You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Kaj_Sotala comments on Open thread, Nov. 10 - Nov. 16, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 10 November 2014 08:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 November 2014 06:45:20AM 1 point [-]

Quines don't say anything about human working memory limitations or the amount of time a human would require for learning to understand the whole system, and furthermore only talk about printing the source code not understanding it, so I'm not sure how they're relevant for this.

Comment author: Adele_L 11 November 2014 03:17:05PM 2 points [-]

I wouldn't be too surprised if the hypothesis is true for unmodified humans, but for systems in general I expect it to be untrue. Whatever 'understanding' is, the diagonal lemma should be able to find a fixed point for it (or at the very least, an arbitrarily close approximation) - it would be very surprising if it didn't hold. Quines are just an instance of this general principle that you can actually play with and poke around and see how they work - which helps demystify the core idea and gives you a picture of how this could be possible.