If humans cant solve the halting problem does that mean we can be simulated by a computer

[Linus No Beard]

long title i know but i thing this is a big question. if you need it described to you here is a video

so not only is this unsolvable by a computer but even after all this time NO human has ever come up with a solution to this problem

which leads me to ask if a question can we be computed by a computer because if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

 

i am just asking if you have any way to disprove this

[AbydosOne]

4 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

i am just asking if you have any way to disprove this

This is literally the halting problem. There's no way for a machine to determine if a program will complete, including "the program that determines if programs will complete".

See this Veritasium video:

 

 

[tikker]

8 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

because if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

I don't see how you go from humans and computers having a single limitation in common to computers being able to simulate us.

[Linus No Beard]

1 minute ago, AbydosOne said:

This is literally the halting problem. There's no way for a machine to determine if a program will complete, including "the program that determines if programs will complete".

See this Veritasium video:

 

 

my conjecture is that if humans cant solve the halting problem which they have not yet then does that mean we can be simulated by a Turing machine

[wONKEyeYEs]

14 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

Penrose posited that consciousness arises from quantum phenomena happening at the microtubule

level inside the neurons rather than from the connections between the neurons.

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-our-brains-work-at-the-quantum-level-Is-the-brain-itself-a-quantum-machine?share=1

[AbydosOne]

14 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

my conjecture is that if humans cant solve the halting problem which they have not yet then does that mean we can be simulated by a Turing machine

"I can't do _____ and computers can't do ______ , ergo I'm a computer" isn't exactly sound logic.

Arguably, any causal system can eventually be simulated in a Turing machine (the complexity of which would be astronomical). However, the human brain doesn't operate on strict binaries, so eventually you'll find a case where the machine doesn't choose the right output. You very rapidly start running into quantum uncertainty effects, as @wONKEyeYEs alluded to, that make it technically impossible to Turing simulate every subatomic particle in every atom of every molecule of every neuron in the system/brain.

[Linus No Beard]

4 minutes ago, wONKEyeYEs said:

Penrose posited that consciousness arises from quantum phenomena happening at the microtubule

level inside the neurons rather than from the connections between the neurons.

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-our-brains-work-at-the-quantum-level-Is-the-brain-itself-a-quantum-machine?share=1

yes but quantum computers do exist also any quantum problem can be computed by any Turing machine given enough time or speed

[BuckGup]

I personally think your consciousness gravitates to where you are most clustered. As we slowly translate everything virtually I believe we'll hit a point were your conscious will continue with you but virtually as you live almost or exclusively online. Humans seem like a parasite that were preprogrammed to find a new method of transferring the host conscious. Or we could simply be stuck in a while loop and held in a constant state forever who knows. It's very intriguing though and fascinating 

[WihGlah]

Twaddle. No programme will run forever. 

 

The machine will eventually fail. No computer will last forever.

 

This is another example of logical hubris from so called experts.

[Linus No Beard]

6 minutes ago, WihGlah said:

Twaddle. No program will run forever. 

 

The machine will eventually fail. No computer will last forever.

 

This is another example of logical hubris from so called experts.

we are talking about a theoretical machine with an unlimited tape and does not break down and does not succumb to entropy

[tikker]

13 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

yes but quantum computers do exist also any quantum problem can be computed by any Turing machine given enough time or speed

Saying any <topic> problem can be solved given enough time or speed is a very very strong statement to make and you'll have to proof it. The above problems exist precisely because there are problems that cannot be solved or at least not with our current tools. I also found an example of a "quantum problem" that scientists believe cannot be computed: Undecidability of the spectral gap

 

Interestingly enough it comes back to the halting problem:

Quote

The spectral gap—the energy difference between the ground state and first excited state of a system—is central to quantum many-body physics.

<snip>

The spectral gap depends on the outcome of the corresponding ‘halting problem’. Our result implies that there exists no algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary model is gapped or gapless, and that there exist models for which the presence or absence of a spectral gap is independent of the axioms of mathematics.

