5 ms·

This feels like the kind of popsci that's written for people who already agree with the author - there's nothing resembling an argument, or even a definition of

by rck 1y ago

This feels like the kind of popsci that's written for people who already agree with the author - there's nothing resembling an argument, or even a definition of "computation." There are nods to Church-Turing, but the leap from "every effectively calculable function is computable" to "life is a computation" is larger than anything you could fit in a book.

bgwalter 1y ago
I felt reminded of Hofstadter's Goedel/Escher/Bach mysticism that somehow everything is recursion.
- anthk 1y ago
  Self-simulation.
- AfterHIA 1y ago
  I might not be a strange loop but I am indeed strange.
- emmelaich 1y ago
  or the idea that the universe is a computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin
- GoatOfAplomb 1y ago
  In any case, he did fit that into a book! If only barely. Edit: On further reflection, I suppose he didn't, if we consider the effort to span Gödel Escher Bach and I Am a Strange Loop.
- prmph 1y ago
  Including free will
lawlessone 1y ago
> there's nothing resembling an argument, or even a definition of "computation." "It's not even wrong" - Pauli
failingforward 1y ago
Yes, the article appears to be a short excerpt from a book and probably loses a lot of context because of that. I am interested in the questions raised by the author but will wait for the book to come out. The good news is that it appears the book will be open access - MIT Press seems to be encouraging this lately (at least by allowing this as an option for authors).
- dandelionv1bes 1y ago
  Oh great flag that it’s open access. Will give this a read.
- aivuk 1y ago
  You can find the full book here: https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/ https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/
seanhunter 1y ago
Reminds me of Wolfram's "Principle of Computational Equivalence"[1]. 1. Things in nature have a maximum complexity which is like computation 2. Most things get this complicated 3. Therefore most things are "computationally equivalent" 4. "For example, the workings of the human brain or the evolution of weather systems can, in principle, compute the same things as a computer. " The leap between things being in an equivalence class according to some relation and being "in principle, the same" might present difficulty if you've done any basic set theory, but that's just because you lack vision. [1] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquiva...
- vidarh 1y ago
  This principle is just applying Turing equivalence to the hypothesis that there is nothing in nature that is effectively computable but exceeds the Turing computable (which would be the "maximal level of computational power") Given we have no evidence of the existence of anything effectively computable that is not Turing computable, it's a reasonable hypothesis, with no evidence pointing towards falsifying it, nor any viable theories for what a "level of computational power" that exceeds this hypothetical maximum would look like. And, yes, if that hypothesis holds, then life is equivalent, to the point of at least being indistinguishable from when observed from the outside, computation. A lot of people get upset at this, because they want life to be special, and especially human thought. If they want to disprove this, a single example of humans computing a function that is outside the Turing computable would be a very significant blow to this hypothesis, and the notion of life as a computation (it wouldn't conclusively falsify it, as to do that you'd need to also disprove that there might we ways to extend computers to compute the set of newly discovered functions that can't be computed by a Turing machine, but it would be a very significant blow)
  - seanhunter 1y ago
    Firstly the crux of that hypothesis seems completely undecidable. Secondly it seems to me that applying something like Turing equivalence to things which are not computer programs is a category error which leads to him talking very obvious total nonsense. 1. Complexity != computation. How does a weather system compute anything at all for example? By any standard definition of these words it doesn’t. Since Wolfram never defines his terms rigourously, this statement is prima facie meaningless. 2. Computational complexity != equivalence. He’s talked about implementing the universe in 4 lines of mathematica code when clearly mathematica itself is in the universe and takes more than 4 lines of code to implement. What he (actually his staff) has implemented in 4 lines is a cellular automaton that is Turing equivalent. That’s cool but it’s not the universe. If you’re not drinking the kool-ade it’s just nonsense. 3. How does any of that make life indistinguishable from computation? All life that I’ve observed seems to be very easily distinguishable from computation, and I would suggest that anyone who finds this confusing should probably get out more.
esafak 1y ago
Is the author advancing a new argument? Has anyone read the book? A quick review suggests that the author posits that symbiogenesis is central to evolution, and artificial intelligence. This is interesting because I recall no mention of this mechanism in the current AI literature. The promise of a symbiotic relationship with artificial life sounds like a balm to people anxious about the future. It is a possibility, not a certainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://publicservicesalliance.org/2025/05/24/what-is-intelligence-blaise-aguera-y-arcas-book-for-2025/#:~:text=Recent%20experiments%20by%20Blaise%20Ag%C3%BCera,merge%20into%20progressively%20bigger%20ones. https://publicservicesalliance.org/2025/05/24/what-is-intell...

by rck 1y ago

bgwalter 1y ago

I felt reminded of Hofstadter's Goedel/Escher/Bach mysticism that somehow everything is recursion.

anthk 1y ago
Self-simulation.
AfterHIA 1y ago
I might not be a strange loop but I am indeed strange.
emmelaich 1y ago
or the idea that the universe is a computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin
GoatOfAplomb 1y ago
In any case, he did fit that into a book! If only barely. Edit: On further reflection, I suppose he didn't, if we consider the effort to span Gödel Escher Bach and I Am a Strange Loop.
prmph 1y ago
Including free will

lawlessone 1y ago

> there's nothing resembling an argument, or even a definition of "computation." "It's not even wrong" - Pauli

failingforward 1y ago

Yes, the article appears to be a short excerpt from a book and probably loses a lot of context because of that. I am interested in the questions raised by the author but will wait for the book to come out. The good news is that it appears the book will be open access - MIT Press seems to be encouraging this lately (at least by allowing this as an option for authors).

dandelionv1bes 1y ago
Oh great flag that it’s open access. Will give this a read.
aivuk 1y ago
You can find the full book here: https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/ https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/

seanhunter 1y ago

Reminds me of Wolfram's "Principle of Computational Equivalence"[1]. 1. Things in nature have a maximum complexity which is like computation 2. Most things get this complicated 3. Therefore most things are "computationally equivalent" 4. "For example, the workings of the human brain or the evolution of weather systems can, in principle, compute the same things as a computer. " The leap between things being in an equivalence class according to some relation and being "in principle, the same" might present difficulty if you've done any basic set theory, but that's just because you lack vision. [1] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquiva...

vidarh 1y ago
This principle is just applying Turing equivalence to the hypothesis that there is nothing in nature that is effectively computable but exceeds the Turing computable (which would be the "maximal level of computational power") Given we have no evidence of the existence of anything effectively computable that is not Turing computable, it's a reasonable hypothesis, with no evidence pointing towards falsifying it, nor any viable theories for what a "level of computational power" that exceeds this hypothetical maximum would look like. And, yes, if that hypothesis holds, then life is equivalent, to the point of at least being indistinguishable from when observed from the outside, computation. A lot of people get upset at this, because they want life to be special, and especially human thought. If they want to disprove this, a single example of humans computing a function that is outside the Turing computable would be a very significant blow to this hypothesis, and the notion of life as a computation (it wouldn't conclusively falsify it, as to do that you'd need to also disprove that there might we ways to extend computers to compute the set of newly discovered functions that can't be computed by a Turing machine, but it would be a very significant blow)
- seanhunter 1y ago
  Firstly the crux of that hypothesis seems completely undecidable. Secondly it seems to me that applying something like Turing equivalence to things which are not computer programs is a category error which leads to him talking very obvious total nonsense. 1. Complexity != computation. How does a weather system compute anything at all for example? By any standard definition of these words it doesn’t. Since Wolfram never defines his terms rigourously, this statement is prima facie meaningless. 2. Computational complexity != equivalence. He’s talked about implementing the universe in 4 lines of mathematica code when clearly mathematica itself is in the universe and takes more than 4 lines of code to implement. What he (actually his staff) has implemented in 4 lines is a cellular automaton that is Turing equivalent. That’s cool but it’s not the universe. If you’re not drinking the kool-ade it’s just nonsense. 3. How does any of that make life indistinguishable from computation? All life that I’ve observed seems to be very easily distinguishable from computation, and I would suggest that anyone who finds this confusing should probably get out more.

esafak 1y ago

Is the author advancing a new argument? Has anyone read the book? A quick review suggests that the author posits that symbiogenesis is central to evolution, and artificial intelligence. This is interesting because I recall no mention of this mechanism in the current AI literature. The promise of a symbiotic relationship with artificial life sounds like a balm to people anxious about the future. It is a possibility, not a certainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://publicservicesalliance.org/2025/05/24/what-is-intelligence-blaise-aguera-y-arcas-book-for-2025/#:~:text=Recent%20experiments%20by%20Blaise%20Ag%C3%BCera,merge%20into%20progressively%20bigger%20ones. https://publicservicesalliance.org/2025/05/24/what-is-intell...