tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post7599401736425381927..comments2019-04-18T11:22:30.946-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Fitch's paradoxRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82088636061086756202019-01-20T01:15:49.841-08:002019-01-20T01:15:49.841-08:00In the meantime, you can read this HN thread I fou...In the meantime, you can read this HN thread I found on the topic:<br /><br />https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=565259<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-64240373247065131132019-01-20T00:57:37.022-08:002019-01-20T00:57:37.022-08:00@Publius:
Since posting my last response I've...@Publius:<br /><br />Since posting my last response I've had a chance to look at some of the references you provided. (Believe it or not, I really do try to give serious consideration to points of view that are opposed to my own.) I still believe you are wrong, but this deserves a more considered response than will fit in a comment so I'm going to write a top-level post about it. Might Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10187306432476773112019-01-20T00:38:56.083-08:002019-01-20T00:38:56.083-08:00Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
@Ron
>So you have sim...<b>Sic Transit Gloria Mundi</b><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>So you have simply begged the question. You've assumed an unknown process and then just *proclaimed* without proof that a TM can't compute it. In fact a TM can compute your unknown process. </i><br /><br />Interesting that you should focus on the input xi, which appears to me to be the least interesting part of the argument. xi Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-13231391093407903852019-01-19T17:28:14.523-08:002019-01-19T17:28:14.523-08:00> If you extend a Turing Machine such that each...> If you extend a Turing Machine such that each step takes only half the time as the prior step, then the halting problem can be solved in 2 time units.<br /><br />And if you extend a TM so that it can perform a step at every point in time expressible as a rational number of seconds then it can "solve" the halting problem in an arbitrarily small period of time. But that's just Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24992668829553374352019-01-18T23:27:57.108-08:002019-01-18T23:27:57.108-08:00Human Mind
@Ron:
>Here's another:
>http...<b>Human Mind</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>Here's another:</i><br /><i>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem</i><br /><br />If you extend a Turing Machine such that each step takes only half the time as the prior step, then the halting problem can be solved in 2 time units.<br /><br /><br /><i>And a few more:</i><br /><i>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89119742447686157502019-01-14T15:12:07.864-08:002019-01-14T15:12:07.864-08:00@Publius:
> Here is a computation a Turing mac...@Publius:<br /><br />> Here is a computation a Turing machine can't compute:<br /><br />Here's another:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem<br /><br />And a few more:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76507199068459828502019-01-13T23:29:03.542-08:002019-01-13T23:29:03.542-08:00Turing Machines, Defeated
Finally, a Problem That...<b>Turing Machines, Defeated</b><br /><br /><a href="https://goo.gl/jC9hBm" rel="nofollow">Finally, a Problem That Only Quantum Computers Will Ever Be Able to Solve</a><br /><br />Here is a computation a Turing machine can't compute:<br /><br />A physical process is measured and provided as input at each time tick<br />Call this input xi(t); one would write n variables of it as x0(t), x1(t), Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-43700235529566569262018-09-19T08:44:00.157-07:002018-09-19T08:44:00.157-07:00@Ron:
> > Where is the empirical evidence t...@Ron:<br /><br />> > Where is the empirical evidence that they use decision procedures?<br /><br />> Here are some examples:<br />><br />> [<a href="https://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~cowan/stat/glasgow_26feb09.pdf" rel="nofollow">Statistical Methods for LHC Physics</a>]<br />><br />> [<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07622.pdf" rel="nofollow">Practical Statistics for the LHC</a>]Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-73120760885947880612018-09-19T08:41:00.852-07:002018-09-19T08:41:00.852-07:00@Ron:
