Scott Aaronson - Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

This follows nicely from Jenann Ismael's talk  Jenann Ismael - Laplace meets Godel: How Self reference Foils Prediction and also Edward Frenkel's talk Norman Wildberger and Dean Rubine Rewriting History and Edward Frenkel Offering Free Psychoanalysis.

32:33 There's an interesting observation about the Ackermann function and addition, multiplication and exponentiation here. See Philip Wadler's talk "Categories for the Working Hacker" in Philip Wadler - Propositions as Types.

46:11 Interesting thing about over-parametrised LLMs.

51:17 on MP*=RE see https://pirsa.org/20050011 and this mathoverflow discussion MIP*=RE theorem and its impact on logic and proof theory.

1:06:41 Interesting thing about non-linearity in quantum mechanics which I'd never heard of before. See Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd's Nonlinear quantum mechanics implies polynomial-time solution for NP-complete and #P problems  (1998).

1:18:55 On quantum computing and AI hype. His blog is here: https://scottaaronson.blog/.

1:25:25 Question "How do we trust space and time?" His answer seems quite apposite to the whole AI/Quantum Computing thing as a whole!

1:31:57 On randomness and pseudo-randomness and the definition in terms of computational complexity: See Andrew Yao's 2000 Turing Award citation. 

The (60 page!) paper is here: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity. 

Subscribe to  ekkolápto.

Here's a talk by Ewin Tang on Quantum Linear Algebra for Machine Learning:


The (2021) paper by  Shao and Montanaro is this one, I guess:  Faster quantum-inspired algorithms for solving linear systems.

Subscribe to UCLA IPAM.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Could One Unify CMU and MIT

Tensor Fields and Simplicial Complexes

HTML in Blog Posts