Vainti t1_jblion4 wrote
Humans don’t have the total self reference you talk about on 313. A computer can’t have perfect record of every process since each attempt to record or log a process must be itself recorded and logged by additional processes, ad infinitum. Humans are not aware of all our processes, down to each cell, as such a thing would be computationally impossible. However, our actual level of awareness is no more impossible than a pc showing you a task manager. Our current level of self reference doesn’t meet this requirement for undecidablility.
You already raised the correct objection to infinite state spaces. I think I can illustrate it with an analogy. Saying “Humans have infinite state spaces because we have an impression left by even very large numbers,” is like saying, “This computer has infinitely more storage space than you think. (hits with hammer) Look, it has stored the imprint of this hammer.” You’re confusing a psychological response to incomprehensible numbers with actual storage of said numbers. Also, even if you were right about humans storing a unique impression of everything they’ve ever experienced and that being equivalent to state space. That’s still nowhere close to the infinity you need to make statements about Laplace’s demon.
And you’re probably wrong about different numbers leaving different impressions. I’d bet money that if we gave you a 3000 digit number your “impression” would be the same (no measurable difference) no matter what the 347th digit is.
A trillion molecules with a trillion different possible combinations is a large number. It is not an infinite number. To Laplace’s demon, this might as well be 8 total combinations. We also have reason to believe that the total number of imaginary objects or scenarios might be similarly finite, if incomprehensibly large. I expect we have a finite list of objects and scenarios we’re determined to imagine.
I don’t understand why you think generating an unsolvable problem means that the being who generated it has an unsolvable will. Stating a paradox doesn’t mean you incorporate a paradox in your own thought process nor does it mean you have violated the genetic and environmental causes which determine your choices and thoughts.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments