= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on A potential problem with using Solomonoff induction as a prior - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (18)
So if a simple setup you can do at home with some liquid nitrogen, a laser and a kumquat appeared to allow direct hypercomputation - could instantaneously determine whether a particular Turing machine halted - and you were able to test this against all sorts of extraordinary examples, you would never come to the conclusion that it was a hypercomputation engine, instead building ever-more-complex computable models of what it was doing?
I would never conclude that, because the proposition that I'm in a simulation and the DLotM are messing with me is about as plausible on the evidence.
A hotline to a computable halt-finding machine seems much more plausible than something uncomputable, yes. We have no idea how something uncomputable could possibly work. You should not give weight to the uncomputable while computable approximations exist.
So how many cycles of
would you have to go through before concluding the universe was not computable?
I have to confess that I don't really see what's so special about the bottom of the compute hierarchy that you would be so certain that's where the universe is.