3 ms·
We know that the mind is Turing complete. What the author is suggesting is that it's possible for there to be some science or mathematics that is beyond the cap
by BariumBlue 14y ago
We know that the mind is Turing complete. What the author is suggesting is that it's possible for there to be some science or mathematics that is beyond the capability of our mind to comprehend. (and that it's possible that there's science or mathematics that may be derived by computers that we may not fundamentally be able to understand)
However, any attempt to compute or derive new science/mathematics outside the theoretical capabilities of our (Turing complete) minds on merely Turing complete computers is doomed to failure (at least, until we get some computers better than Turing complete ones).
- comex 14y agoTuring complete is really only meaningful for a computer with infinite time and storage; humans are limited in both. Just as a smarter human can understand something a less smart human can't, computers will eventually understand many things we can't wrap our heads around.
- BariumBlue 14y agoTrue, but assuming in this future humans have developed brain enhancements, the issue of storage space and computing power becomes less relevant. Though I suppose the whole idea of brain enhancements would render the author's point null anyways...
- TeMPOraL 14y ago> and that it's possible that there's science or mathematics that may be derived by computers that we may not fundamentally be able to understand I think what the author meant is that us understanding this "new science" would be like trying to run StarCraft II on 386. It's not that it is not fundamentally possible, it's just that our wetware has nowhere near the required computational power.