Look at data. It’s been done. Don’t argue with me, and especially levy accusations, without the data.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 19:38:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744443402240860378
Reply addressees: @diegocaleiro
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744442238929948904
RT @ThruTheHayes: THE RULES OF THE UNIVERSE
A grammars to make commensurate all paradigms of thought.
@curtdoolittle discusses teaching c…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 18:12:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744421881598329071
smart question.
In simple terms the level of technology determines the means by which to measure the behavior of citizenss. Relgion (reputation), Law (reputation), Credit (reputation), and unfortunately Social Scores (reputation), all increase the resolution of judgement of an individual and either increase (rarely) or decrease (often) his or her opportunities, thus imposing a cost on deviation from the traditions, norms, rules, and laws.
I would suggest a thought for you to consider, that all technology either increases the amount of available energy, decreases the cost of available energy, or decreases the cost of and therefore reduces time and space, as well as the information recording and transport in that time and space.
The most important property of a polity is rule of law and the deviation from natural law in that rule of law. For that reason one must ‘grow’ a polity starting with a military, then a judiciary, then a government, then a market, and only then can one have participatory government where we battle for preference of commons.
Reply addressees: @TheFlushening
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 16:22:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744394131013500932
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744391617836982531
I suppose I should help clarify the subject by disambiguating terms.
Calculation in the broadest sense consists of the transformation of inputs into outputs. This is a process of deduction. (top down) Mathematics is Calculation.
Computation in the broadest sense is the performance of operations. (bottom up) in the absence of deduction, induction, or inference. Arithimetic is computation.
Probability, in now-popular AI, this difference is now re-conflated and restored to ambiguity because our computers, perform computations, using human-derived calculations, to produce bayesian accounting probabilities, as if they were inferences, because the number of dimensions of measurement and number paramaters exceed the human ability to calculate, in the category we call artificial intelligence. And since all langauge is reducible to measurements, where the measurement consists of a dimension that is subjectively testable by human experience, while still retaining it’s reducability to mathematical expression by substitution of arbitrary numbers as names and values as weights instead of natural naming (vs cardinal or ordinal).
Machines cannot perform mathematics however, they may perform computations, and therefore may perform arithmetic. Even though, as painful as it is, division is still a matter of tabular trial and error. Just as so much of mathematics is a matter of ‘fitting’.
I find math boring but I find the foundations of math, logic, and all the grammars (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) fascinating. 😉
Reply addressees: @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 13:40:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744353353725816832
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744169409831145592
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
THE GODEL NONSENSE IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL INFECTION. 😉
–“There’s no proof that everything is computable. Information theory is in agreement with Gödel.”– Replying to @Zamicol and @cryptogeni
That is a naive statement. You are confusing the limits of mathematics with the limits of computation and not grasping computation as a sequence of possible operations. The fact is if the universe can construct anything at all – if ANYTHING can exist, then it is computable because there is no difference between computation and construction by permutation.
The difference is that mathematics is universally statistical (categorical) so that we can predict what is mathematically reducible, and that is only a subset of what is computable. The problem with computability is that there is no means of prediction – there is only a means of trial and error.
You also misunderstand Godel. The point is that not everything is provable because there is no closure to computability, and provability is a statement about logic given a set of fixed premises and not about existential possibility. Furthermore, the proof appears to be limited to arithmetical operations and nothing more complicated.
It appears you also misunderstand information theory given that the purpose of the theory is to explain the problem of entropy and noice precisely because of the information loss in mathematical (verbal, ideal) reduction vs computational (operational,real) procedures is due precisely to the fact that mathematics loses information and computation doesn’t (at least down to -35 decimal places).
I did not realize until the early nineties that this false understanding of Godel was spreading like a virus with each new generation of students learning programming – but who have no basic comprehension of its narrowness. However, there are authors who have written books, one in particular that I can’t recall off the top of my head, that I felt was largely accessible to the STEM degree-educated population.
I hope this helps you at least head in the right direction.
