A math formula, a statement in formal logic, a physics equation, a chemistry skeletal formula, an electronic circuit, an assembly language program, most economics, a set of blueprints, a balance sheet, a good portion of legislation, regulation and law, and certainly my work are ‘word salad’ to those ignorant of the skills necessary to understand them. If you interpret something as word salad you are simply identifying that which your ignorant of. 😉
Reply addressees: @TOEwithCurt
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:39:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789742154002083840
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’.
But that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles.
The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations.
The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the hierarchy of emergent possibilities for recombination and the possible operations they can perform, that emerge from these assemblies – what we call disciplines.
So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
Consequence of combinations are are computationally (operationally reducible) but they are not computationally predictable, nor are they mathematically reducible and so cannot be mathematically predictable.
It’s not that complicated.
CD
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598
Leave a Reply