computing linear algebra ever since the Big Bang, and we came accross to discover this fact 15e9 years later.

tsimionescu 4y ago
That's not a good example, as it's very hard to call particles following the laws of physics "a computation" - what would be the computer in this case? What is the program? A much better example is the machinery inside every living cell that is interpreting the DNA or RNA to produce certain proteins - there, it's much clearer there is a computational process happening. Certain specific structures inside the nucleus are the computer, and the DNA molecule is the program they are following. We even know that you can change the program and get predictable, different behavior.
- 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
  How is it not? Quantum Mechanics and quantum field theory applies everywhere except for the black holes. Human can even harness the power by building quantum computer by that. So here you tried to deny the exist of quantum computing paradigm, a completely different computation approach?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, are "computing" how much electricity passes through them. The entire system of transistors arranged into logical gates arranged into a processor is doing computation of the program written in memory, but the subcomponents are only following the simple laws of physics. In a quantum computer, the same is true - the computer itself may be running Shor'a algorithm, but each individual qubit is simply doing the few things that the laws of physics allow it to do.
    - thom 4y ago
      I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon? (I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).
        3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        Well. FYI, unitary transformation, creation and annihilation operator, etc.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Are these physical objects? Do they have mass, energy, volume, a position or speed, charge, color charge, weak hyper charge, spin etc?
- jamesrom 4y ago
  Have you verified if the particles in your CPU are following the laws of physics and doing computation as you read this?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    What do you mean by "verified"? We are discussing what is ultimately a matter of philosophy - "what is a useful definition of computation". I am claiming that the model of the electron and other particles, and how they interact to form an electrical circuit with transistors, and how these electrical circuits react to current when in the pattern we call "logical gates" do not conform to what is normally understood by "computation". I am also claiming that the ensemble formed from these logical gates does fit the concept of computation, that you couldn't derive its behavior directly from innate physical laws - the behavior is governed by the program it is manipulating, and can be changed. Finally, I am claiming that the living cell is more similar to our CPU than to the electrical circuit or moving electrons in the way it processes DNA to produce various proteins.

denton-scratch 4y ago

I think you may have missed the point (of course, it could be me that missed the point :-) The argument was that for a physical system to be a computer, an element of intent or interpretation is needed; otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff doing what stuff does naturally. Perhaps the (horribly flawed) iron bar example is making the point that whether some configuration of magnetic dipoles is a computer depends on your choice of mappings from that configuration to some state of some Turing machine - which is equivalent to an interpretation.

i_like_apis 4y ago
You're just re-stating (1). I understood (1) fine and addressed it directly. Observation isn't required for Turing machines to exist. A computer is still a computer even if it has no user or doesn't compute anything deemed useful. i.e., Whether something is a computer or not doesn't depend on interpretation or observation. (Directly saying 1 is wrong)
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Yes, I'm restating (1). That's why my remark was introduced with the phrase "The argument was [...]". In particular, I was trying to rationalise the dumb "iron bar" example as a justification for (1). I don't think you addressed anything; you just flatly denied (1), without offering any reasoning. In particular, you don't seem to have tried to understand the author's attempt to justify (1) using iron bars. For my part, I'm not sure about (1). As far as I can see, there's a steady flow of people discovering that some X is a Turing-complete language, when X wasn't actually even meant to be a language at all. So it seems that some configuration of stuff is a computer IFF (a) it is capable of doing computation, and (b) someone is willing to consider it as a computer. Four odd socks could be considered a computer, by someone who was using them as a 4-bit adder.
  - 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
  - 4y ago