The laws of physics as we currently understand them are computable (not efficiently, but still), and there is no reason to hypothesize new physics to explain how the brain works. I’m claiming there is an isomorphism.
Dynamic systems have mathematical descriptions also…
The laws of physics as we currently understand them are computable (not efficiently, but still), and there is no reason to hypothesize new physics to explain how the brain works. I’m claiming there is an isomorphism.
Dynamic systems have mathematical descriptions also…
What do you mean by that? E.g. quantum mechanics, or even the many-bodies problem in classical mechanics...
Do note that being able to write a mathematical expression does not necessarily mean it’s computable. Among other things, our universe is finite.
I strongly suspect “computable” is being used in the mathematical sense here, not in the sense of “tractable on a reasonable computer”.
QM is compatible. Cclassical physics us not.
We do.nt know whether the universe is finite or infinite.