Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Impenitent
Posts: 2395
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Impenitent » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:06 am

Homo mensura - Protagoras

-Imp

commonsense
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by commonsense » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:28 am

I have been reading and rereading this essay, and I am still left with the question, why should philosophers, other than those of logic and mathematics, be concerned with computational complexity theory.

The essay offers that it is hard to imagine a discussion about problems of philosophy of mind, among others, without an understanding of, or a reliance upon, computational complexity theory.

I fail to see how computational complexity would have anything useful to be applied to Descartes’ problem of the other.

I fail to see where the essay has given any example, outside of the field of philosophy of logic and of mathematics, where this is so.

I fail to see where the essay gives any support to the assertion that computational complexity theory is important to philosophers.

I will continue to read and study the essay. In the meantime, if anyone can offer support to the claim that philosophers should care about computational complexity, please offer it here.

commonsense
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by commonsense » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:31 am

Thank you, wtf, for the clarity you infused in the thread.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:40 pm

What CAN be argued is that computer science itself is helpful to philosophy for its means to connect logic to reality. Since issues of everything philosophy is often about analyzing anything, a good way to advance your intellectual capacity to reason begins by understanding the most basic forms of logic and how it can be realized through simple mechanisms. Even before understanding propositional logic, understanding concepts of 'truth' through the logic of computation and similar 'information theory' studies helps one relate the abstract parts of reasoning to physical reality.

wtf
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by wtf » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:45 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:40 pm
What CAN be argued is that computer science itself is helpful to philosophy for its means to connect logic to reality. Since issues of everything philosophy is often about analyzing anything, a good way to advance your intellectual capacity to reason begins by understanding the most basic forms of logic and how it can be realized through simple mechanisms. Even before understanding propositional logic, understanding concepts of 'truth' through the logic of computation and similar 'information theory' studies helps one relate the abstract parts of reasoning to physical reality.
For sake of convo, let me just point out that everything you say is true, but that's not Aaronson's point. If one should take anything from this thread at all, it should be that there's an area of study called complexity theory, which is about how efficiently a thing can be computed; and that this is not the same thing as computability theory, which is the question of whether a thing can be computed at all, efficiently or not. And that Aaronson is arguing for the philosophical importance of complexity theory. So not at all about "understanding concepts of 'truth' through the logic of computation."

But if your point was that computability theory is philosophically important, I'd certainly agree with that.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:50 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:19 pm
False considering Time can be observed strictly as a variation of space where one space is divided through another. Thus we are left with space and randomness where randomness is a percieve multiplicity of spaces conducive to an approximation of space itself. Thus we are left with space.
Since time doesn't exist, I decided to read your sentence backwards.

Can't make any sense of it.

.ecaps htiw tfel era ew suhT .flesti ecaps fo noitamixorppa na ot evicudnoc secaps fo yticilpitlum eveicrep a si ssenmodnar erehw ssenmodnar dna ecaps htiw tfel era ew suhT .rehtona hguorht dedivid si ecaps eno erehw ecaps fo noitairav a sa yltcirts devresbo eb nac emiT gniredisnoc eslaF
Really, then maybe you should read more considering time is relative and I Can read a book upside down and backwards at the same time...if you cannot read your coding backwards...then it must not make much sense now would it? Or you contradict yourself and need to learn english.

Time is relativity, as relativity is fundamentally grounded in atomism (or parts that exist through another). You are an "ultrafiniteness" as well as a "relativistic"; hence by default your stance is grounded in "temporality" or "time" with these terms fundamentally being subject to their own nature of variation as elements of time in and of themselves.

Second, reading the sentence backwards does not falsify whether time exists or does not exist by the absence of criteria you present...it is strictly a localization of a starting point of observation which as a "localization" (ie an approximation of the totality of a "unified all" in which "one" is observed through the "many" by the observation of a "part" necessitating "parts"). Thus because of your contradiction in claiming time does not exist, because of an absence of criteria, you falsify your own stance in one respect while necessitating time to exist because of the example you provided.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:50 pm
Really, then maybe you should read more considering time is relative and I Can read a book upside down and backwards at the same time...
No. Really. I am trying. Reverse character order. Reverse word order. It's bullshit.

"space. with left are we Thus itself. space of approximation an to conducive spaces of multiplicity percieve a is randomness where randomness and space with left are we Thus another. through divided is space one where space of variation a as strictly observed be can Time considering False"
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:50 pm
if you cannot read your coding backwards...then it must not make much sense now would it?
Second, reading the sentence backwards does not falsify whether time exists or does not exist by the absence of criteria you present...
Precisely. Language only works in parallel with the arrow of time!

Time INTERVALS may be relative. The direction isn't.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:35 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:50 pm
Really, then maybe you should read more considering time is relative and I Can read a book upside down and backwards at the same time...
No. Really. I am trying. Reverse character order. Reverse word order. It's bullshit.

