[FRIAM] new math of complexity

[glen]

But the trouble is that controlled experiments are our gold standard for testing such. Control is the default. It seems like at least confirmation bias. Of course control demonstrates determinism. It's petitio principii. In order to demonstrate a counter exmaple, we have to control everything we could possibly *ever* control, being left with only that we can't control ... like proving a negative.

In that context, those of us who believe there exists some thing we can't control act a bit like theists. Whenever they manage to concretely define the process they claim is uncontrollable, we demonstrate it's controllability. Then they move the goalposts and we start all over again. It's tiresome and even if we want to be charitable, allowing that maybe there's something uncontrollable out there (or there is something we might call God), at every turn, as soon as it's defined concretely, it's eventually falsified. That leads some of us to tire out, give up, and just flip the faith and assume there is no uncontrollable thing.

On 6/13/24 19:13, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>     What’s odd is this idea there is something about nature that can’t be described in a repeatable way, such that a digital computer could simulate it, in principle.    Paradoxically, to defend that idea, one would have to describe an experiment that could illustrate counter examples -- concepts that could not be said.   It is obfuscation by construction.


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