> Matt Gingell wrote:
>> >> I think the original remark misses the depth of Church-Turing. It's >> not just talking about what you can do with a computer, it's talking >> about what you can do with _any conceivable_ formal system. If you can >> find expressible regularities in the universe which can't be described >> under the lambda calculus then you've disproven the conjecture.
Ok - then I understand your position but none of the reasoning behind it.
> And, for the record, I believe that the Church-Turing-Tarski thesis
> is fundamentally *wrong*, not just limited in the space of phenomena
> it describes; there is *no such thing* as a simulation; it is not
> possible to "compute" the complete behavior of a quark without
> creating an actual quark.
Then you believe that a quark has properties which it is not possible to describe computationally. To some extent, I agree. A piece of paper with a mass, position, and velocity written on it is not a particle, it's still just a piece of paper. Only simulated people get wet in simulated rainstorms.
> I don't know that a genius-in-a-box that naturally evolved in a Life
> universe could deduce that it was in a simulation, but I know it could
> deduce that it wasn't looking at the lowest level of reality.
What suggests to you that no reality may ever be computable or that Turing equivalence proves the world is a simulation?