>>16898518
Drawing circles and lines?

>>16898518
No,

Everything is a computation.

The great mystery is why nature can compute certain things that we, for now, appear unable.

>>16898548
So you're saying everything is a computation but you can't prove it computationally?

Um.

>>16898518
muh feelings

>>16898548
>The great mystery is why nature can compute certain things that we, for now, appear unable.
Not a very big mystery. If everything is a computation and the universe is infinitely more vast and/or more complex than the contents of our brains, then the computing power of those brains can never reach the computing power of the rest of the entirety of the universe.

Even if our brains were the most complex computing machines in existence, the sheer amount of stuff that's out there will always be too much computing power for our brains to match.

Given the miniscule amount of the observable universe that is available to our brains, the likelihood that there ARE things more complex than our brains is quite high, meaning we would never be able to fathom them.

If there are things more complex than our brains and the universe is utterly filled with them, we could never hope to be able to compute the nature of those computations.

File: divine-light-severed.jpg (103.2 KB)

103.2 KB JPG

>>16898518
>>16898518
Everything is the analog computer of its own dynamics, but that notion of computation is as meaningless as it is trivial. To meaningfully claim that something computes, you must be able to abstract the computational logic from the physical means of computation. But once you do that, a computation ceases to be an objective physical process. It's no longer subject to the constraints that allow you to objectively identify physical phenomena. You can distribute the steps of a computation arbitrarily across space and time, up to sequential dependencies. Correlating those steps back into a (logical) process is mere convention. Real phenomena don't work like that. So you can claim some physical system is a "computer" (i.e. you can read computations into it if you want) but you can't claim whatever you think it computes is what drives or characterizes it as a physical system.

>>16898548
spbp

>>16898840
>shittiest post best post

File: exposition.png (66.1 KB)

66.1 KB PNG

>>16898788
>as meaningless as it is trivial

>>16898854
>mentally ill retard strikes again

>>16898854
> academic has not outgrown his idealism phase and posts useless mumbo jumbo
Hopefully you get it soon.

>>16898777
That would imply that everything that can be observed by a human can be computed by a human's brain, but that doesn't seem to be the case since even the human brain generally estimates rather than computes.

>>16898518
Love. Hope.

My boner in 7th grade after gym right before I was going up for presentation in history.
Was a good subject and my presentation was mint. Said I forgot it.

>>16898761
Chatgpt demonstrated people's feelings are 100% computational.

File: 1762072301833054.mp4 (384.2 KB)

384.2 KB MP4

Computation is simply a ratio comparison.
This means every observation is a calculation.

>>16902014
the map =/= the territory
observation =/= the observed

Our observation of the universe may be a calculation, but that does not imply the universe is necessarily a calculation.

File: brainlet-pattern-recognition.png (96.1 KB)

96.1 KB PNG

>>16902014
>X is simply Y
>t. a moron, every single time without fail
What causes this unbreakable pattern? Is it computation?

>>16902323
It would not be able to physically exist if the physical universe could not continuously calculate its various physical properties.
Physical calculation is the territory, the sand particles falling down the hourglass, the semantics to describe the way it is physically calculated like assigning each bit of sand to a second is the map.

File: non-player-retard.jpg (17.5 KB)

17.5 KB JPG

>It would not be able to physically exist if the physical universe could not continuously calculate its various physical properties.

>>16898579
The equations might be out of our range of comprehension.

>>16898548
>nature can compute certain things
>we, for now, appear unable
we are part of nature, dummy

>>16904747
You both seem to be retarded and conflating different metalevels. Suppose you accept the (meaningless) proposition that everything nature does is a "computation". If so, then by definition, humanity can "compute" any phenomenon just by triggering it in reality. But who cares about that? What matters is whether or not it's possible to implement a general-purpose computational formalism on top of nature's "computations", in a way that can mirror all of nature's "computations". But why would it be possible? Why would a human construction inside the universe be as powerful as the universe itself? More broadly, why would something constructed and enacted be as powerful as a real, continuous, organic process?

>>16904750
>If so, then by definition, humanity can "compute" any phenomenon just by triggering it in reality.
But humans don't exist at a scale where they can trigger every possibly phenomenon, so that isn't possible, nature will always be greater than humans abilities because human ability is but a small subset of nature.

>What matters is whether or not it's possible to implement a general-purpose computational formalism on top of nature's "computations"
No that is impotent if you can't actually trigger them, like claiming a man made drawing of a sunrise is just as precise as the actual thing.

