In The Beginning of Infinity David Deutch claims that the world is explicable and that human beings can explain anything that can be explained (Chapter 3): > The astrophysicist Martin Rees has speculated that somewhere in the universe ‘there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t...
A Turing machine is a universal computer: it can compute anything that any other computer can compute. A human being can specify a Turing machine and the data it's acting on and carry out the steps that the machine would execute. Human beings have also constructed computers with the same...
In An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications 4th edition Li and Vitanyi claim that Solomonoff Induction solves the problem of induction. In Section 5.1.4 they write: > The philosopher D. Hume (1711–1776) argued that true induction is impossible because we can reach conclusions only by using known data...
The quotes aren't about Turing completeness. What you wrote is irrelevant to the quoted material.
In The Beginning of Infinity David Deutch claims that the world is explicable and that human beings can explain anything that can be explained (Chapter 3):
... (read 440 more words →)The astrophysicist Martin Rees has speculated that somewhere in the universe ‘there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.’ But that cannot be so. For if the ‘capacity’ in question is mere computational speed and amount of memory, then we can understand the aspects in question with the help of computers – just as we have understood the
We can't simulate things of which we currently have no understanding. But if at some point in the future we know how to write AGIs, then we would be able to simulate them. And if we don't know how to write AGIs then they won't exist. So if we can write AGIs in the future then memory capacity and processor speed won't impose a limit on our understanding. Any such limit would have to come from some other factor. So is there such a limit and where would it come from?
A Turing machine is a universal computer: it can compute anything that any other computer can compute. A human being can specify a Turing machine and the data it's acting on and carry out the steps that the machine would execute. Human beings have also constructed computers with the same repertoire as a Turing machine, such as the computer on which I am writing this question. There are articles on Less Wrong about mind design space, such as this one:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tnWRXkcDi5Tw9rzXw/the-design-space-of-minds-in-general
in which the author writes:
The main reason you could find yourself thinking that you know what a fully generic mind will (won't) do, is if you put yourself in that mind's shoes -... (read more)
You said earlier:
But not all inductivists believe in a version of inductivism that supposedly generates theories or scientific knowledge.
What is the version of inductivism that generates no theories or scientific knowledge and what does it accomplish?
But not all inductivists believe in a version of inductivism that supposedly generates theories or scientific knowledge.
That version of inductivism isn't in Li and Vitanyi who haven't even stated the problem described by critics of inductivism. Where is it?
I have corrected the spelling of Vitanyi.
In An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications 4th edition Li and Vitanyi claim that Solomonoff Induction solves the problem of induction. In Section 5.1.4 they write:
The philosopher D. Hume (1711–1776) argued that true induction is impossible because we can reach conclusions only by using known data and methods. Therefore, the conclusion is logically already contained in the start configuration. Consequently, the only form of induction possible is deduction. Philosophers have tried to find a way out of this deterministic conundrum by appealing to probabilistic reasoning such as using Bayes’s rule. One problem with this is where the prior probability one uses has to come from. Unsatisfactory solutions have been proposed... (read 969 more words →)
Science is not based on faith, nor on anything else. Scientific knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. See Chapter I of "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.
If you read the quote carefully you will find that it is incompatible with the position you are attributing to Deutsch. For example, he writes about
which would hardly be necessary if computational universality was equivalent to universal explainer.