It is difficult to distinguish the two cases in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
I don't think it follows that either the universe or our minds are computational. For one, we don't have a satisfactory definition of "mind", so that question has to remain open until we do.
And the universe could be "computational" in a completely unfamiliar way. It might even be humanly unimaginable.
As a wild speculation, consider the extreme case: the universe actually functions as an indivisible whole.
We use math to make predictions about repeating causal patterns, and invariably they work in a time- and precision-limited way. If the universe was a true thing-in-itself on its own terms, it could be "computational", but our models would always be incomplete and imperfect.
We would never be able to understand it fully, because we would never be able to build a complete and accurate representation of its computational mechanisms.
Could you give me a definition for “definition”?
At some point you have to be content that your inability to define every single term in your vocabulary doesn’t hinder your ability to use that term in practice.
All we have in way of creating/communicating knowledge is symbol manipulation. Language.
Turing machines are language recognisers, and I am comfortable using them as practically sufficient (for the purposes of conversation) models of minds.
To be sure you see my point, defining “definition” is recursive and that puts you on the computer science turf.
I am a computer. Mathematics is a language; or more precisely - it is a grammar. Our Mathematical models of the universe are computational, and since Mathematics can only prove things up to isomorphism that is as far as colourless, formal, linguistic reductionism will take us.
As for Kantian transcendentalism. Look no further than Jean-Yves Girard’s work on Linear Logic, Geometry of Interaction and transcendental syntax. Is all computer science intersecting with Quantum Physics.
You are a biological system. A massive, noisy and dynamical system of interactions we can never hope to model in fidelity. You exist because of unstable equilibria and tiny little proteins pushing against entropy.
> All we have in way of creating/communicating knowledge is symbol manipulation. Language.
We can communicate with more than abstract symbol language. A dog grows and bears its teeth. A thunderstorm communicates its approach.
We're pattern recognizers, but messy, soupy ones.
Detecting anything is signal processing.
And if I am wrong about this - all the better! It is exactly the right kind of wrongness we need to progress science.
Thanks a lot
