Instead of caring about P=NP why don't we just try to construct better models of computation?
The Church-Turing hypothesis always appeared very questionable to me. Considering that neither quantum mechanics nor consciousness can be simulated by a Turing machine, shouldn't we extend our definition of what it means for a problem or a function to be solvable / computable?
I've checked the wikipedia and there is a page with a short list of so called "hypercomputers", i.e. models of computation more powerful than Turing machines, but for some reason none of them seemed to have gained any popularity. Why?
>>8091920
>I've checked the wikipedia and there is a page with a short list of so called "hypercomputers", i.e. models of computation more powerful than Turing machines, but for some reason none of them seemed to have gained any popularity. Why?
Because, while novel and cool, they rely on science which isn't yet entirely understood?
Was that a real question?
>Considering that neither quantum mechanics
What do you mean? Quantum mechanics IS computable. It is not deterministic, but that doesn't mean it can't be computated probabilistically.
>nor consciousness
So you are saying that a brain is a hypercomputing device? How? Its a purelly physical system that doesn't seem to rely on any quantum shenanigans and so.
>none of them seemed to have gained any popularity. Why?
Because none can be built, nor aproximated to arbitary usefulness (unlike turing complete machines)
>>8091928
They're not even that novel. Turing himself already thought about the possibilities.
If research in hypercomputation became more popular, maybe we'd find out how to do it, instead of wasting too many resources on questions which in comparison appear useless (e.g. P=NP).
>>8091935
I posit that neither the collapse of the wavefunction in QM, nor the creativity of human consciousness are algorithmically computable by a Turing machine. They are strictly stronger.
>>8091952
> instead of wasting too many resources on questions which in comparison appear useless (e.g. P=NP).
Ahhh, now you've changed the subject, as if someone's "wasting' and it's "intentional"? This is a very popular topic in computer science, but really most consumer products in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
But also, there's the very real matter of the march of progress and discovery. I guess it depends on the conspiracy theorist inside you.
>>8091920
what is pooh saying tho?
>>8091983
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
>>8091952
>I posit that neither the collapse of the wavefunction in QM, nor the creativity of human consciousness are algorithmically computable by a Turing machine. They are strictly stronger.
oh so you're just a popsci fucker wanting to play pretend scientist here. ok
>>8091989
Projecting doesn't help you here.
>>8091920
The Church-Turing Thesis was proposed after Church and Turing independently came up with lambda-calculus and turing machines which were both shown to be equivalent to the other.
At this point Church and Turing agreed that this joint model was likely the "true" model of computation and is powerful enough to capture both the human brain and computers, which was their goal
>>8091993
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.
They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.
In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.
Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.
>>8091994
But it was never proven. It was merely a philosophical declaration, and arguments I presented ITT suggest that we should broaden our horizon.
>>8091998
>tfw I'm 26
Does that mean I have to move to reddit now?
>>8092006
I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D
You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.
Your denialism is fallacious.
>>8092006
Human Calculators are yet to be able to solve problems without known polynomial time algorithms.
There are droves of people who can multiply huge numbers in their heads but none who can factor large numbers in their heads
>>8092015
That has never been proven.
Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0
I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.
I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.
>>8092015
Can a Turing machine be creative?
>>8092026
Yes, provided you define creative in a meaningful way.
>>8092028
Wrong answer.
>>8092031
So you can't define creative in a meaningful way?
>>8092023
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.
Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D
>>8092042
I dont even know who's baiting who anymore
>>8092042
Go ahead and define human creativity algorithmically. I'm waiting.
>>8092042
>...even more retarded than him (implied "is")
...even more retarded than he (is).
Careful, there, calling people incapable. :)
>>8092018
You are half way there. Now just realize that the world is, but you can't say anything about it; and what you do say about it, called the Narrative, is not.
The Narrative is a story of the world from a perspective that the world would never take for itself. You see, without the Narrative to give the story its intent, the world is indistinguishable from a Narrative of randomness.
If you were an alien and didn't survive in the same way as humans, you would never have any reason to see human action as any different than Brownian motion, with respect to the totality of arrangements of stuff and what arrangements aliens can make or need to make to survive. Of course this also assumes the aliens had a Narrative as well.
