HN user
We do know that mathematical frameworks cannot be at the same time totally complete and internally consistent.
I take it you're referencing Godel's theorems here, but "consistent" and "complete" have rather technical (and somewhat limited) meanings within that context, so it's not clear to me how they'd usefully map onto the potential relationship between QM and GR?
1) [citation needed]
2) even if this is true, at least we're not, I dunno, dying in our 30s and have things like running water?
The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation.
The majority of societies that have tried anything different were/are significantly worse for the average person. That seems like more than a little substantiation.
Europeans have maybe a few words or even just one word to describe snow
Really? In common use: snow, sleet, hail, flurry, frost, hoar, ice, rime, (snow)drift, powder, slush. Less commonly: firn, neve, sastrugi, suncups, ...
a literal manifestation of two-ness in front of him
Did he though? Are there two gloves, or 100 wool threads, or a 10^23 atoms? Would a different mind see the same thing?
Repasting the quote without addressing the response does not do much to bolster your position - perhaps the opposite!
we don't particularly use a lot of them and even when we do, the taste is better, but not extremely so
Speak for yourself!
> "how Auckland fixed it"
Anyone who lives in Auckland: bahahahahhaha
Technically yes, but in practice I think the victims and survivors of extinction events might beg to differ
> Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly
Really? In every country I've live in, politicians write laws, judges set precedents, and lawyers only get to make arguments. True, the first two are often & always former lawyers, but that seems as reasonable as how doctors get to determine best medical practice.
"LLM and AGI"
Feels like the three letters A-G-I are doing a lot of heavy lifting there
Agreed...if you have to introduce an "agent" to make it complete, is it Tetris that's complete or Tetris + an agent?
Imho the fact that a Turing machine is capable of universal computation is surprising/insightful. I'm not sure the fact that other simple systems are then also complete adds much more surprise/insight, even if it's difficult to predict which ones will be.
What I think people often miss is the difference between computational completeness and computational "power". Yes rule 110 is complete, but what that means in practice is that you've shifted most of the work (for solving a real problem) onto specifying the initial conditions.
Maybe Tetris is Turing complete but it's still a lot easier to compute 2+2 on a pocket calculator.
It's not uncommon for the T&Cs of tickets and such to require photo ID...in which case?
"just"
Searle's Chinese room is one of those things it's obvious most people talk about without ever having bothered to actually read. Searle does not say computers will never think. Early in the paper he even says - obviously machines can think because we are precisely examples of such machines. His point is that maybe it takes a certain kind of processing to yield what we call consciousness, and that may be a subset of the processes that yield outwardly similar behaviour.
Perhaps that's true of some portion of Victorian society, but one sentence can't capture a whole society's understanding.
I can think of contradicting evidence, e.g., the novel Fanny Hill (pre Victorian but still English)
I think it was Einstein who said "I probably didn't say this"