Right so, by step 4 I’m not trying to assume that h is computationally tractable; the homomorphic case goes to show that it’s probably not in general.
With respect to C, perhaps I’m not verbally expressing it that well, but the thing you are thinking of, where there is some omniscient perspective that includes “more than” just the low level of physics (where the “more than” could be certain informational/computational interconnections) would be an instance. Something like, “there is a way to construct an omniscient perspective, it just isn’t going to be straightforwardly derivable from the physical state”.
Yeah, I think I model that anything which does understanding of physics is to some extent ‘beyond physics’, because you’re translating from a raw file format to high level picture, and that’s taking computation. Reading from the homomorphic one isn’t an entirely new step, as opposed to the ‘straightforward’ one, it’s just a much more difficult function in the place a usually simple function goes.
Or to take another shot: Yes to “there is a way to construct an omniscient perspective, it just isn’t going to be straightforwardly derivable from the physical state”
However, I see ‘straightforwardly’ → ‘computationally intractable’ as a difficulty jump for extracting high level features. It’s a ~quantitive step up in the difficulty of an existing step of universe-parsing, not a novel step with strong metaphysical surprise.
Or to put it even more succinctly; if your omniscience isn’t computationally unbounded omniscience, yeah, you’re not going to be able to perceive things behind intractable computational boundaries. Omniscience is only as good as the perceiver.
Right so, by step 4 I’m not trying to assume that h is computationally tractable; the homomorphic case goes to show that it’s probably not in general.
With respect to C, perhaps I’m not verbally expressing it that well, but the thing you are thinking of, where there is some omniscient perspective that includes “more than” just the low level of physics (where the “more than” could be certain informational/computational interconnections) would be an instance. Something like, “there is a way to construct an omniscient perspective, it just isn’t going to be straightforwardly derivable from the physical state”.
Yeah, I think I model that anything which does understanding of physics is to some extent ‘beyond physics’, because you’re translating from a raw file format to high level picture, and that’s taking computation. Reading from the homomorphic one isn’t an entirely new step, as opposed to the ‘straightforward’ one, it’s just a much more difficult function in the place a usually simple function goes.
Or to take another shot: Yes to “there is a way to construct an omniscient perspective, it just isn’t going to be straightforwardly derivable from the physical state”
However, I see ‘straightforwardly’ → ‘computationally intractable’ as a difficulty jump for extracting high level features. It’s a ~quantitive step up in the difficulty of an existing step of universe-parsing, not a novel step with strong metaphysical surprise.
Or to put it even more succinctly; if your omniscience isn’t computationally unbounded omniscience, yeah, you’re not going to be able to perceive things behind intractable computational boundaries. Omniscience is only as good as the perceiver.