Funny how every single physical law we know of is computable. I guess you must just posess some secret knowledge of the universe that disproves this, lucky you!

The "laws" as you describe them are inferential models written by humans which describe the behavior of material objects to the best of our ability. Of course the "laws" as we write them will be computable, we are intentionally modeling the state transitions of objects via the best computable approximations we have.

You might as well write a sentence saying "Of course all of the words in English use Latin letters." Yes, of course this is true because we wrote English to be a language which is formed of Latin symbols!

An incredible number of people can be fooled with sentences such as: A ball is called a ball because it looks like a ball.

You're arguing with a low-IQ specimen who cannot properly process sentences written in the conjunctive whose premise rests on a hypothetical as opposed to real scenario.

>reality is neither a machine nor does it compute
what the frick did the processor in your device do, when you posted this? what do you mean? it's literally fricking nature, atoms bunched together, computing shit.
what
the
frick

"reality contains machines that compute" does not imply "reality is a machine that computes."

Computation is a human construction for problem solving. It has intention, parameters for success and failure.

When we model the state evolution of a continuous time system (e.g., current on a wire), we need to compute the charge density or the potential on through the circuit if we want to model its behavior. The universe doesn't need to "compute" the behavior of the current in the wire anymore than the molecules of air need to compute their state before they are blown by the wind.

that's how an analog computer works, it effortlessly computes shit. like addition. join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. that's literally computation anon. it just happens

1 month ago

Anonymous

> Join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. That's literally computation.

What you are describing is missing the intentionality part of computation. A human who joins two wires together in an adding junction can use the material mechanism of current addition to compute.

The wires don't need to compute to handle the interaction. They do it naturally without the "problem" to which the "computation" is the solution.

1 month ago

Anonymous

does your brain always naturally compute without having a problem to which that computation is the solution? as far as we know we're from here, we're the products of this universe, and hence "nature". our brains seem to compute shit, how to avoid things, how to get to others.
inb4 >yeah I am here but I'm not from here

1 month ago

Anonymous

Your inb4 reminded me of flagpole sitta for some reason.

As for your question, which is essentially "Is consciousness a computer?" My answer would be, I'm not sure. It seems like many parts of the experience of sentience and sensory perception are computational.

However, I don't think that the answer to your question means much in terms of the real question you are asking, namely, "is the material universe a computer?"

If you believe the universe is itself sentient/conscious in some fashion, then it would make sense to look at the material universe computationally if you view sentience as computational. I'm not sure I believe that the universe itself requires sentience or something akin to the neural computations your brain performs in order to function.

If you pour water from a glass into your sink, your brain will do computations to turn the signals your eyes observe into something your sentience can process. This doesn't imply that the water itself is dependent on a computational process to fall.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>If you pour water from a glass into your sink
that's exactly computation. if you break the glass that's a computation, and the shards of glass on the floor store the resulting information. weird innit

1 month ago

Anonymous

> That's exactly computation.

No, it isn't. You are again confusing "the material world contains computers" with "the material world is a computer." There's nothing inherently computational about water falling due to gravity.

A sentient being could use water falling to develop a computer of some form, but the water falling itself isn't a computer.

1 month ago

Anonymous

1 month ago

Anonymous

you just don't get it do you?

"Water can be used as a computer" != "Water is a computer."

Water itself is a not a machine which is programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic. You can make a machine (i.e., an analog computer) which uses water and its weight to perform computation.

The water itself is the medium by which the machine uses to produce computation. The water is not a computer.

1 month ago

Anonymous

all the universe is a computer. a computer does shit based on imposed programming (natural laws of universe). it constantly performs math and logic operations. most of its computation is irrelevant for us. and human brains are running on bare metal.

1 month ago

Anonymous

if it can compute somehow then its a computer

simple as

1 month ago

Anonymous

So, by your thinking, any portable rigid object is a hammer, because it can hit a nail if you try hard enough.

Do you not see this as a bit strange?

1 month ago

Anonymous

?t=249
a fricking spoon is a computer. you midwits just don't understand it.

1 month ago

Anonymous

you just don't get it do you?

1 month ago

Anonymous

[...]
"Water can be used as a computer" != "Water is a computer."

Water itself is a not a machine which is programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic. You can make a machine (i.e., an analog computer) which uses water and its weight to perform computation.

The water itself is the medium by which the machine uses to produce computation. The water is not a computer.

"reality contains machines that compute" does not imply "reality is a machine that computes."

Computation is a human construction for problem solving. It has intention, parameters for success and failure.