"space. with left are we Thus itself. space of approximation an to conducive spaces of multiplicity perceive a is randomness where randomness and space with left are we Thus another. through divided is space one where space of variation a as strictly observed be can Time considering False"

What is bullshit...that something can be read backwards?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:50 pm
if you cannot read your coding backwards...then it must not make much sense now would it?
Second, reading the sentence backwards does not falsify whether time exists or does not exist by the absence of criteria you present...
Precisely. Language only works in parallel with the arrow of time!

That is my point, the example provided claims (or at least implies "if" I read correctly) that because language cannot be read backwards time ceases to exist.

Time INTERVALS may be relative. The direction isn't.

Actually direction is relative by nature considering all intervals are directional by nature considering they measure the measurement of a phenomena away/towards a baseline measurement. I may observe the interval of clouds/sun along the base unchanging line of "sky". Because the nature of sky is observed as the universal phenomena being measured, the clouds/sun being measured as intervalistic necessitate fundamentally localizations of the quality of "sky" as having temporal directional elements in themselves considering the progression of clouds to sun and sun to clouds represents an opposition.

The progression of cloud to sun may be observe as down to up or left to right (which sun to cloud respectively the same), thus necessitating all measureable qualities as having "opposing dualistic qualities" requiring opposing directional qualities when relegated to a "frequency" that observes them as temporal phenomena.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:35 pm
Actually direction is relative by nature considering all intervals are directional by nature considering they measure the measurement of a phenomena away/towards a baseline measurement.
Don't be a silly dualist now.

When you are speaking about 'intervals' you are talking about magnitudes. Scalar quantities.

I am talking about the direction of time. It doesn't measure anything. It just is.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:58 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:35 pm
Actually direction is relative by nature considering all intervals are directional by nature considering they measure the measurement of a phenomena away/towards a baseline measurement.
Don't be a silly dualist now.

When you are speaking about 'intervals' you are talking about magnitudes. Scalar quantities.

I am talking about the direction of time. It doesn't measure anything. It just is.
I observe Triads, and dualisms are an inherent part of the synthetic process. Monism alone, where reality is "one", necessitates the dualist perception as a part of it thus leading to a self-contradiction if we are to assume reality "as is" from that perspective. Parmenides dualism of truth/opinion, as a monist, sets a grounding for dualism.

Dualism, as One, interpretation is a contradiction as well thus requiring a 3 as 1 approach where one (monism) and many (dualism) effectively are the groundings for measurement considering the one/many is both 1 (one/many) and 2 interpretations (one and many) as 3 interpretations.

In regards to time:

Time is a measuring quality by nature considering time observes progressive change, with this change always requiring a state of relation between parts; thus by nature requiring all directions as the progression of one part to another as the foundation of measurement itself. 1 progresses to 2 with this progression necessate not just "through" direction by by direction alone. A direction is ground in an observation of progression; hence time, thus requiring linearism as an observation of "change" that sets the foundation for "definition" as a relation of parts.

Linearism is the grounding of all identity properties, specifically in the nature of logic as well considering "logic" and its assumed linear nature exists as "true" because of its form.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:05 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:29 pm
If this is an appeal to philosophers, shouldn't you first define "Computational Complexity" at least?
He cannot without eventually contradicting himself given it's probabilistic interpretation.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:05 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:29 pm
If this is an appeal to philosophers, shouldn't you first define "Computational Complexity" at least?
He cannot without eventually contradicting himself given it's probabilistic interpretation.
Still scared of 'contradictions'? Heh...

Here is the Mathematical concept. Defined and everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

And if you are too lazy to read, here's the layman version.

O(1) = O(yeah!) :D
O(log n) = O(nice) :)
O(n) = O(ok) :|
O(n²) = O(my) :?
O(2ⁿ) = O(no) :cry:
O(n!) = O(mg!) :x

wtf
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by wtf » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:44 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:46 am
O(1) = O(yeah!) :D
O(log n) = O(nice) :)
O(n) = O(ok) :|
O(n²) = O(my) :?
O(2ⁿ) = O(no) :cry:
O(n!) = O(mg!) :x
LOL. And here's the original Big O. That's the great Oscar Robertson for you kids out there.

Image

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:05 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:29 pm
If this is an appeal to philosophers, shouldn't you first define "Computational Complexity" at least?
He cannot without eventually contradicting himself given it's probabilistic interpretation.
Still scared of 'contradictions'? Heh...

Here is the Mathematical concept. Defined and everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

And if you are too lazy to read, here's the layman version.

O(1) = O(yeah!) :D
O(log n) = O(nice) :)
O(n) = O(ok) :|
O(n²) = O(my) :?
O(2ⁿ) = O(no) :cry:
O(n!) = O(mg!) :x
False, considering mathematics is grounded at minimum in an act of defintion, and definition requires the connection of symbols, any contradiction causes an inherent incompleteness under the premise that contradiction is a deficiency in form.

All statements in logic and math are fundamentally true/false or contradictory/non contradictory at the same time and in these respecte computation follows the same paradigm.

commonsense
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Post by commonsense » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:27 pm

Been reading with relish. Abdul Karim Jabbar would stuff Robinson any day, though.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests