From Philosophy to Program Size

prefers) not. My lay and naive take would be: if you adopt these rules (this Formal Axiomatic System) then you can have Big Fun in the playground of ever more esoteric and complex infinite cardinals, or if you adopt this other FAS you get to discover which results can and can't be obtained under a strict constructivist regime, and whichever FAS you choose it's just the same process of choosing axioms and applying valid deductive steps to arrive at a result you find interesting, with no more "existence" implied than the thoroughly non-Platonic existence of a solution to a problem, which can be demonstrated by solving it: if you take such-and-such steps then such-and-such result will follow. I suppose the point being made is that avoiding axioms which imply the "existence" of the reals is more useful for doing physics, but that seems non-obvious in a field which for the last 200 years has seemingly sought to progressively make more and more phenomena intelligible by means of differential equations from infinitesimal calculus! 0: see, for example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0303352, 1.9 Is Mathematics Quasi-Empirical

Interestingness, Attention, Curiosity, Creativity, Art, Science, Music, Jokes" [3] - A computational biology paper that presents a meta-learning scheme for cognition and emotion. This paper's idea has really stuck with me.. That and the whole notion of the "Dark room problem" (you could, probably, really easily come up with a strategy for living life according to a hybrid of what this article presents + any kind of philosophy there is) - "Emotional Valence and the Free-Energy Principle" [4] [0] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trinitarianism [1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303352 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360 [4] http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou...