
The structures of computation and the mathematical structure of nature (2010) - ege_erdogan
http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article030107.html
======
ukj
Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the
instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds.

It is difficult to distinguish the two cases in practice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That's not a new idea.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-
itself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself)

I don't think it follows that either the universe or our minds are
computational. For one, we don't have a satisfactory definition of "mind", so
that question has to remain open until we do.

And the universe could be "computational" in a completely unfamiliar way. It
might even be humanly unimaginable.

As a wild speculation, consider the extreme case: the universe actually
functions as an indivisible whole.

We use math to make predictions about repeating causal patterns, and
invariably they work in a time- and precision-limited way. If the universe was
a true thing-in-itself on its own terms, it could be "computational", but our
models would _always_ be incomplete and imperfect.

We would never be able to understand it fully, because we would never be able
to build a complete and accurate representation of its computational
mechanisms.

~~~
ukj
Note how you insist on a definition for “mind”, but if we are going to keep
raising the bar on missing definitions let’s just go for the sacred cow. What
is a definition anyway?

Could you give me a definition for “definition”?

At some point you have to be content that your inability to define every
single term in your vocabulary doesn’t hinder your ability to use that term in
practice.

All we have in way of creating/communicating knowledge is symbol manipulation.
Language.

Turing machines are language recognisers, and I am comfortable using them as
practically sufficient (for the purposes of conversation) models of minds.

To be sure you see my point, defining “definition” is recursive and that puts
you on the computer science turf.

I am a computer. Mathematics is a language; or more precisely - it is a
grammar. Our Mathematical models of the universe are computational, and since
Mathematics can only prove things up to isomorphism that is as far as
colourless, formal, linguistic reductionism will take us.

As for Kantian transcendentalism. Look no further than Jean-Yves Girard’s work
on Linear Logic, Geometry of Interaction and transcendental syntax. Is all
computer science intersecting with Quantum Physics.

~~~
echelon
> I am a computer.

You are a biological system. A massive, noisy and dynamical system of
interactions we can never hope to model in fidelity. You exist because of
unstable equilibria and tiny little proteins pushing against entropy.

> All we have in way of creating/communicating knowledge is symbol
> manipulation. Language.

We can communicate with more than abstract symbol language. A dog grows and
bears its teeth. A thunderstorm communicates its approach.

We're pattern recognizers, but messy, soupy ones.

~~~
ukj
>You are a biological system.

That is the language of systems theory.

You are welcome to use the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle as a semantic.

>A massive, noisy and dynamical system of interactions we can never hope to
model in fidelity.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry_of_interaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry_of_interaction)

We are already modeling it.

The only argument here is the degree of fidelity required or possible.

> You exist because of unstable equilibria and tiny little proteins pushing
> against entropy >We can communicate...

Begging the question: why do proteins exist?

Entropy, Information, Communication. Heh! That is the language of Information
Theory.

>We’re pattern recognisers

Yes. That is what I said - computer/language recogniser. If there's no
pattern/structure you can't parse it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition)

However you define/conceptualise us, every time you use the word “I” or “we”
you are exemplifying recursion.

That is the great thing about self-locating beliefs - they are unfalsifiable.

~~~
webdva
An inspiring critique of and response to confident realist materialism founded
on a certain anthropocentric presumption of Cartesian dualism. It exemplified
skill—its own powerful confidence—and experience, deserving great
commendation. The education born from witnessing such activity has a high
aesthetic value to me.

~~~
ukj
I am pleased that it pleased you, but allow me to correct the misconception
arising due to the parallax between your view of me and my view of me.

Quantum Entanglement is computation, which makes me a monist and a
materialist/physicalist. Computers reify our formal languages by manipulating
matter.

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark-computer-science-
pro...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark-computer-science-proof-
cascades-through-physics-and-math-20200304/)

In the language of comp-sci: Code is data - data is code. Homoiconicity.

In the language that has fallen out of fashion as of late...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. —John 1:1

~~~
webdva
I intended for my phrase “confident realist materialism founded on a certain
anthropocentric presumption of Cartesian dualism,” in all its entirety, to
refer to the object of the critique. I apologize if my carelessness caused you
to interpret the second half of the phrase (the part after the word
“materialism”) as a mischaracterized signifier of you, the subject or cause of
the critique. Regardless, I thank you for providing an organization of your
advanced philosophy and the fundamental mechanics of it.

------
agumonkey
Wonderfully large article, I often dig in history of CS and science but there
was a lot to learn about connection between different research fields.

Thanks a lot

