Why not string theory? Because enough is enough

Re:Why not string theory? Because enough is enough by j-pb on Sunday June 12, 2016 @06:06AM (#11887453)

Sure, I choose... "Exhaustive Search in the space of programs". (maybe with some genetic algorithm heuristics to shave of a couple billion years on each query)

It's a ML system that can solve any decidable and even some semi decidable problems. Which is (if the church turing thesis holds) everything that can be understood by humans or other.

You might not be able to wait around long enough to see it give you a result though, but hey at least _it_ got an answer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why not string theory? Because enough is enough by espadrine on Sunday June 12, 2016 @06:19AM (#11887483)

If you allow impractical ML systems, you might as well pick a dice. Sure, the answer is inaccurate, but there's a non-zero probability that it is correct!

But, realistically, the ML system you devise cannot learn about features that require knowledge outside of the observable universe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why not string theory? Because enough is enough by j-pb on Monday June 13, 2016 @03:02AM (#11892118)

How does a static dice model computational processes?

What does the universe have to do with the set of computable functions?

[ Parent | on HN ]