P/NP....It's all relative....

[David Morris]

This makes no sense to me.

1.  Computation isn't all that grand.
2.  I think you are conflating achievement with seeing.

David Morris

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 4:34 PM Charles Albert <cfalbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> *The version of time in our models is in a sense very computational. As
> time progresses we are in effect seeing the results of more and more steps
> in a computation. And indeed the phenomenon of computational irreducibility
> <
> https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/chap-12--the-principle-of-computational-equivalence/#sect-12-6--computational-irreducibility
> >
> implies
> that there is something definite and irreducible “achieved” by this
> process. (And, for example, this irreducibility is what I believe is
> responsible for the “encrypting” of initial conditions that is associated
> with the law of entropy increase
> <
> https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/chap-9--fundamental-physics/#sect-9-3--irreversibility-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
> >,
> and the thermodynamic arrow of time
> <
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/reversibility-and-irreversibility
> >.
> [Inherent Vice.......sorry, I had to....tried to resist.....futile])
> Needless to say, of course, our modern computational paradigm did not exist
> a century ago when “spacetime” was introduced, and perhaps if it had, the
> history of physics might have been very different.*
>
> *But, OK, so in our models time is just the progressive application of
> rules. But there is a subtlety in exactly how this works that might at
> first seem like a detail, but that actually turns out to be huge, and in
> fact turns out to be the key to both relativity and quantum mechanics.*
>
>
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/
>
>
> love,
>
>
> cfa
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>