> BTW, with regards to being "close...@Ron:<br /><br />> BTW, with regards to being "closer to the truth", if it makes you feel any better, the situation there is symmetric: Don and I think we are closer to the truth than you are. In fact, this is true whenever you disagree with anyone. You *always* think you are closer to the truth than the person you are disagreeing with. If you didn't, you wouldn't be Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-8802680155161652612018-09-18T14:08:34.550-07:002018-09-18T14:08:34.550-07:00@Luke:
> Where is the empirical evidence that ...@Luke:<br /><br />> Where is the empirical evidence that they use decision procedures?<br /><br />Here are some examples:<br /><br />https://www.pp.rhul.ac.uk/~cowan/stat/glasgow_26feb09.pdf<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07622.pdf<br /><br />> I didn't say I was willing to accept that kind of error. I said that { the kind of checking we can do } cannot be used to prove that suchRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-71856303800829386502018-09-18T12:22:06.536-07:002018-09-18T12:22:06.536-07:00@Publius:
> Ron's been trolling his own bl...@Publius:<br /><br />> Ron's been trolling his own blog for several months now. His responses tend to be shallow and flippant.<br /><br />I disagree. I suspect the biggest problem is his flipping between abstraction/formalism and empirical reality (<a href="#c1583860136996189246" rel="nofollow">example</a>). I think he believes <i>so deeply</i> in a Turing ontology (perhaps with a source Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19733846561455767792018-09-18T11:45:33.941-07:002018-09-18T11:45:33.941-07:00@Ron:
> > Do scientists actually use "...@Ron:<br /><br />> > Do scientists actually use "decision procedures" (≈ algorithm?) to decide which hypothesis/theory/framework to adopt?<br /><br />> They do when they're doing it right. When they don't use decision procedures, they end up "discovering" things like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray" rel="nofollow">N-rays</a> and <a href="https:/Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-88581831694877652692018-09-18T10:43:51.058-07:002018-09-18T10:43:51.058-07:00@Luke:
> Do scientists actually use "deci...@Luke:<br /><br />> Do scientists actually use "decision procedures" (≈ algorithm?) to decide which hypothesis/theory/framework to adopt?<br /><br />They do when they're doing it right. When they don't use decision procedures, they end up "discovering" things like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray" rel="nofollow">N-rays</a> and <a href="https://Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24278804838752577032018-09-18T10:17:42.611-07:002018-09-18T10:17:42.611-07:00@Ron:
> Ron: Let me be more precise: if there ...@Ron:<br /><br />> <a href="#c8960116083714949569" rel="nofollow">Ron</a>: Let me be more precise: if there were anything beyond TMs, there would be some hint of this in the data, and there isn't. Not only is there no hint of this in the data, no one has been able to even *imagine* what such a hint might look like, and for a very simple reason: anything you can *describe* can be computed Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-77393346725866890552018-09-18T00:06:32.329-07:002018-09-18T00:06:32.329-07:00The TRNG Outside
@Ron-meatbag:
>So let me try ...<b>The TRNG Outside</b><br /><br />@Ron-meatbag:<br /><i>>So let me try to reformulate this more precisely: for any experiment you can describe, and any decision procedure on the results of that experiment, there exists a TM that can produce a result for which that decision procedure will answer TRUE, assuming such a result exists. (This is trivial: just enumerate all possible data sequences Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-8350964047609777222018-09-18T00:05:54.419-07:002018-09-18T00:05:54.419-07:00Throw Bear
@Ron-meatbag:
>As a practical matte...<b>Throw Bear</b><br /><br />@Ron-meatbag:<br /><i>>As a practical matter, the interesting questions are:<br /><br />1. Do PRFs actually exist? (Yes, you can prove this. See e.g. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~shelat/651/www/chap3.pdf)<br /><br />2. Is a particular function that you want to use as a PRF actually a PRF? (That one is harder.)<br /><br />But none of this matters. If you don't Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-20458034768391559912018-09-18T00:04:27.459-07:002018-09-18T00:04:27.459-07:00Stop, Pay Troll
@Luke:
>And you have led me to...<b>Stop, Pay Troll</b><br /><br />@Luke:<br /><i>>And you have led me to believe you accept Popper's parlance. Perhaps you take no issue with this, but I have found you to be remarkably lax in distinguishing between the formal and empirical realms in your own thought, while being almost vicious with me when I don't maintain a sufficiently clear distinction. ("You are uncoachable.&Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22826224527338739652018-09-17T15:51:54.247-07:002018-09-17T15:51:54.247-07:00> You wrote: "anything you can *describe* ...> You wrote: "anything you can *describe* can be computed by a TM". Oracles can be described.<br /><br />I wasn't explicit enough here. There are, of course, things that can be described that TMs can't compute, like Chaitin's Omega. But consider: suppose I came to you with a number that I claimed to be omega expanded to some interesting number of decimal places (like a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-15838601369961892462018-09-17T14:57:46.776-07:002018-09-17T14:57:46.776-07:00@Ron:
> > > > > > If in fact a ...@Ron:<br /><br />> > > > > > If in fact a TM + RNG in our universe can tractably compute more than just a TM, then that seems relevant for discussions of our universe and what exists in it.<br /><br />> > > > > Well, yeah, *if*. But it's not the case. A TM+RNG has no computational complexity advantage over a TM because a deterministic PRF can substitute for anLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19942538285814237922018-09-17T13:11:18.859-07:002018-09-17T13:11:18.859-07:00@luke:
> Your current downplaying is refuted b...@luke:<br /><br />> Your current downplaying is refuted by your previous words.<br /><br />I did not "accuse you of being a superior being." I observed that you believe that X is true, Don and I believe that X is not true, and that X is not a trivial matter. To say that you believe that you are "closer to the truth" is a fair characterization of that state of affairs, Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1978458144485637212018-09-17T11:13:13.655-07:002018-09-17T11:13:13.655-07:00@Ron: (3/3)
> So even if there were some data ...@Ron: (3/3)<br /><br />> So even if there were some data that could show that the universe could not be emulated by a TM, it would be impossible to describe it. By definition, that data would be uncomputable.<br /><br />That's proven trivially false by the fact that we can theorize about having oracles—such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-92192578089442125322018-09-17T11:13:02.393-07:002018-09-17T11:13:02.393-07:00@Ron: (2/3)
> Let me be more precise: if there...@Ron: (2/3)<br /><br />> Let me be more precise: if there were anything beyond TMs, there would be some hint of this in the data, and there isn't. Not only is there no hint of this in the data, no one has been able to even *imagine* what such a hint might look like, and for a very simple reason: anything you can *describe* can be computed by a TM.<br /><br />I don't see why we should Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-38059148517271437182018-09-17T11:12:52.887-07:002018-09-17T11:12:52.887-07:00@Ron: (1/3)
> Oh, get over yourself. All I mea...@Ron: (1/3)<br /><br />> Oh, get over yourself. All I meant was that you believe that Jesus is God and Don and I don't.<br /><br />I'm treating this with as much intensity as your <a href="#c4871190711525755022" rel="nofollow">"do not level it lightly"</a>. And contrary to your statement here, you used that as a lead-in to <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/07/Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89601160837149495692018-09-16T09:51:30.765-07:002018-09-16T09:51:30.765-07:00> > I was a lot more careful than you when y...<br />> > I was a lot more careful than you when you said something I also consider to be a very serious charge:<br /><br />> Ron: Luke thinks that he *is* closer to the truth than you and I are.<br /><br />Oh, get over yourself. All I meant was that you believe that Jesus is God and Don and I don't.<br /><br />> Is there a proof that "PRF can substitute for an RNG" in Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36950005303689168002018-09-16T09:03:34.053-07:002018-09-16T09:03:34.053-07:00@Ron:
> > I find it a bit hard not to see r...@Ron:<br /><br />> > I find it a bit hard not to see <b>rank hypocrisy</b> in this statement, given your <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/08/fitchs-paradox.html" rel="nofollow">first objection</a> to Fitch's paradox being that there are plenty of <i>computable</i> truths which are however not tractable.<br /><br />> I consider hypocrisy to be a very serious charge. Please do Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.com