 

[Linus No Beard]

1 minute ago, tikker said:

Saying any <topic> problem can be solved given enough time or speed is a very very strong statement to make and you'll have to proof it. The above problems exist precisely because there are problems that cannot be solved or at least not with our current tools. I also found an example of a "quantum problem" that scientists believe cannot be computed: Undecidability of the spectral gap

 

Interestingly enough it comes back to the halting problem:

 

what i was saying is that if a quantum computer can solve something it can be programmed in such a way that a Turing machine can also solve it

[Sauron]

34 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

which leads me to ask if a question can we be computed by a computer because if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

With enough processing power you could (probably) accurately simulate every atom in a human's body in real time. Actually doing it is far beyond our current capabilities though.

 

Note however that the halting problem only proves that there are some problems a Turing machine can't solve. It doesn't mean everything but the halting problem can be solved. There could theoretically be machines that can't solve the halting problem but can solve some problems a Turing machine can't. I don't know if humans fit but... well that's just it, we don't really know. There's a lot we still don't know about how humans work.

[tikker]

15 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

what i was saying is that if a quantum computer can solve something it can be programmed in such a way that a Turing machine can also solve it

Then what are you trying to say? This is just saying any problem solvable by a Turing machine can be solved on another Turing machine.

 

55 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

so not only is this unsolvable by a computer but even after all this time NO human has ever come up with a solution to this problem

which leads me to ask if a question can we be computed by a computer because if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

 

i am just asking if you have any way to disprove this

You imply having a single limitation (e.g. the halting problem) in common directly means we humans are the same as computers/turing machines and can therefore be simulated. This may or may not be true, but this single commonality does not prove that.

[Linus No Beard]

3 minutes ago, tikker said:

Then what are you trying to say? This is just saying any problem solvable by a Turing machine can be solved on another Turing machine.

i am saying that even if Human Consciousness come from quantum effects that still does not rule out the possibility of simulating a human

 

5 minutes ago, tikker said:

You imply having a single limitation (e.g. the halting problem) in common directly means we humans are the same as computers/Turing machines and can therefore be simulated. This may or may not be true, but this single commonality does not prove that.

currently the halting problem is one of the problems known to be unsolvable by a Turing machine. and that humans also have not come up with a solution to this problem

[tikker]

2 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

i am saying that even if Human Consciousness come from quantum effects that still does not rule out the possibility of simulating a human

I agree.

2 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

currently the halting problem is one of the problems known to be unsolvable by a Turing machine. and that humans also have not come up with a solution to this problem

Yes, but this doesn't imply we are the same. The halting problem as far as I know specifically applies to Turing machines and statets they have no means of solving it. In order to proof that a Turing machine could simulate a human, you would need to proof that a human is a Turing machine. Saying both can't solve the halting problem doesn't proof this, because it's just one common point. You'll have to proof that we satisfy all conditions of a Turing machine, or find one condition that we don't satisfy. The former ticks all the boxes, the latter shows by contradiction that we cannot possibly be one. Given that you already gave us the definition of a Turing machine:

50 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

we are talking about a theoretical machine with an unlimited tape and does not break down and does not succumb to entropy

we can say this is false. We are not a machine with tape, so no humans are not Turing machines.

 

You could ask if we are Turing complete, to which I would say probably yes. For example, we humans can read and understand a piece of code. In principle we can deduce and do what that piece of code does, but we'll just be extremely slow about it. Since being able to simulate a Turing complete thing means you are as well and since we can read and simulate code from a (Turing complete) programming language in our heads to deduct what it does, I would say that we are Turing complete. Aside the practical limitations of inifinity of course.

[Linus No Beard]

8 minutes ago, tikker said:

Yes, but this doesn't imply we are the same. The halting problem as far as I know specifically applies to Turing machines and states they have no means of solving it. In order to proof that a Turing machine could simulate a human, you would need to proof that a human is a Turing machine. Saying both can't solve the halting problem doesn't proof this, because it's just one common point. You'll have to proof that we satisfy all conditions of a Turing machine, or find one condition that we don't satisfy. The former ticks all the boxes, the latter shows by contradiction that we cannot possibly be one.

I agree with that but

8 minutes ago, tikker said:

Given that you already gave us the definition of a Turing machine:

we can say this is false. We are not a machine with tape, so no humans are not Turing machines.

we may not have a tape but we do have a means of storage our brain just like how a modern PC does not use tape it uses a SSD or Hard drive and is still able of being Turing complete with the ability to be simulated on a Turing machine

[tikker]

12 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

we may not have a tape but we do have a means of storage our brain just like how a modern PC does not use tape it uses a SSD or Hard drive and is still able of being Turing complete with the ability to be simulated on a Turing machine

Which was my second point. We are not a Turing machine, but I think we can simulate one which would make us Turing complete. Which might be sort of circular / recursive, because we invented the thing in the first place.

[Linus No Beard]

1 minute ago, tikker said:

Which was my second point. We are not a Turing machine, but I think we can simulate one which would make us Turing complete. Which might be sort of circular / recursive, because we invented the thing in the first place.

which only leads to prove my point because if we are Turing complete then a Turing machine could simulate us. am i missing something

[tikker]

3 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

which only leads to prove my point because if we are Turing complete then a Turing machine could simulate us. am i missing something

Your reasoning was flawed. Saying A can't do this and B can't do this so A == B is not correct.

 

Now the question becomes, is there formal evidence/proof that we are indeed Turing complete.

[Linus No Beard]

1 minute ago, tikker said:

Your reasoning was flawed. Saying A can't do this and B can't do this so A == B is not correct.

 

Now the question becomes, is there formal evidence that we are indeed Turing complete.

the fact that given enough time and training we can simulate what a Turing machine will do proves that we are Turing complete

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, Linus No Beard said:

so not only is this unsolvable by a computer but even after all this time NO human has ever come up with a solution to this problem

which leads me to ask if a question can we be computed by a computer because if we have the same limitations and we are basically turning machines any turning machine should be with the right program able to fully simulate us.

We program the computers and decide the rules and terms that a computer can work with,

So the computer is limited to the terms and rules that we set,therefore if there are additional rules to a certain subject that the programmer doesn't know about - It won't be included in the rules that the computer will use.

 

For example space simulation is based on the rules of physics that we know of,but if there are additional rules of physics that we don't know about - It won't be programmed into the computer.

 

Computers may find rules of the universe that we don't know about - But only if they were programmed to do so.

 

So without programmers  the computer would be useless,someone must program the computer in order for it to work.

And the limit of the computer is the rules and terms used to program it's software.

[tikker]

13 minutes ago, Linus No Beard said:

the fact that given enough time and training we can simulate what a Turing machine will do proves that we are Turing complete

I think we might be beyond it however, because we have the understanding of the limitations. Would a Turing machine know it can never resolve the halting problem?

[Linus No Beard]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

We program the computers and decide the rules and terms that a computer can work with,

So the computer is limited to the terms and rules that we set,therefore if there are additional rules to a certain subject that the programmer doesn't know about - It won't be included in the rules that the computer will use.

 

For example space simulation is based on the rules of physics that we know of,but if there are additional rules of physics that we don't know about - It won't be programmed into the computer.

 

Computers may find rules of the universe that we don't know about - But only if they were programmed to do so.

 

So without programmers  the computer would be useless,someone must program the computer in order for it to work.

And the limit of the computer is the rules and terms used to program it's software.

which is why i stated that any turning machine should be with the right program

[Linus No Beard]

Just now, tikker said:

I think we might be beyond it however, because we have the understanding of the limitations. Would a Turing machine know it can never resolve the halting problem?

you can program it to know it's limitations