When we model the state evolution of a continuous time system (e.g., current on a wire), we need to compute the charge density or the potential on through the circuit if we want to model its behavior. The universe doesn't need to "compute" the behavior of the current in the wire anymore than the molecules of air need to compute their state before they are blown by the wind.

you are pretty smart
these morons don't understand that science is our attempt to model the universe (computationally). that is only a descriptive constraint on its observed behavior, not an intrinsic description of its mechanism (which a finite human theory cannot fully explain)

In the case of discrete vs continuous, the discrete alternative is the less complex one and thus more likely to be true. Infinite detail at all points is waaaaaay more absurd.

discrete space can be disproven with 15 seconds of thought. If space were a rectangular lattice of discrete locations like a chessboard, then 3 steps east and 3 steps northeast would have both the same displacement from the starting point and the same displacement eastwards, despite the 2nd trip ending 3 steps north of the first. Pythagorean fails, circles have circumference 2*D, all geometry goes out the window. Not a lot of regular polyhedra that tesselate 3-space, and they'd obviously all have the same problem

Space doesn't have to be a grid tho. And by the way, all the circles and triangles you do math on are discrete (molecules of graphite and pixels on a screen) and yet you still conclude that the pythagorean theorem is correct because you're zoomed out enough.

A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space, wouldn't you agree?

1 month ago

Anonymous

>A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space
And? A single solid form is less complex than a bunch of little space atoms, that doesn't mean reality is any less complex, your argument makes no sense and is a completely baseless assumption.

1 month ago

AIFag

that's a moronic take
the function f(x) = x is "recurrent infinity"
do you think it's more complex than something discrete like the piecewise linear function?

1 month ago

AIFag

piecewise step* function

1 month ago

Anonymous

No. Only the dots you calculate on your computer or by hand is actually part of that function graph, zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules or the screen pixels where the graph isn't defined.

So even f(x) = x is not continuous.

1 month ago

AIFag

>even f(x) = x is not continuous
you are confusing human's ablility to implement an function in a device with the function itself.
please stop showing your stupidity.

1 month ago

Anonymous

Other way around, YOU are the one who can't let go of the human bias to percieve things as continuous.

Is a banana discrete? Yes. Is a body of water discrete? Also yes. But we are animals programmed to assume continuousness.

There are no current proof for anything being continuous, but many things have been proven to be discrete as we've gained more knowledge (matter, light, energy and more).

1 month ago

AIFag

you're going in another direction after being btfo by smarter people here.
I don't know whether space is continuous or not. have no preference in them.
but your take that discrete less complex than continuous is simply moronic high schooler tier.
maybe you should read more before mouthing off on the internet?

1 month ago

Anonymous

Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality. It's like infinity, pure fantasy.

Show me a single thing in nature that is an example of continuousness. Made up things do not count.

1 month ago

AIFag

again, you are going in tangent direction here cause you were btfo. >Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality
citation needed, we don't even know if space is continuous or discrete.
is time continuous or discrete?
is your mom continuous or discrete if you zoom in infinitely?
see? we don't know shit and I accept that we don't know for shit. that's why I don't jump into conclusion like you. you have already made up your mind that everything is discrete, that's why you are making stupid arguments.

1 month ago

Anonymous

We're talking about the probability of either option being correct. The least complex alternative is likely the best bet.

1 month ago

Anonymous

Reality does not operate on probabilities

1 month ago

Anonymous

We don't have perfect information and infinite computing power so we operate on probabilities.

1 month ago

Anonymous

This has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality

1 month ago

Anonymous

Work on your english reading comprehension

1 month ago

AIFag

>least complex alternative is likely the best bet
citation needed for this. why should I bet on this? it's not a betting game. there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality. there is only one truth.
define least complex.
discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality
There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly, do you follow?

>discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.
A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere. Just 1 single infinity in nature is pure fantasy.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere
and nothing is less complex than something, yet something exists and nothing does not, you are jumping to conclusions without any arguments to back it up, what physical mechanism would cause reality choose to be more simple over more complex?

1 month ago

Anonymous

>and nothing is less complex than something
But we observe something, so we can rule out nothing. Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.
1. reality does not operate on trends
2. every step up in information processing has revealed that everything we observe is composed of more complex things than we could previously observe
Your appeal to simplicity is fallacious and has no backbone, you assume it to be true just because you say so without providing a shred of evidence as to why it should be true

1 month ago

Anonymous

Sure, but the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0. So I'll take the side that has even the slightest evidence going for it.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0
lol, it is directly observable that there are no gaps between things, there is no observable or experimental evidence to suggest things operate in discrete increments, try again

1 month ago

AIFag

>There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly
and why should it affect the truth nature of reality? humans not knowing doesn't mean the world should change.
you don't understand probablity here.

>some bullshit
again, you are being purely stupid here. I think you don't have enough brain juice to understand or follow this kind of conversation. read more, dumbass.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>and why should it affect the truth nature of reality?
Do you have trouble reading? When you and I talk and we lack perfect information, the only thing we can do is discuss probabilities.

1 month ago

AIFag

ok, I'll stop. simply a waste of time. I need to go biking.

1 month ago

Anonymous

Maybe you'll stop writing like some terminally antagonistic IQfy brain the next time. To think an adult man gets this agitated over chatting online.

1 month ago

Anonymous

>A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere
False. An infinite grid is actually more complex (more structure) than a smooth continuum

1 month ago

Anonymous

nta but why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete? there's no other example in nature for this continuity. is it just because it "seems" to you it's continuous?

1 month ago

AIFag

>why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete?
there isn't any evidence either way, why should strongly believe in either direction?

1 month ago

Anonymous

>there isn't any evidence either way, >evidence
throwing away math anon? really?

1 month ago

Anonymous

>zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules
And those gaps are filled with matter, there is no such thing as empty space or absence of matter, we're all full

if there is something that can't be said about finitists, is them being discrete
also due to godel and from reality being able to support arithmetic, reality is either incomplete or inconsistent

Just zoom out and the pythagorean theorem holds true for any human size observer. Imagine a space "unit" is 10^-100 cubic metres. At the scale of human engineering measurements, that space will appear perfectly smooth.

Just like how your computer screen appears smooth, or how a body of water appears smooth despite being made up of discrete atoms. Just zoom out.

Wouldn't it take a computing machine an infinite amount of time to find the sine of some angle, since the only way we have to compute it is the infinite series?

give one fricking example of this continuity in nature, of any kind, proven by science.
there's also math which acurately predicts shit, that has been verified, and it also predicts quantized space and time.
so, with no fricking scientific example for any of this imaginary soul-like continuity, you suppose it's continuous? take your fricking meds

Have anybody seen Pierre Noyes' discrete physics hypothesis? Apart from going full schizo over the fine structure constant some ideas from his works are pretty nice.

inb4 everyone who makes serious claims about discrete space within current physics framework is clinically moronic

>You can measure something continuous discreetly (with finite memory)

keep coping morons

space is discrete

reality is neither a machine nor does it compute

sorry chud, not only is reality a machine, its a Turing machine with knowable states and transitions.

No, but you can represent it as such up to the point described in OP. Map, territory, etc

Funny how every single physical law we know of is computable. I guess you must just posess some secret knowledge of the universe that disproves this, lucky you!

>if I call the big black box a television then that means reality calls it a television

that doesnt refute what he said dumbass

>I speak English

>that means the universe speaks English!

This is an impressively stupid take.

The "laws" as you describe them are inferential models written by humans which describe the behavior of material objects to the best of our ability. Of course the "laws" as we write them will be computable, we are intentionally modeling the state transitions of objects via the best computable approximations we have.

You might as well write a sentence saying "Of course all of the words in English use Latin letters." Yes, of course this is true because we wrote English to be a language which is formed of Latin symbols!

An incredible number of people can be fooled with sentences such as: A ball is called a ball because it looks like a ball.

You're arguing with a low-IQ specimen who cannot properly process sentences written in the conjunctive whose premise rests on a hypothetical as opposed to real scenario.

>reality is neither a machine nor does it compute

what the frick did the processor in your device do, when you posted this? what do you mean? it's literally fricking nature, atoms bunched together, computing shit.

what

the

frick

"reality contains machines that compute" does not imply "reality is a machine that computes."

Computation is a human construction for problem solving. It has intention, parameters for success and failure.

When we model the state evolution of a continuous time system (e.g., current on a wire), we need to compute the charge density or the potential on through the circuit if we want to model its behavior. The universe doesn't need to "compute" the behavior of the current in the wire anymore than the molecules of air need to compute their state before they are blown by the wind.

that's how an analog computer works, it effortlessly computes shit. like addition. join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. that's literally computation anon. it just happens

> Join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. That's literally computation.

What you are describing is missing the intentionality part of computation. A human who joins two wires together in an adding junction can use the material mechanism of current addition to compute.

The wires don't need to compute to handle the interaction. They do it naturally without the "problem" to which the "computation" is the solution.

does your brain always naturally compute without having a problem to which that computation is the solution? as far as we know we're from here, we're the products of this universe, and hence "nature". our brains seem to compute shit, how to avoid things, how to get to others.

inb4

>yeah I am here but I'm not from here

Your inb4 reminded me of flagpole sitta for some reason.

As for your question, which is essentially "Is consciousness a computer?" My answer would be, I'm not sure. It seems like many parts of the experience of sentience and sensory perception are computational.

However, I don't think that the answer to your question means much in terms of the real question you are asking, namely, "is the material universe a computer?"

If you believe the universe is itself sentient/conscious in some fashion, then it would make sense to look at the material universe computationally if you view sentience as computational. I'm not sure I believe that the universe itself requires sentience or something akin to the neural computations your brain performs in order to function.

If you pour water from a glass into your sink, your brain will do computations to turn the signals your eyes observe into something your sentience can process. This doesn't imply that the water itself is dependent on a computational process to fall.

>If you pour water from a glass into your sink

that's exactly computation. if you break the glass that's a computation, and the shards of glass on the floor store the resulting information. weird innit

> That's exactly computation.

No, it isn't. You are again confusing "the material world contains computers" with "the material world is a computer." There's nothing inherently computational about water falling due to gravity.

A sentient being could use water falling to develop a computer of some form, but the water falling itself isn't a computer.

"Water can be used as a computer" != "Water is a computer."

Water itself is a not a machine which is programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic. You can make a machine (i.e., an analog computer) which uses water and its weight to perform computation.

The water itself is the medium by which the machine uses to produce computation. The water is not a computer.

all the universe is a computer. a computer does shit based on imposed programming (natural laws of universe). it constantly performs math and logic operations. most of its computation is irrelevant for us. and human brains are running on bare metal.

if it can compute somehow then its a computer

simple as

So, by your thinking, any portable rigid object is a hammer, because it can hit a nail if you try hard enough.

Do you not see this as a bit strange?

?t=249

a fricking spoon is a computer. you midwits just don't understand it.

you just don't get it do you?

you are pretty smart

these morons don't understand that science is our attempt to model the universe (computationally). that is only a descriptive constraint on its observed behavior, not an intrinsic description of its mechanism (which a finite human theory cannot fully explain)

Based

frick off reddit spacing imbecile

In the case of discrete vs continuous, the discrete alternative is the less complex one and thus more likely to be true. Infinite detail at all points is waaaaaay more absurd.

discrete space can be disproven with 15 seconds of thought. If space were a rectangular lattice of discrete locations like a chessboard, then 3 steps east and 3 steps northeast would have both the same displacement from the starting point and the same displacement eastwards, despite the 2nd trip ending 3 steps north of the first. Pythagorean fails, circles have circumference 2*D, all geometry goes out the window. Not a lot of regular polyhedra that tesselate 3-space, and they'd obviously all have the same problem

Space doesn't have to be a grid tho. And by the way, all the circles and triangles you do math on are discrete (molecules of graphite and pixels on a screen) and yet you still conclude that the pythagorean theorem is correct because you're zoomed out enough.

breh

>the discrete alternative is the less complex one and thus more likely to be true

And you make this claim based on what?

A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space, wouldn't you agree?

>A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space

And? A single solid form is less complex than a bunch of little space atoms, that doesn't mean reality is any less complex, your argument makes no sense and is a completely baseless assumption.

that's a moronic take

the function f(x) = x is "recurrent infinity"

do you think it's more complex than something discrete like the piecewise linear function?

piecewise step* function

No. Only the dots you calculate on your computer or by hand is actually part of that function graph, zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules or the screen pixels where the graph isn't defined.

So even f(x) = x is not continuous.

>even f(x) = x is not continuous

you are confusing human's ablility to implement an function in a device with the function itself.

please stop showing your stupidity.

Other way around, YOU are the one who can't let go of the human bias to percieve things as continuous.

Is a banana discrete? Yes. Is a body of water discrete? Also yes. But we are animals programmed to assume continuousness.

There are no current proof for anything being continuous, but many things have been proven to be discrete as we've gained more knowledge (matter, light, energy and more).

you're going in another direction after being btfo by smarter people here.

I don't know whether space is continuous or not. have no preference in them.

but your take that discrete less complex than continuous is simply moronic high schooler tier.

maybe you should read more before mouthing off on the internet?

Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality. It's like infinity, pure fantasy.

Show me a single thing in nature that is an example of continuousness. Made up things do not count.

again, you are going in tangent direction here cause you were btfo.

>Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality

citation needed, we don't even know if space is continuous or discrete.

is time continuous or discrete?

is your mom continuous or discrete if you zoom in infinitely?

see? we don't know shit and I accept that we don't know for shit. that's why I don't jump into conclusion like you. you have already made up your mind that everything is discrete, that's why you are making stupid arguments.

We're talking about the probability of either option being correct. The least complex alternative is likely the best bet.

Reality does not operate on probabilities

We don't have perfect information and infinite computing power so we operate on probabilities.

This has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality

Work on your english reading comprehension

>least complex alternative is likely the best bet

citation needed for this. why should I bet on this? it's not a betting game. there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality. there is only one truth.

define least complex.

discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.

>there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality

There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly, do you follow?

>discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.

A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere. Just 1 single infinity in nature is pure fantasy.

>A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere

and nothing is less complex than something, yet something exists and nothing does not, you are jumping to conclusions without any arguments to back it up, what physical mechanism would cause reality choose to be more simple over more complex?

>and nothing is less complex than something

But we observe something, so we can rule out nothing. Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.

>Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.

1. reality does not operate on trends

2. every step up in information processing has revealed that everything we observe is composed of more complex things than we could previously observe

Your appeal to simplicity is fallacious and has no backbone, you assume it to be true just because you say so without providing a shred of evidence as to why it should be true

Sure, but the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0. So I'll take the side that has even the slightest evidence going for it.

>the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0

lol, it is directly observable that there are no gaps between things, there is no observable or experimental evidence to suggest things operate in discrete increments, try again

>There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly

and why should it affect the truth nature of reality? humans not knowing doesn't mean the world should change.

you don't understand probablity here.

>some bullshit

again, you are being purely stupid here. I think you don't have enough brain juice to understand or follow this kind of conversation. read more, dumbass.

>and why should it affect the truth nature of reality?

Do you have trouble reading? When you and I talk and we lack perfect information, the only thing we can do is discuss probabilities.

ok, I'll stop. simply a waste of time. I need to go biking.

Maybe you'll stop writing like some terminally antagonistic IQfy brain the next time. To think an adult man gets this agitated over chatting online.

>A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere

False. An infinite grid is actually more complex (more structure) than a smooth continuum

nta but why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete? there's no other example in nature for this continuity. is it just because it "seems" to you it's continuous?

>why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete?

there isn't any evidence either way, why should strongly believe in either direction?

>there isn't any evidence either way,

>evidence

throwing away math anon? really?

>zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules

And those gaps are filled with matter, there is no such thing as empty space or absence of matter, we're all full

Why, is this a simulation or something?

Also how would you prove discreteness, especially before a unified theory?

If space is discrete, what are those discrete unit made of?

> What are those discrete units made of

Autism. The pixels of space-time are constructed of pure unadulterated autism.

>what are those discrete unit made of?

Bits of RAM in the machine that is running our simulation.

if there is something that can't be said about finitists, is them being discrete

also due to godel and from reality being able to support arithmetic, reality is either incomplete or inconsistent

What is your answer to Weyl's tyle argument?

Just zoom out and the pythagorean theorem holds true for any human size observer. Imagine a space "unit" is 10^-100 cubic metres. At the scale of human engineering measurements, that space will appear perfectly smooth.

Just like how your computer screen appears smooth, or how a body of water appears smooth despite being made up of discrete atoms. Just zoom out.

if space is discrete, why is my vision continuous, check mate atheists.

8K resolution at high fps

Wouldn't it take a computing machine an infinite amount of time to find the sine of some angle, since the only way we have to compute it is the infinite series?

>everything in the universe is computation

>okay, here’s a list of things that have been proven to be impossible to compute

>shut up!

>okay, here’s a list of things that have been proven to be impossible to compute

Such as?

give one fricking example of this continuity in nature, of any kind, proven by science.

there's also math which acurately predicts shit, that has been verified, and it also predicts quantized space and time.

so, with no fricking scientific example for any of this imaginary soul-like continuity, you suppose it's continuous? take your fricking meds

>soul-like continuity

what do melons have to do with aeronautics?

Have anybody seen Pierre Noyes' discrete physics hypothesis? Apart from going full schizo over the fine structure constant some ideas from his works are pretty nice.

inb4 everyone who makes serious claims about discrete space within current physics framework is clinically moronic

i whould not call him clinicaly moronic, just garden variety moronic

>BTFO thousands of years ago

>still arguing it's true