Let me know if you require further explanation.
Cheers
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1744169409831145592
–“The Intuitionist view (a philosophy of mathematics) restricts mathematics to only what can be described re computability – and is the common view of mathematicians now.”–
A common tendency in the field to confuse mathematical calculation (top-down, transformation of inputs into outputs) with computation (bottom up, construction of outputs from. limited inputs.) This was discussed during the intuitionist period in every single discipline. They intuited something had gone wrong but couldn’t quite understand it. Unfortunately, Turing came later instead of first.
As I’ve said for years the intellectual failure in the west that affected everything, including even philosophy, but led us to Einstein and Bohr’s re-platonization of mathematics is the discovery by Babbage but his failure to write a treatise. And we’re still suffering from the consequence.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 13:01:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744343552203587585
Zach,
GIVEN
–“In algorithmic information theory, the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program (in a predetermined programming language) that produces the object as output. It is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object,”–
AND
(a) the universe’s computational resources.
(b) the universe’s algorithm is not a subset of possible operations, but consists of the only possible operations.
(c) the set of what the universe can compute is identical to the set of operations the universe can construct.
THEREFORE
KC is irrelevant. It is a statement about computers in the universe and software on those computers and not the universe.
AS SUCH
Wolfram (as I) would not of course consider it relevant since that relevance would be illogical.
Note that the fact you are confused (as would almost everyone be) is also why the physicists are confused. Because mathematics(calculation) is not the same as computation(operations).
Reply addressees: @Zamicol @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 12:50:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744340706208935937
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744323384442278078
I think I could convice you that quantitative can’t be, but operational can be a limit. For the same reasons we are discussing here. but it’s late at night and I’m still trying to figure out why my workstation is crawling around like a slug and I want to go to bed. Anther time maybe. 😉
Tip: all logics(grammars) are just language. What is expressible in any system of logic (grammar) and what is not? Once you understand this then everything we think and say is just an n-dimensional manifold of relations that are reducible to analogies to human experience.
Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 04:37:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744216790245228544
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744215797621211522
what is the difference between mathematics(descriptions) and computation (operations)? Why is the set of what is mathematical reducible smaller than the set of what is computationally constructable?
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:55:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744206211342377356
Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744205190633251102
There is no contradiction with physics. You think so because you’re confusing mathematics for the purpose of description of regularities in the quantum background and the problem of predicting such regularities when we are limited to probabilities, with the formation of matter by quanta (the universe’s counting system) by the discovery of combinations of stable relations, particles, matter and the hierarchy of their combinations, yes these combinations are computable. This is why computing power is necessary for the discovery of chemical, molecular, biomolecular combinations and the remaining hieararchy of the organization of matter. It can be computed and therefore discovered, but not mathematically predicted (calculated) and even when discovered it may not be mathematically reducible, and may only be algorithmically reducible thus repeating the process of its construction. It’s also why for example bayesian accounting (what we call machine learning) has been successful of late at inference of molecular structures that are a potentnial which are then reversibly engineerd demonstrating their means of construction. They are not calculable, but they are open to calculation, it’s just extremely inefficient to work by trial and error. When we do so we compress time by modeling, just as computers compress time by modeling our own pencil and paper calculations.
I can’t be wrong by the way. Wolfram understands this problem the best I think, but he isn’t terribly good at explaining it in operational terms. Which is unfortunate. Because it helps explain the failures of the past fifty years of research in physics, how einstein and bohr encouraged that failure indirectly, and it explains why Minsky, in his introduction to computer science was adamant that computation was a novel way of thining and that it is a revolution on top of mathematics just as empiricism was on philosophy.
Reply addressees: @linasvepstas @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 03:54:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744205845062189056
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744202496904429618
(Because of the phrasing it’s easy to error in one’s response so the ‘force it’ values are likely error and at least three percent is the normal error for surveys.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 15:07:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744012991908004151
Reply addressees: @MindEnjoyer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743820712903631031