The Narrative is the iterative result of a collection of iterations made from differential sense, but also from other narrative outputs of other Narratives. A meta-narrative would be that the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself, sense itself sensing itself, and filter the senses. Your Narrative is ultimately an illusion created by filtering out the perspective that you are making a story of the world, and fooling yourself that your narrative of the world is the world.
Nothing is true, and all of your math and science and philosophy are the result of the process of Narration being misapplied to the process of Narration and leading to paradoxes.
The only thing that matters is that you have the confidence to act in a manner that leads to your desire. because as far as the world is concerned, it has no reason to make a story about itself, and therefore has no need of purpose, or cause and effect, or statistical inference, or objects or perspectives or relationships or emotion or instinct.
So in the end the Pragmatist asks, "What is useful to be believed?" and has no fear in changing his Narrative to achieve his desires.
Brutal honesty bro....
>>8092060
You are half way there. Now just realize that the world is, but you can't say anything about it; and what you do say about it, called the Narrative, is not.
The Narrative is a story of the world from a perspective that the world would never take for itself. You see, without the Narrative to give the story its intent, the world is indistinguishable from a Narrative of randomness.
If you were an alien and didn't survive in the same way as humans, you would never have any reason to see human action as any different than Brownian motion, with respect to the totality of arrangements of stuff and what arrangements aliens can make or need to make to survive. Of course this also assumes the aliens had a Narrative as well.
The Narrative is the iterative result of a collection of iterations made from differential sense, but also from other narrative outputs of other Narratives. A meta-narrative would be that the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself, sense itself sensing itself, and filter the senses. Your Narrative is ultimately an illusion created by filtering out the perspective that you are making a story of the world, and fooling yourself that your narrative of the world is the world.
Nothing is true, and all of your math and science and philosophy are the result of the process of Narration being misapplied to the process of Narration and leading to paradoxes.
The only thing that matters is that you have the confidence to act in a manner that leads to your desire. because as far as the world is concerned, it has no reason to make a story about itself, and therefore has no need of purpose, or cause and effect, or statistical inference, or objects or perspectives or relationships or emotion or instinct.
So in the end the Pragmatist asks, "What is useful to be believed?" and has no fear in changing his Narrative to achieve his desires.
Brutal honesty bro....
>>8092061
It does matter. It is a verb tense of "being".
He is, She is, I am, We are
not
Him is, Her is, Me am, Us are.
It just sounds right when incorrect because so many people fuck it up.
>>8092070
fuck off, autist
that's how people use the language now
than had a shitload of transformations of use
>>8092074
>than
k. Just to let you know, I like my burgers well done.
>>8092074
>it's okay to use improper grammar because everyone else does it
Why even bother having set grammatical rules at all?
>>8092060
>MAXIMUM WORD SALAD
this shit just fucking kills me
>>8092060
>this shit just fucking kills me
If only that were true, there would be no Trump supporters.
>>8091920
>consciousness can be simulated by a Turing machine
Yes it can.
>>8091952
>I posit that neither the collapse of the wavefunction in QM, nor the creativity of human consciousness are algorithmically computable by a Turing machine. They are strictly stronger.
You'd first have to define terms. I don't understand what that means.
In computation theory, the language that you are using normally means something like this:
There is a decision problem that cannot be solved by Turing machines, but which can be solved by some other sot of machine.
What is the decision problem that cannot be solved by a Turing machine? Start there.
Or start giving new definitions for terms.
>>8091920
>consciousness cannot be simulated by a Turing machine
[citation needed]
>>8091920
youre onto something--
on intelligence is a book you should read. talks about brain computational methods
>>8092905
I think Roger Penrose (famous mathematical physicist) wrote about this.
>>8094303
yup, brains can know the truth value of godel sentences, according to penrose, which implies that they are not computable in the sense of computable axiomatic systems
>>8091988
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
gaaaaay
>>8091920
>neither quantum mechanics nor consciousness can be simulated by a Turing machine
Oh, crazy. I'll be sure to let everyone know that every single human somehow violates reality. We are all God! (JK. We are all Turing machines.)
>>8094653
kekekekek whats it like not being able to think
>>8094673
>if it can't be described by a Turing machine, it can't be part of reality
Your dogmatism is repulsively anti-scientific.
