5 ms·

Yes, I understand why some scientists claim that nature is "just" some computer but no one still has given an answer to my very basic question: what is the inst

by soist 2y ago

Yes, I understand why some scientists claim that nature is "just" some computer but no one still has given an answer to my very basic question: what is the instruction set that the people who claim they are computers are using to think? Surely there must be one if they are nothing more than programmable computers as they claim.

vidarh 2y ago
Why do you think there would need to be an instruction set? And why do you think we'd need to know of one to conclude we're all computers?
- soist 2y ago
  Just trying to figure out how rigorously people have thought about this. A computer with an undefined instruction set seems somewhat useless as a computer.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Whether or not we can discern an instruction set is entirely orthogonal to whether or not something can compute.
    - soist 2y ago
      Oh I see, so it's magic.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        If you don't know how something works, do you assume it is magic? Why? It's a wildly irrational assumption to assume that it is magic rather than assume absent evidence to the contrary that it works according to known physics.
        soist 2y ago
        Well, that's essentially a logical tautology. Everything works according to the known laws of physics but it's certainly true that everything must also work with unknown laws of physics because of basic human ignorance.
        vidarh 2y ago
        No it is not. The argument is that absent any evidence of the existence of such unknown physics happening in the brain the most logical assumption is to assume there isn't any, rather that presuming the existence of something we've never observed any hint of.
        soist 2y ago
        Unknown physics is happening all the time almost by definition but as I said in another thread, good luck with your computations.
  - kybernetikos 2y ago
    Rule 110 doesn't have a clearly defined instruction set but is known to be Turing complete.
    - soist 2y ago
      Rule 110 can be specified with a rewrite system, also known as cellular automata: https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248 https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248. Cellular automatons have a correspondence with contextual grammars: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis5110/notes/tcbook-lang.pdf https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis5110/notes/tcbook-lang.pdf. Each is equivalent to a Turing machine, another way of saying that there is a program for it which can be specified on a Turing machine with the usual Turing machine instruction set for writing, reading, and erasing binary digits on a tape. This usual program can then be "compiled" into a rewrite system corresponding to the instruction set for rule 110. The reason rule 110 is said to be Turing complete is because someone went through the trouble of specifying an instruction set for rule 110 so that other people could verify that it would be possible to write programs with it. This is not the case for the people who claim that they are computers. They always leave the instruction set undefined which makes their claims hard to believe. I personally have no problem with people who think they're computers but if they're not programmable then I'm not sure what the point would be of calling themselves computers.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        > This is not the case for the people who claim that they are computers. They always leave the instruction set undefined which makes their claims hard to believe. What is your alternative? Can you explain to us how the brain could possibly do something - down to the atomic level - that would allow it to do something that not only is not possible to simulate, but that also does not still constitute computation? We don't even have language for talking about such "operations" that are so different from all forms of computation that it is not just another form of computation. Just try to describe one such hypothetical state change that can not be reproduced with a Turing computable function. At the same time, your insistence on "instruction sets" is meaningless. An "instruction set" the way we tend to consider them is not necessary to parameterize a function. A neural network with input/output used to provide the "tape" can trivially be made Turing complete. If you consider the weights or connections of the network an instruction set, then there you go - that we don't know how to measure and extract all the details of the neural network of a brain does not mean we can't observe their presence. And it also does not mean we haven't done a vast amount of measurements without observing any hint of unknown physics affecting state transitions. To simplify it: Even a simple mechanical thermostat is parameterized - the dial provides "an instruction set" in the form of an ability to set a single threshold that alters the behaviour of the function computed. But if you expect something that looks like what we typically talk about when we talk about an instruction set, then that is a very limiting view of computation, and one I've already pointed out to you is just one part of the multiple types of computational devices we've built. Including heavily parameterisable ones.

by soist 2y ago

vidarh 2y ago

Why do you think there would need to be an instruction set? And why do you think we'd need to know of one to conclude we're all computers?

soist 2y ago
Just trying to figure out how rigorously people have thought about this. A computer with an undefined instruction set seems somewhat useless as a computer.
- vidarh 2y ago
  Whether or not we can discern an instruction set is entirely orthogonal to whether or not something can compute.
  - soist 2y ago
    Oh I see, so it's magic.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      If you don't know how something works, do you assume it is magic? Why? It's a wildly irrational assumption to assume that it is magic rather than assume absent evidence to the contrary that it works according to known physics.
      - soist 2y ago
        Well, that's essentially a logical tautology. Everything works according to the known laws of physics but it's certainly true that everything must also work with unknown laws of physics because of basic human ignorance.
        vidarh 2y ago
        No it is not. The argument is that absent any evidence of the existence of such unknown physics happening in the brain the most logical assumption is to assume there isn't any, rather that presuming the existence of something we've never observed any hint of.
        soist 2y ago
        Unknown physics is happening all the time almost by definition but as I said in another thread, good luck with your computations.
- kybernetikos 2y ago
  Rule 110 doesn't have a clearly defined instruction set but is known to be Turing complete.
  - soist 2y ago
    Rule 110 can be specified with a rewrite system, also known as cellular automata: https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248 https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248. Cellular automatons have a correspondence with contextual grammars: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis5110/notes/tcbook-lang.pdf https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis5110/notes/tcbook-lang.pdf. Each is equivalent to a Turing machine, another way of saying that there is a program for it which can be specified on a Turing machine with the usual Turing machine instruction set for writing, reading, and erasing binary digits on a tape. This usual program can then be "compiled" into a rewrite system corresponding to the instruction set for rule 110. The reason rule 110 is said to be Turing complete is because someone went through the trouble of specifying an instruction set for rule 110 so that other people could verify that it would be possible to write programs with it. This is not the case for the people who claim that they are computers. They always leave the instruction set undefined which makes their claims hard to believe. I personally have no problem with people who think they're computers but if they're not programmable then I'm not sure what the point would be of calling themselves computers.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      > This is not the case for the people who claim that they are computers. They always leave the instruction set undefined which makes their claims hard to believe. What is your alternative? Can you explain to us how the brain could possibly do something - down to the atomic level - that would allow it to do something that not only is not possible to simulate, but that also does not still constitute computation? We don't even have language for talking about such "operations" that are so different from all forms of computation that it is not just another form of computation. Just try to describe one such hypothetical state change that can not be reproduced with a Turing computable function. At the same time, your insistence on "instruction sets" is meaningless. An "instruction set" the way we tend to consider them is not necessary to parameterize a function. A neural network with input/output used to provide the "tape" can trivially be made Turing complete. If you consider the weights or connections of the network an instruction set, then there you go - that we don't know how to measure and extract all the details of the neural network of a brain does not mean we can't observe their presence. And it also does not mean we haven't done a vast amount of measurements without observing any hint of unknown physics affecting state transitions. To simplify it: Even a simple mechanical thermostat is parameterized - the dial provides "an instruction set" in the form of an ability to set a single threshold that alters the behaviour of the function computed. But if you expect something that looks like what we typically talk about when we talk about an instruction set, then that is a very limiting view of computation, and one I've already pointed out to you is just one part of the multiple types of computational devices we've built. Including heavily parameterisable ones.