SpaceGazelle wrote:What do you mean 'not even wrong'?
hunk wrote:So, creating (artificial) intelligence: totally possible
Possible side effect of ai developing some form of consciousness over time: impossible because we do not understand how our minds work and consciousness comes about , simulated or otherwise.
GurtTractor wrote:Mathematics was one of the core disagreements between Bach and Hoffman in that podcast, you might want to check out the bit about Gödel at least. Bach is a strong advocate for constructivism and computationalism, basically for something to be true it has to be implementable. A non-continuous fundamental reality follows from this, which seems to be a big point of contention among scientists. As for consciousness Hoffman is in the "hard problem" mysterianism camp, which is basically; 'because I can not or have not developed a hypothesis for how the mind works, consciousness must be unexplainable and/or beyond our current physics'. It seems to be usually based around a fundamental confusion about the nature of subjective reality, a failure to reconcile dualism with materialism.
hunk wrote:Yes, it's getting better and better at the Turing test. Still, that possible side effect uncertainty tho.......
GurtTractor wrote:Mathematics was one of the core disagreements between Bach and Hoffman in that podcast, you might want to check out the bit about Gödel at least. Bach is a strong advocate for constructivism and computationalism, basically for something to be true it has to be implementable. A non-continuous fundamental reality follows from this, which seems to be a big point of contention among scientists. As for consciousness Hoffman is in the "hard problem" mysterianism camp, which is basically; 'because I can not or have not developed a hypothesis for how the mind works, consciousness must be unexplainable and/or beyond our current physics'. It seems to be usually based around a fundamental confusion about the nature of subjective reality, a failure to reconcile dualism with materialism.
SpaceGazelle wrote:The problem Bach has, being a computer scientist, is that the maths of infinities hasn't been fully fleshed out. You simply can't rule out stateless mathematics yet.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-infinity-real_5.htmlInfinity and zero are everywhere in physics. Even in seemingly innocent things like space, or space-time. The moment you write down the mathematics for space, you assume there are no gaps in it. You assume it’s a perfectly smooth continuum, made of infinitely many infinitely small points.
Mathematically, that’s a convenient assumption because it’s easy to work with. And it seems to be working just fine. That’s why most physicists do not worry all that much about it. They just use infinity as a useful mathematical tool.
But maybe using infinity and zero in physics brings in mistakes because these assumptions are not only not scientifically justified, they are not scientifically justifiable. And this may play a role in our understanding of the cosmos or quantum mechanics. This is why some physicists, like George Ellis, Tim Palmer, and Nicolas Gisin have argued that we should be formulating physics without using infinities or infinitely precise numbers.
GurtTractor wrote:That'll be you not understanding an analogy he's making or the context. Happy to discuss it more if there's a specific bit you're referring to. It's ironic that you describe it that way when Hoffman is basically using a lot of "well we just don't know yet" to justify his ideas, something very familiar to theological and psuedoscientific discourse. He stands on shaky ground and you can tell he knows it in that podcast.Here is Bach saying the same things in a different way which might help - The point he makes is that the maths of infinities cannot be 'fleshed out', because if a language contains contradictions it cannot be used to make proofs about truth. If you use a stateless language with infinities you can reason about things that cannot exist in reality, which can potentially be a problem for physicists if they make theories that rely on it. Classical mathematics offers useful abstractions and assumptions but we shouldn't conflate it with a description of reality.SpaceGazelle wrote:The problem Bach has, being a computer scientist, is that the maths of infinities hasn't been fully fleshed out. You simply can't rule out stateless mathematics yet.http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-infinity-real_5.htmlInfinity and zero are everywhere in physics. Even in seemingly innocent things like space, or space-time. The moment you write down the mathematics for space, you assume there are no gaps in it. You assume it’s a perfectly smooth continuum, made of infinitely many infinitely small points. Mathematically, that’s a convenient assumption because it’s easy to work with. And it seems to be working just fine. That’s why most physicists do not worry all that much about it. They just use infinity as a useful mathematical tool. But maybe using infinity and zero in physics brings in mistakes because these assumptions are not only not scientifically justified, they are not scientifically justifiable. And this may play a role in our understanding of the cosmos or quantum mechanics. This is why some physicists, like George Ellis, Tim Palmer, and Nicolas Gisin have argued that we should be formulating physics without using infinities or infinitely precise numbers.
SpaceGazelle wrote:Point out what is contradictory about mathematics and we can talk.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!