HN user

curiousest

5 karma
Posts2
Comments5
View on HN

You can say things like, “In the domain of physics, X,” “Assuming the scientific method, X,” or “Assuming the premises of logic, X.”

But “computation is a fundamental aspect of the universe”, in the way it's being understood in this thread (as opposed to the article) does not remain within any of those frameworks. It makes a claim about reality as a whole.

Once you make that kind of universal claim, all the assumptions built into “computation” - about identity, distinct states, lawful transitions, causation, logic, etc. - become part of the claim. You cannot use those assumptions silently and then present the conclusion as framework-independent.

And those frameworks come with consequences. Using the language of computation, they come with "lossiness" wrt modelling "reality".

(see Aristotle Metaphysics -> Kant CoPR -> later Wittgenstein)

Inflammatory. You can get your citizenship revoked if officers can prove you are engaged in terrorist activities against Canada.

https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-51/

"Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada..."

"Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence..."

"Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas..."

Etc.

Great argument. The paradox changes that variable, possibility of no execution, midway through.

#1 If it stays true from the beginning, the first step of the prisoner's logical induction is invalid and the prisoner accepts he will be surprised.

#2 If it stays false from the beginning, the prisoner can make the logical induction, coming to a conclusion that is invalid (contrary to an assumption) so he accepts that he will be surprised.

If it can change at any point, see #1.