wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

CTD is a belief. A conjecture if you will. The jury is still out regarding scientific proof.

Note that scientific proof is not the same as absolute proof. There's scientific proof for Newtonian gravity even today. The theory works really well,

That's because you are looking in the wrong place

The scientific proof is that science produces knowledge that can be re-used.

The scientific proof is that we are able to build models of the universe.

If the universe can be described with logic, then it can be (partially) modeled in Mathematics.

If you can model it in Mathematics - you can execute the model on a computer.

wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

more than could be accounted for by luck. Likewise quantum physics and general relativity. Those are scientific facts. Which means they could be overturned tomorrow morning; but till then, we can legitimately regard them as true in the sense of being established scientific theories.

Precisely.

And if the scientific method stopped working tomorrow we could discard Shannon's information theory - but for now, we keep it.

Because we use it for statistical inference.

wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

CTD is nothing of the sort. CTD is well into the speculative realm along with the multiverse and Tegmark's mathematical universe. Fun speculations and food for thought. But not established scientific theories. CTD is in fact arguably a subset of Tegmark. Tegmark speculates on the CUH, the computable universe hypothesis. People have noted that it's a great theory with one slight drawback:

It's inconsistent with known physics.

Two things we are most certainly missing each other on. In fact, that is the hugest gap.

You fail to distinguish a bunch of things:

1. What the universe is from what we SAY about it.

2. What the universe is from what we THINK about it.

3. What the universe is from the SYMBOLS we use to describe it.

All this time we are discussing "the universe", you do understand that we are talking about the map, not the territory, right?

Those are the implications of model-dependent realism, constructivist epistemology.

You and I know nothing of the universe. In fact - my datapoint for "arrogance", is people who lack the self-awareness to recognise that they are talking about their PERCEPTION of the universe not the universe itself.

CTD is not food for thought. CTD is the theory of thought. Hence my remarks on metacognition.

If you don't understand how you primary measurement apparatus for doing science works, then your results may as well be nothing but luck.

wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

People have noted that it's a great theory with one slight drawback:

It's inconsistent with known physics.

See. I don't understand how mathematics can be "inconsistent" with physics.

The theory says that the universe CAN be described with mathematics, not that it IS described by known mathematics.

If the mathematics is inconsistent with reality. FIX THE MATHEMATICS.

Physicists have always looked to Mathematicians to give them the language necessary to describe the phenomena they are observing, and by and large it seems Mathematicians were always ahead of the curve. It seems that what you are saying by "mathematics is inconsistent with physics" is that Mathematicians have run out of language.

What computer scientists are offering instead is the skills to INVENT the language you need to describe your experiences. From 1st principles.

wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

I'll try to hold off on posting any more about this, since the point on which we disagree is clear enough. You are dogmatic about your beliefs. I'm agnostic on mine. It's perfectly possible that we are all execution paths in the great cosmic computation. If so then so be it. I don't think so but after all ... how would I know? I could just be programmed to think that way. And I've read plenty of Philip K. Dick.

You can't be agnostic about the fact that you have beliefs. How do "beliefs" work?

wtf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:49 pm

But if you said, "As someone who believes in the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis, I believe physics is computation." That would be clear. Instead, you freely went back and forth as if to dare me to call you on the point. That's gaslighting, not dialog. For what it's worth that's why I called you a liar. I suppose that's too strong for a friendly discussion board. I apologize for calling you a liar. I'll dial it down to micro-gaslighter and leave it at that.

I can't read your mind - I don't know which argument will best connect the dots for you.

I could have said "As somebody who believes in CTD".....

Or I could have said "As somebody who is a

Model dependent realist" (and I DID say that). I think all knowledge is models. And computation is model building.

Or I could have said "As somebody who is subscribed to

Constructivist epistemology (and I HAVE said that - and you HAVE recognized that) then it follows: the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.

I see all three of the above arguments as equivalent in weight. What I don't know is which argument is closer to your background knowledge.

Because I can argue my position from 10 different perspectives (hint: the mathematical ideal of consistency is flawed). Like any good physicist has more than one theory which explains a phenomenon, so should any good philosopher have more than one framework (perspective!) to look at things.

But here is the TL;DR. Physics produces models of the world in the language of Mathematics. As physics discovers new phenomena (ones that we have never experienced before), phenomena for which we have no language for - physicists go looking to Mathematicians for the language to express this experience. The output of Physics is Mathematics.

So you can trivially falsify my CTD "belief" (as it pertains to being the theory of the mind, NOT the universe) then.

Point me to any physics knowledge which is not-computable e.g cannot be described in language (logic).

P.S Here is an alternative hypothesis to your "gaslighting or micro-gaslighting". You got triggered. Which is perfectly expected - since I am doing science on your mind. Metacognition...

Mathematics is just language. A man-made language.