>Why would a human construction inside the universe be as powerful as the universe itself?
Nobody said it was, just that humans can reflect only a small subset of the universe's physical calculations... those which exist at a human scale.

>why would something constructed and enacted be as powerful as a real, continuous, organic process?
What does that have anything to do with the topic of whether the universe has to physically calculate any phenomenon in order to physically manifest it?

>>16904772
>line by line "refutation"
>everything in the post is moronic
What causes this pattern?

>>16904774
What causes you to resort to personal and stylistic attacks when you realize that you can't refute the counter claims with your own logical reasoning?
Fallacy and knowing you are wrong and can't defend your claims, but being desperate to win the argument anyway.

>>16898518
Well.. If you did something non-computational it would change to computational with the conditioning from life, so it looks like space magic on a higher dimension.

>>16904777
>What causes you to resort to personal and stylistic attacks
Brainlet fatigue. Sometimes when I look back at my younger self and I'm astounded by how much patience I used to have for reasoning with 80 IQs like you and how little I had gained from that erroneous practice.

>>16904797
Yes that is what I just described, you are fatigued from being a brainlet with low impulse control who can't actually support your own reasoning with condensed well organized logic, so you resort to fallacy as an emotional outlet for your complete failure of factual analysis and logical conclusions.

>>16898518
Consciousness.
Before you start seething please give me an algorithm for the experience of red.

>>16904801
I know you're too mentally ill and retarded to see it (possibly due to your low impulse control forcing you to "refute" every sentence in isolation) but reasoning my reasoning is outlined here >>16904750 and it stands completely undisputed.

>>16904801
>>16898548
Looking at it one way, there's no mystery, because humanity can (in principle) compute anything nature can compute; creating the necessary analog computer just isn't practical most of the time. Looking at it the other way, there's still no mystery, because you didn't establish any logical connection between what's computable on each meta-level (refer back to >>16904750) in the first place; you wouldn't even know where to begin, because your meaningless assertion ("everything is a computation") fails to make any distinctions or establish any useful categories. It just relabels physical existence. The only mystery is why imbeciles like you feel such a strong compulsion to shit out "intellectual" takes when they should be shoveling shit in the barn or something more suitable for your level of intellect.

>>16904806
No, that is just your functional illiteracy that has resulted in your mental fatigue rearing its head again where you had an emotional breakdown because every single line was refuted point by point, but somehow that means your points are completely undisputed.
You will prove you have low impulse control because you will hastily reply again without making any logical point because you will go straight to resorting to a sloppy barely coherent sentence or two seething about your perceptions of my personality and grammar choices instead.

>>16904814
Not reading your mentally ill seething. See >>16904813 for the final word on this matter.

>>16904813
>humanity can (in principle) compute anything nature can compute
Nope, humanity can not build things the size of galactic megaclusters, so they have no hope of computing anything at the scale of even a small section of the universe let alone anything in nature.

>>16904815
All you did in playing your ignorance card was validate my conclusion that you have no impulse control or logical reasoning to back up your original claims.

>>16904813
>you wouldn't even know where to begin, because your meaningless assertion ("everything is a computation") fails to make any distinctions or establish any useful categories. It just relabels physical existence
kek. this. retards will use the same label to refer to two different things then be mystified by why the actual things remain demonstrably different

File: jeet.png (468.9 KB)

468.9 KB PNG

>>16904818
>but i did eat breakfast

>>16904820
Not enough to make up for the nutrient deficiencies that cause the brain fog that lead you to brag about your own ignorance as if not reading something you can't refute is some kind of virtue.

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (29.8 KB)

29.8 KB JPG

>Not enough to make up for the nutrient deficiencies that cause the brain fog that lead you to brag about your own ignorance as if not reading something you can't refute is some kind of virtue.

>>16902330
>>16904743
>>16904820
>>16904842
oh fuck schizo is off his meds again

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB)

39 KB JPG

>oh fuck schizo is off his meds again

File: 1632337528527.gif (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB GIF

>>16904847

>>16898777
>If everything is a computation and the universe is infinitely more vast and/or more complex than the contents of our brains, then the computing power of those brains can never reach the computing power of the rest of the entirety of the universe.
This doesn't actually hold. Computational equivalence is a lot trickier than that. RISC and CISC computers are capable of the exact same workloads, for example.

>>16905165
>This doesn't actually hold
It does.

>Computational equivalence ..
Doesn't refute what he wrote. Just because two computers are based on equivalent computing models doesn't mean they are equally capable in practice. This is completely obvious.

Why does this question make people angry?

What's at stake?