5 ms·

Is nature a low-complexity sampler?

40 points by j2kun 12y ago

johnloeber 12y ago
Any vaguely mathematical publications that don't use TeX set off my crank alert[0], so I did some quick research on the author: he is an associate professor of computer science at Northeastern University, currently on sabbatical.[1] So it is unlikely for this to be crank-work. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 [1] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/viola/ http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/viola/
- j2kun 12y ago
  Emanuele Viola is relatively famous in theoretical computer science, so he's definitely not a crank. As far as TeX goes, Wordpress has a long way to go in terms of offering good native support for any TeX variant, so it's understandable that one might try to avoid it in that context.
  - johnloeber 12y ago
    W/r/t/ TeX: Is it not possible to use the MathJax plugin on WP?
    - j2kun 12y ago
      Not if it's hosted by wordpress (.wordpress.com) Source: I've been using Wordpress to blog about math for over three years and have had a small amount of (indirect) contact with the Wordpress devs. Apparently they are considering alternatives to their current setup which renders tex formulas to images.
  - sytelus 12y ago
    I'm using LaTeX for Wordpress (https://wordpress.org/plugins/latex/ https://wordpress.org/plugins/latex/) and it seems to do the job. However I agree that it's pain in a to find proper plugin and set it up and even more so if you ever want to change to some other plugin. For a platform that is a major writing instrument, it's a pity to be in this state.
amelius 12y ago
Warning: philosophical comment. Lots of theories of everything these days. However, IMHO they all fail to address one fundamental point. And that is the issue of experiental consciousness, or, in other words, the fact that we experience that we are part of the universe. Why is this fundamental to any theory of physics? One could argue that it can be addressed as something which is outside the universe, like an external observer watching in. But the important point is: this cannot be true, for I, and a lot of other people, are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it. So, to me, it would seem that any "mechanic" theory of physics just can't be true, or rather, it can't be complete. The only ways out of this, that I can think of, would be: 1. Experiential consciousness to be only an illusion. But then the question is: why is this illusion necessary? Why would physics plug the idea into my memory of consciousness? (possible answer: because in the worlds in which physics does not do this, I would not be conscious, but this is a circular argument). And thus this would go against Occam's razor. 2. There is choice is the universe (the universe is tree-like or DAG-like, and an observer could take a preferred route). Not really a satisfying explanation either, imho.
- Xcelerate 12y ago
  > are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it. I think discussing it is independent of whether it exists. For instance, you could imagine a society of p-zombies that behaves exactly like ours, discussing the fact that they experience existence, without actually experiencing it (or you could program some computers to say the same thing). As a side note, is "experiential consciousness" an established phrase, or did you come up with it? I really like that term. It seems the neuroscientists have commandeered the term "consciousness" to refer to only neurobiological consciousness, so I like the "experiential" qualifier you've added.
  - amelius 12y ago
    I thought of the "zombies" argument too. But I don't find it satisfying, because why would such zombies exist? It would go against Occam's razor. (Occam's razor does not offer a logical proof, but still has proven useful as a guidance). No, indeed. I came up with the "experiential" qualifier, because the term "consciousness" is highly overloaded indeed, and I do not know the generally accepted phrase.

40 points by j2kun 12y ago

Any vaguely mathematical publications that don't use TeX set off my crank alert[0], so I did some quick research on the author: he is an associate professor of computer science at Northeastern University, currently on sabbatical.[1] So it is unlikely for this to be crank-work. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 [1] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/viola/ http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/viola/

j2kun 12y ago
Emanuele Viola is relatively famous in theoretical computer science, so he's definitely not a crank. As far as TeX goes, Wordpress has a long way to go in terms of offering good native support for any TeX variant, so it's understandable that one might try to avoid it in that context.
- johnloeber 12y ago
  W/r/t/ TeX: Is it not possible to use the MathJax plugin on WP?
  - j2kun 12y ago
    Not if it's hosted by wordpress (.wordpress.com) Source: I've been using Wordpress to blog about math for over three years and have had a small amount of (indirect) contact with the Wordpress devs. Apparently they are considering alternatives to their current setup which renders tex formulas to images.
- sytelus 12y ago
  I'm using LaTeX for Wordpress (https://wordpress.org/plugins/latex/ https://wordpress.org/plugins/latex/) and it seems to do the job. However I agree that it's pain in a to find proper plugin and set it up and even more so if you ever want to change to some other plugin. For a platform that is a major writing instrument, it's a pity to be in this state.

amelius 12y ago

Warning: philosophical comment. Lots of theories of everything these days. However, IMHO they all fail to address one fundamental point. And that is the issue of experiental consciousness, or, in other words, the fact that we experience that we are part of the universe. Why is this fundamental to any theory of physics? One could argue that it can be addressed as something which is outside the universe, like an external observer watching in. But the important point is: this cannot be true, for I, and a lot of other people, are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it. So, to me, it would seem that any "mechanic" theory of physics just can't be true, or rather, it can't be complete. The only ways out of this, that I can think of, would be: 1. Experiential consciousness to be only an illusion. But then the question is: why is this illusion necessary? Why would physics plug the idea into my memory of consciousness? (possible answer: because in the worlds in which physics does not do this, I would not be conscious, but this is a circular argument). And thus this would go against Occam's razor. 2. There is choice is the universe (the universe is tree-like or DAG-like, and an observer could take a preferred route). Not really a satisfying explanation either, imho.

Xcelerate 12y ago
> are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it. I think discussing it is independent of whether it exists. For instance, you could imagine a society of p-zombies that behaves exactly like ours, discussing the fact that they experience existence, without actually experiencing it (or you could program some computers to say the same thing). As a side note, is "experiential consciousness" an established phrase, or did you come up with it? I really like that term. It seems the neuroscientists have commandeered the term "consciousness" to refer to only neurobiological consciousness, so I like the "experiential" qualifier you've added.
- amelius 12y ago
  I thought of the "zombies" argument too. But I don't find it satisfying, because why would such zombies exist? It would go against Occam's razor. (Occam's razor does not offer a logical proof, but still has proven useful as a guidance). No, indeed. I came up with the "experiential" qualifier, because the term "consciousness" is highly overloaded indeed, and I do not know the generally accepted phrase.