Wouldn’t carrying this analogy to its conclusion mean that you would have to generalize it for a human mind which doesn’t already have a bunch of prior understanding of the world? Instead of a universal turing machine, you’re using “a universal turing machine that has been taught about witches”, which feels like it should be called out as part of the experimental methodology.
So really you would imagine describing the hypothesis and all of the information required to understand the hypotheses to a human that doesn’t already know English and isn’t already familiar with witches. Rather than a single sentence you’d end up with a book.
I remember somewhere in the sequences the example of Thor causing thunderstorms *feels* simpler to us than weather dynamics, because our brains handwave away the complexity of Thor.
Source: pure speculation and hazy recollection of old LessWrong articles.
Wouldn’t carrying this analogy to its conclusion mean that you would have to generalize it for a human mind which doesn’t already have a bunch of prior understanding of the world? Instead of a universal turing machine, you’re using “a universal turing machine that has been taught about witches”, which feels like it should be called out as part of the experimental methodology.
So really you would imagine describing the hypothesis and all of the information required to understand the hypotheses to a human that doesn’t already know English and isn’t already familiar with witches. Rather than a single sentence you’d end up with a book.
I remember somewhere in the sequences the example of Thor causing thunderstorms *feels* simpler to us than weather dynamics, because our brains handwave away the complexity of Thor.
Source: pure speculation and hazy recollection of old LessWrong articles.