@danielcincu there's no likeliness. the laws of physics either allow or prohibit it.
information can be instantiated and processed in different mediums.
@CoaltrainHunter@DavidDeutschOxf your profile description answers this question well
quality of argument, not quantity of authority is what we search for
nullius in verba
@kSouupp@Rainmaker1973 they barely could, that's why only few stand today.
until newton's physics which allows you to understand how forces are impacting a given structure, people used simple rules of thumbs of what had seemed to work before.
most ancient structures are long gone
@wintonARK@DragonScorps hear me out. what if we just ask the programmer how the program works and decide if the explanation is good of what creativity is and how it creates knowledge.
@ladboy0@Eluem@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 had the ancient Greeks gone to australia while Demeter was sad they would've known that their theory was false. but the explanation is easy to vary and thus you can swap the pieces out.
it is the lack of a hard to vary explanation that is crucial here.
@ladboy0@Eluem@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 the Ted talk and the two others he has done are a mere intro to the ideas he explores in his book the beginning of infinity.
a few paragraphs on the philosophy -
https://t.co/B7sWly7qej
https://t.co/tgxhsNAupq
@ladboy0@Eluem@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 it's part of it, but falsifiability is common in ancient myths and prophecies today.
it is the search for good, hard to vary explanations that makes progress possible.
Eat a kg of grass and it will cure your cold, the world will end next Monday, are testable.
@ladboy0@Eluem@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 yes, but my point is the way they processed ideas was very different.
small mutations in religious myths is not the novelty I have in mind here, but fire and agriculture are, but these were changes that happened seldom in past times.
@Eluem@ladboy0@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 evidence?
should I go back and ask why they opted for such bland design if they could've made something as majestic like da vinci did?
they were a static society that barely ever made progress in any field incl aesthetics because they didn't know how to
@Eluem@ladboy0@quantumbiosis@Rainmaker1973 ultimately one could say their knowledge was so primitive that this is what they managed to do.
had they had the knowledge of how to better carve, stylize, etc they wouldve made statues as magnificent as we do today.
they wouldve liked to, they just didn't know how.
@baasbank yes, what turing meant and david writes about here is a person that didn't come about the biological way.
the term is butchered and used for all sorts of programs today
the universality of computation means that any program can be run on a turing machine incl what we are