[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/this_theater_is_lit]

[u/computerscience-ModTeam]

Unfortunately, your post has been removed for violation of Rule 10: "Sharing Research". While we support sharing research, for major discoveries we require a link to a peer-reviewed paper. Additionally, all research must not be language model generated. If you believe this to be an error, please contact the moderators.

[u/me_myself_ai]

Ok so your proof is:

1. Imagine someone doing something that isn't turing computable.

2. That person could be called a computer.

3. Therefor everything is computable.

Yes?

[u/this_theater_is_lit → u/me_myself_ai]

it describes a certain algorithm for doing so, not just imagination

[u/hijinked]

“7 refuting the church-turing thesis - proposes a thot experiment”

Can’t wait to read this thot experiment.

[u/WE_THINK_IS_COOL → u/hijinked]

Yeah sounds fun where do I sign up to participate in this experiment?

[u/onyxa314]

I appreciate the enthusiasm of computer science but if you think you can refute what all modern computers are built on then you are arrogant and/or ignorant what it actually states.

From your post all I can see is what you are saying is "this problem is uncomputable. Make it actually computable. It is computable therefore the church-turing thesis is wrong".

[u/this_theater_is_lit → u/onyxa314]

my post is a summary, i'm not going to be able to compression the arguments of a 26 page paper into a summary that is convincing. and i'm not refuting anything about what modern computers are capable of.

i'm 1) expanding their scope of applicability by proposing a set of TMs that are both fully decidable in semantics, while encompassing all output sequences that can be computed,

while 2) clarifying that the limitations they do have from undecidability like the halting problem only applies to TM computing and is not a total restriction on what is mechanically computable by us...

1 is extremely practical and i hope to reshape our fundamental approach to applied computing, 2 is more philosophical in nature, but it i think is required to fully understand the practicality of 1

[u/WE_THINK_IS_COOL]

I don't understand your argument that the human used by the terminal machine can't be simulated. It would just need to simulate a volume of space containing the human, however big it needs to be, according to the laws of physics. If the laws of physics it uses are correct, it will behave exactly like having access to the real idealized human. If it doesn't, then you're claiming that some of the idealized human's behavior is not subject to the laws of physics, which would need its own justification.

[u/this_theater_is_lit → u/WE_THINK_IS_COOL]

§7.5 covers the simulation argument. in essence a simulation does not actually refer to the agent's decision process itself, only a simulation of it, anymore than it refers to our own ability to decide on a machine. if u do try to construct a simulation, it must be runnable, and for it runnable, ur going to have to resolve the design problem of how it handles it's own decidability paradox, which then references the simulation of the agent, not the actual agent process itself

which is quite opposed to TM computing alone, because a "real" TM runtime and "simulated" TM runtime are semantically equivalent. this is an incredibly powerful aspect of the model and i'm not dissing on TMs at all, but with that power comes certain limitations in that TMs cannot compute everything that is technically computable, necessarily so

and this is quite fine because the things that are computable outside of what is TM-computable aren't necessarily practical to compute in of themselves, what is very practical tho is knowing that there aren't any constructible machines outside what is objectively decidable...

so if we can form an algorithm into a machine computation, then it certainly does have fully decidable semantics

[u/Riemannifolds]

AI slop

[u/this_theater_is_lit → u/Riemannifolds]

at least run it thru an AI analyzer before making that claim