tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post7902139191794478845..comments2010-10-23T17:11:38.912-07:00Comments on Squarkonium: Free will, ethics and determinismSquarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08330918300643149836noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-92050134524040555772010-02-25T05:12:38.192-08:002010-02-25T05:12:38.192-08:00That’s Too nice, when it comes in india hope it ca...That’s Too nice, when it comes in india hope it can make a Rocking place for youngster.. hope that come true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-53785850430551651412009-06-26T15:20:33.624-07:002009-06-26T15:20:33.624-07:00Sorry, didn't get that deep into it. But I kno...Sorry, didn't get that deep into it. But I know a right person to ask.Sergeihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12714980228744011192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-44494785615604521362009-06-26T13:53:58.380-07:002009-06-26T13:53:58.380-07:001. This I know. However, does Penrose (or anyone) ...1. This I know. However, does Penrose (or anyone) has an example of at least remotely reaslitic <br />non-computable physics? Stuff like halt problem oracles appears difficult to insert into feasible mathematical models of reality.Squarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08330918300643149836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-56935894800149819942009-06-26T05:07:35.281-07:002009-06-26T05:07:35.281-07:00Sorry for disappearing, busy week.
1) Basically, e...Sorry for disappearing, busy week.<br />1) Basically, every non-computable model is in particular a computable model, with non-computable elements. So the question is not "how" but "and what". For example, add to a Turing machine, a zero-time halt problem oracle. What could you get from it? This particular example is bad - the answer is that you get instantaneous answers for all your problems. <br />But maybe, with some strong constraints, we manage to stay in the real world, but add "god","belief","intuition" to our vocabulary.<br />2) correctSergeihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12714980228744011192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-64086318810572645112009-06-25T02:01:22.969-07:002009-06-25T02:01:22.969-07:00Btw, thx for your commments!
1. It is very intere...Btw, thx for your commments!<br /><br />1. It is very interesting to me how can one construct a reasonable <br />non-computable model.<br /><br />3. Ok, maybe now I get what you're saying. You're saying that a person X immersed in an environment E is influenced by the kind of ethics E has and acquires it for herself.<br />Also, ethics is "macroscopic" in the sense that people have ethics (and perhaps, societies have ethics?) but electrons don't have ethics.Squarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08330918300643149836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-73403110415633030192009-06-19T15:35:17.545-07:002009-06-19T15:35:17.545-07:001)Agree with you here, I do not see an overwhelmin...1)Agree with you here, I do not see an overwhelming proof either. ( = I<br />'m not a follower )<br />Penrose doesn't rely on superstrings, he develops an "objective reduction" concept based on quantum gravity. I'm not sure I want to get into the details now, but supposing it is possible, there may be new non-computable horizons for the consciousness.<br /><br />2) D(P)=P may very well be solvable for any practical purpose, and then the determinism will celebrate. However, will it discard ethics? I think, still the answer will be "NO", as the external computer Y is an oracle beyond X's understand. <br />It's like another external oracle, named muezzin, doesn't discard ethics, IMHO. So what I say is that is ethics only about something you "understand", not something you "believe".<br /><br />3)"Ethics" is some sort of macroscopic (subjective) variable, which describes how "ethical" is (state,action) in the given subspace of known state and available actions.<br />So far so good?Sergeihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12714980228744011192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-79187276220084745192009-06-19T02:58:28.981-07:002009-06-19T02:58:28.981-07:001. I never understood the claim that people are be...1. I never understood the claim that people are better than computers because people supposedly can solve the halting problem. In my opinion, people cannot solve the halting problem. The illusion that they can stems from thinking about very simple halting problems.<br />Consider the following halting problem. The Turing machine T, loops over all even numbers 2k for k > 1 and checks whether 2k is a sum of two prime numbers. If it is, it goes on, if it isn't, it halts. Does it ever halt or not? This is an open problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture.<br />Moreover, it is in principle possible that this cannot be either proved or disproved. Even if this particular statement can be either proved or disproved, it is possible to show that a there is a statement S(n) checkable for every natural n exists which cannot be either proved or disproved. In fact it follows from the halting problem! Indeed, consider statements of the form: <br />S_T(n) = "The Turing machine T halts after n steps".<br />Now consider the Turing machine P whose input is a Turing machine T. What P does is a brute-force search in the space of formal logical deductions of either a proof that T halts or a proof that T doesn't halt. Since P cannot be the solution to the halting problem (there is no such solution), it follows that T exists such that is impossible to either prove or disprove it halts.<br />Moreover, all known physics including superstring theory is computable, as far as I can tell. So, with all due respect to Penrose, it sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.<br /><br />2. To set the rules of the game, lets suppose the only output allowed from Y is the predicted decision. If we allow scenarios like yours, the notion of "prediction" becomes ill-defined since Y provided several conflicting predictions. Now, Y can compute the function D(P) where D is the decision X and P is the prediction provided by Y. It can then search for roots of the equation<br />D(P) = P<br />Such roots may or may not exist, as far as I can tell.<br /><br />3. Hmm, I don't quite follow you. What is the "ethics potential" and why does it equilibrates?Squarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08330918300643149836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-43731585629402208942009-06-19T01:44:49.240-07:002009-06-19T01:44:49.240-07:00That sounds very like what we discuss in our philo...That sounds very like what we discuss in our philosophers club :)<br /><br />A few notes:<br /><br />1) I'm not a follower, but Penrose, in his "Emperor" etc plays with the idea that quantum collapse is not a probabilistic but rather a non computational feature, in the sense, that when a brain collapses to a classical state (on some level or another, leave the quantumness of the brain aside for the moment), it can solve unsolvable problems, like the halt problem. In this view, our decisions are essentially unpredictable. You can possibly simulate them on a machine using the same quantum twist, but as Penrose connects it to the consciousness itself, that wouldn't be a simulation, that will be you making the decision once again.<br /><br />2) Regarding the X girl using the Y computer. The computer doesn't have to simulate itself. It can simulate the girl, given the answers it provides, and see if the girls' decisions diverse. There's a good possibility, that if will be able to predict, for every practical use, the decision made. e.g it says "A", girls says "what the hell, I chose B", then it says "ok, B", the girl says "f* machine, I'd just do what _I_ want" and chooses A.<br /><br />3) I think that ethics is not well defined on that microscopical level. It is a generalized coordinate, like pressure or temperature. It's really funny to notice, that ethics is best understood in quasistatical situations, just as thermodynamical variables. In that terminology, you take a "situation" , composed of two coupled systems "me" and "world", where world is the ethics bath, and the system "me" thrives to get into states with equal ethics potential with the world. That's all good in the subjective perception of ethics, but can we agree on a uniform "ethics scale"? There's an obvious empirical evidence of ethics existence. <br /><br />4) I do agree that "ethical, as far as X can tell" is a good definition to avoid caveats.Sergeihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12714980228744011192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6815931835942890099.post-40324114446399877802009-06-18T13:30:00.301-07:002009-06-18T13:30:00.301-07:00Thanks. I hadn't been able to clearly formulat...Thanks. I hadn't been able to clearly formulate what bothers me.Levhttp://levsblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com