|
|
|
|
|
by sjeohp
2737 days ago
|
|
>But, it's also important to note that we don't have to answer the "how" question in order to identify halting oracles as a viable explanation. We often identify new phenomena and anomalies without being able to explain them, so the identification is a first step. I don't think it constitutes an explanation at all, let alone a viable one, if all it does is beg the same question. The problem was already identified: "how does human cognition work?" You've renamed it: "how does this supposed halting oracle work?" That might be an interesting framing but it is not a viable explanation of anything until you've proved that such oracles exist or in other words, solved the halting problem. |
|