Classic von Neumann: "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!"
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @neurograce
It's possible to specify the halting problem quite precisely. Yet a machine can't solve it (well, absent a surprise in the laws of physics). So I think von Neumann is wrong here!
5 replies 0 retweets 54 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @neurograce
How about a modification - "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do that a human or another biological system can do..."?
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @martisamuser @michael_nielsen
Yea, here is the full context which is more aligned with that view. http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/bios601/GaussianModel/JaynesProbabilityTheory.pdf … You were anticipated by E.T Jaynes,
@michael_nielsen!pic.twitter.com/k3J8M88BKs
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @martisamuser
Not for the first time! I made an argument in a similar style to von Neumann's, though for quite a different purpose, in an old essay. The core snippet:pic.twitter.com/NDoQlYDyVd
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @neurograce
(Nitpicking alert) In this case, can't we precisely describe what a quantum computer does but not in "simple concrete terms" which are a function of natural language that is grounded in "non-spooky" observations? Aren't those two different things?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Of course - that's why the snippet above is careful to restrict itself to "simple concrete explanations".
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.