Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Food For Thought. 😉 Stephen Wolfram, a computer scientist, physicist, and entre

    Food For Thought. 😉

    Stephen Wolfram, a computer scientist, physicist, and entrepreneur, uses the terms “mathematical reducibility” and “computational irreducibility” in the context of his work on cellular automata and his broader philosophical framework known as “A New Kind of Science”.

    Mathematical Reducibility: In the context of Wolfram’s work, mathematical reducibility refers to the idea that certain systems or patterns can be simplified or reduced using mathematical equations or formulas. For example, in classical physics, the motion of a pendulum can be described by a simple mathematical equation. This means that we can predict the future state of the system without having to observe every intermediate state.

    Mathematical Formula: ( … )

    Computational Algorithm ( … )

    Computational Discoverability ( … )
    One algorithm

    Computational Adversarial Simulation ( … )
    Competing algorithms

    Causal Density and Externality: ( … )

    Computational Reducibility ( vs Mathematical Reducibility). ( … )

    Computational Irreducibility: This is a concept that Wolfram introduced to describe systems that cannot be simplified in the way that mathematically reducible systems can. In a computationally irreducible system, the only way to determine the future state of the system is to essentially simulate each step. There’s no “shortcut” in the form of a simple mathematical equation. Many of the systems that Wolfram studies, such as cellular automata, exhibit this property of computational irreducibility.

    Wolfram’s idea of computational irreducibility is closely related to the concept of undecidability in computer science and the halting problem described by Alan Turing. It has profound implications for our understanding of complex systems, including physical systems, biological systems, and even the universe itself, according to Wolfram’s theories

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-09 06:53:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677934013481205760

  • Not to disagree so to speak, but that would require a very different definition

    Not to disagree so to speak, but that would require a very different definition of ‘life’, and as such use of an analogy, not a description, and as such would be ‘unscientific’, which is why they don’t (won’t) hold that opinion. But it might be as penrose suggests, provide an…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-07 14:06:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677318087912177667

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677288974811897857

  • I love that Sir Roger Penrose claims string theory is nonsense, the Schrodinger

    I love that Sir Roger Penrose claims string theory is nonsense, the Schrodinger equation does not describe reality, and instead advocates twistors, using positive and negative frequencies, recognizing the importance of choice of vacuum, and that gravity produces the collpase problem, limits doing physics to existentially demonstrable dimensions, yet he claims the existence of a separate mathematical realiity (mathematical platonism). Though as I’ve aged, as had he, I’ve come to understand that he means this other than how he speaks it. So I may have to stop lovingly teasing him over his platonism given that he behaves otherwise. 😉 He is still the clearest thinker in the field and I’ll lament his passing.

    –“I’m not a believer myself. I don’t believe in established religions of any kind. … I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance … some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”– Sir Roger Penrose

    Here he is saying that there is something deeper to the existence of the universe, and it’s useless for us to imagine this vast clockwork of computation and not search for it’s purpose and function. He’s NOT saying that purpose and function is by divine or intelligent design. And he’s suggestiong that twe may, someday, know that answer.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-07 00:53:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677118488610066432

  • I love that Sir Roger Penrose claims string theory is nonsense, the Schrodinger

    I love that Sir Roger Penrose claims string theory is nonsense, the Schrodinger equation does not describe reality, and instead advocates twistors, using positive and negative frequencies, recognizing the importance of choice of vacuum, and that gravity produces the collpase problem, limits doing physics to existentially demonstrable dimensions, yet he claims the existence of a separate mathematical realiity (mathematical platonism). Though as I’ve aged, as had he, I’ve come to understand that he means this other than how he speaks it. So I may have to stop lovingly teasing him over his platonism given that he behaves otherwise. 😉 He is still the clearest thinker in the field and I’ll lament his passing.

    –“I’m not a believer myself. I don’t believe in established religions of any kind. … I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance … some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”– Sir Roger Penrose

    Here he is saying that there is something deeper to the existence of the universe, and it’s useless for us to imagine this vast clockwork of computation and not search for it’s purpose and function. He’s NOT saying that purpose and function is by design.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-07 00:53:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677111317994299392

  • I love that Sir Roger Penrose is claims string theory is nonsense, the Schroding

    I love that Sir Roger Penrose is claims string theory is nonsense, the Schrodinger equation does not describe reality, and instead advocates twistors, using positive and negative frequencies, recognizing the importance of choice of vacuum, and that gravity produces the collpase problem, limits doing physics to existentially demonstrable dimensions, yet he claims the existence of a separate mathematical realiity (mathematical platonism). Though as I’ve aged, as had he, I’ve come to understand that he means this other than how he speaks it. So I may have to stop lovingly teasing him over his platonism given that he behaves otherwise. 😉 He is still the clearest thinker in the field and I’ll lament his passing.

    –“I’m not a believer myself. I don’t believe in established religions of any kind. … I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance … some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”– Sir Roger Penrose

    Here he is saying that there is something deeper to the existence of the universe, and it’s useless for us to imagine this vast clockwork of computation and not search for it’s purpose and function. He’s NOT saying that purpose and function is by design.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-07 00:53:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677109494860455936

  • K13: That’s just a theoretical radius. The dispersal map I’ve seen shows concent

    K13: That’s just a theoretical radius. The dispersal map I’ve seen shows concentration in a band south-southwest and extending over crimea. The risk outside of that band depends on winds. For your producers: overlay the current Chernobyl radiation zone map over Zaporizhia.
    That…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-05 02:05:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676412009766612993

    Reply addressees: @K13News

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676408476359172122

  • K13: That’s just a theoretical radius. The dispersal map I’ve seen shows concent

    K13: That’s just a theoretical radius. The dispersal map I’ve seen shows concentration in a band south-southwest and extending over crimea. The risk outside of that band depends on winds. For your producers: overlay the current Chernobyl radiation zone map over Zaporizhia.
    That said (extended family was working at Chernobyl) long term effects were limited other than some staff and the first responders. (Not to minimize the tragedy.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-05 02:05:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676412009686917120

  • only the plant. lay a map of the current chernobyl radiation zones over zaporizh

    only the plant. lay a map of the current chernobyl radiation zones over zaporizhia. crimea is fine.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-05 01:18:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676400033644552193

    Reply addressees: @Chimichanga8131 @NATO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676398991590801408

  • I don’t know if there is any truth to that statement: HERE –“Scientific researc

    I don’t know if there is any truth to that statement:

    HERE
    –“Scientific research has found that pedophilia is a separate disease from and in no way related to homosexuality. In fact, research demonstrates that most pedophiles (more than 95 percent) are heterosexually oriented. However, some studies have found that homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses. For example, a study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses. Another study calculated the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles to be approximately 11:1.”—

    That’s like saying whites are overrrepresented among serial killers – until we compensate for population size and discover serial killers are about equal in the races. And more so, because it’s somehow worse or less expected when white people are serial killers because whites have an international reputation for higher trustworthiness.

    Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 22:50:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674913311148613635

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674910511287156739

  • “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation” The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is

    “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation”

    The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is a series of attention-seeking, misinterpretations, fictions, and pseudoscience based on ignorance.

    The universe *IS* quite accidentally (or deterministically) computing something (persistence), but it’s not a simulation. And the fundamental laws of the universe exist and persist because they evolved the only means of their survival – just like every other property of the universe that evolved from those fundamental laws.

    We are, each of us living in an experience that consists of perception (existence) competing with an overlay of auto association we call prediction (imagination) and then shifting our attention as we do focusing between something near and something far.

    We maintain different focuses, so some live more in the world of existence (present), some of us in imagination(thinking), some of us closer to dream state (disconnected).

    So it’s understandable that some ‘pseudoscientists and philosophers and nonsense-speakers’ would try to preserve mysticism and woo woo by claiming we live in a simulation.

    We dont. We see as much of the world as we can act upon. Because that’s all it’s useful for us to see, hear, feel, smell, and disambiguate into a model we can act in. But just as the camera sees the world as it is, so do we. We break the world into bits (disambiguate it) by means that allow us to move through and act on it. Just like any and all sentient life in this world or any other.

    The only ‘miracles’ are:
    … a) we percive a three dimensional world at a scale we can move through. This hippocampal magic is the most fascinating part of the brain. The rest is simple by comparison.
    … b) We have developed enough brain matter in enough of a hierarchy to recursively think about thinking (consciousness).

    The rest is just tediously boring physics really.

    The age of philosophy, mysticism, and woo woo is over.

    It’s just going to take a generation for the nonsense-speakers to die off and the current state of understanding to reproduce in the population.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @Jut2685 @PolitiStoned @VivekGRamaswamy

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 21:20:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674890767708348416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674876320684158979