The Rolf Nevanlinna Prize

-
A few days ago I read that Constantinos Daskalakis got the Rolf Nevanlinna Prize for
 For transforming our understanding of the computational complexity of fundamental problems in markets, auctions, equilibria, and other economic structures. His work provides both efficient algorithms and limits on what can be performed efficiently in these domains.
Thus, according to this, we now can somehow compute economies. However, even economists have started to realize that economies cannot be described with  mathematics only. In fact,  Why economists need to expand their knowledge to include the humanities is a recent article that discusses exactly this problem. Daskalakis's approach is based on the assumption that humans are Turing machines. Unfortunately, they are not and this is the reason why economists fail so miserably in their predictions. Furthermore, there are some other things that people who work in computational economics "fail" to realize. For example, even if a human does not have capabilities that transcend  the capabilities of the Turing machine, a human has a free will and this is definitely not computable. Yes, yes, there are physical theories that "prove" that there is no free will (in fact they prove nothing like that but somehow their assumptions lead to such a conclusion). But if we are Turing machines and there is no free will, then there is absolutely no reason to live! Our lives and our destines are known eons before our birth. Personally, I agree with Harry G. Frankfurt who wrote the following in his book entitled On Bullshit:

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share.

Σχόλια

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις από αυτό το ιστολόγιο

A comment on a comment

-
Recently, "someone" posted a review of my book on hypercomputation on the Brains site. The reviewer argues that This area is full of problems, some of which are physico/mathematical and some of which are conceptual. Unfortunately, from a quick sample, Syropolous's book does not avoid common mistakes and confusions—some of which I've been trying to correct in my own work. First of all, I have to admit that back in 2004 I read a paper by this reviewer, but at that time I did not considered it interesting. However, after I read this review of my book, I read The Physical Church-Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold? , the reviewer's latest manuscript, in order to see what he meant by common mistakes and confusions and how he was trying to solve them. In this manuscript, the reviewer puts forth a number of criteria that every machine has to satisfy in order to be ``useful for physical computing.'' These criteria are: Readable Inputs and Outputs Process-Independ...
Διαβάστε περισσότερα

Is the Universe a Quantum Computer?

-
 The idea that the Universe (whatever we may mean by this) is a some sort of a computer is a recurring theme. Recently, Nature published an article by David L. Chandler that is entitled Could the Universe be a giant quantum computer? This article is actually a tribute to Edward Fredkin, who passed away last June. The main contribution of Fredkin to the philosophy of science is his "digital philosophy" that advocates the idea that the universe is a computer and everything in our universe is discrete. I would not like to argue against the validity of these ideas (I have done so in Hypercomputation: Computing Beyond the Church-Turing Barrier and in Demystifying Computation: A Hands-On Introduction ) . However, I would like to point out that if the Universe is not a computing device, in general, then it cannot be a quantum computer, in particular. Also, what I did not like with Chandler's article is that it takes it for granted that the Universe is a computer. He did not e...
Διαβάστε περισσότερα