4 ms·
> Almost everything is "outside of physics", No, it's not. Many things are outside of "known" physics, sure. But I didn't say "outside of known physics". I sa
by ncallaway 3y ago
> Almost everything is "outside of physics",
No, it's not.
Many things are outside of "known" physics, sure. But I didn't say "outside of known physics". I said "outside of physics".
When I say "outside of physics" I mean "meta-physical", as in, processes that are not part of physical interactions of this world. Things that, if you somehow had Maxwell's demon tracking every single quark, lepton, and boson, even then you still wouldn't be able to account for.
It's a discussion of what is _theoretically knowable_, not a discussion of what we currently do know.
- mjburgess 3y agoI do not think most things are "theoretically knowable", since knowledge is comprised of finite concepts conjoined in finite ways; and most of reality is uncomputable. You cannot know the state of the climate, even in principle. This is what the commenter was alluding to when they said, > there is some information-theoretic barrier for us to understand So the commenter can both maintain there are theoretical barriers to the possibility of all kinds of knowledge, which is outside of "knowable physics" without having any sort of dualistic view that this unknownable stuff is immaterial. So to be "outside of physics" is not coextensive with being "immaterial". You might have meant that, but it is this very conflation which has to be undone to understand OP's point
- calf 3y agoBut is general uncomputability the OP's argument? They were just saying they had a gut feeling there is some "information-theoretic barrier" preventing AGI construction. Yet we can understand a lot about Earth's weather, and even do things to affect the weather, despite climate systems being uncomputable, strictly speaking.