4 ms·
> any kind of theorem or idea communicated to another mathematician needs to be serialized into language which would make it computable. This is a fallacy. Jus
by cowl 2y ago
> any kind of theorem or idea communicated to another mathematician needs to be serialized into language which would make it computable.
This is a fallacy. Just because you need to serialize a concept to communicate it doesnt mean the concept itself is computable. This is established and well proven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems
The fact that we can come up with this kind of uncumputable problems is a big plus in supprt of Penrose's Idea that consciousnes is not computable and goes way beyond compatability.
- drivebyhooting 2y agoDeciding an undecidable problem is well, undecidable. But describing it is clearly not. Otherwise we would not have been able to write about it.
- cowl 2y agowell that is the "beyond computable". we are somehow able to say that this function will not halt, and we wouldnt be able to do that if we only had computable power to simulate it because that would proove that the probem was decidable in the first place. how you comunicate it does not alter the nature of the problem.
- einrealist 2y agoThat's how I understood Penrose's reasoning too. He differentiated between the computer and whatever is going on in our brain. Computers are just "powerful" enough to encode something that mimics intelligence on the surface (the interviewer tried to pin him on that "something new"), but is still the result of traditional computation, without the involvement of consciousness (his requirement for intelligence).