2023-09-19 23:42 UTC
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org
Thanks! I browsed your paper quickly & find it very useful because it clearly exposes the kind of misinterpretations & unsupported assumptions I'd expect in such an argument. I'll read it carefully, & we can have a genuine discussion.
I wonder: how much energy did it cost you to send this link? How much easier would that have been than your repeated whining about my provocations? Why post glib provocations yourself, if you don't want to engage? It all seems a bit odd to me.
Replies (1)
-
@yoginho@spore.social 2023-09-20 08:48
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org Ok. I read the paper carefully and actually really like it. It lays out your conceptual framework very clearly, which allows me to precisely pinpoint the holes in your argument. The fundamental hidden assumption that is simply stated but not justified at all is that algorithmic computation "can be applied to almost any object in the universe." Of course, we can simulate (approximate) anything, like throwing a ball, but the actual ball throw is not literally computation ...