Is there anything spiritual (or "mystic") to be found

No, there isn't. But there's something mystic about a hypothetical automatic theorem proving program that will be able to solve, on its own, conjectures never solved before, even by prodigy mathematicians. Many AI experts swear by it, saying that it is an inevitability, that "it is not a matter of *how* but *when*" and other type of similar bullshit. They only think this because they were raised and grew up reading sci-fi novels that let their imagination run wild, so naturally, they cling and latch onto various improbable, apocalyptic even (strong AI etc. fantasies), future predictions and scenarios. This can also be explained by the fact that they know virtually no Philosophy and as a corollary make the same silly mistakes as the previous generations.

File: stars-04.jpg (553KB, 1280x1091px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1280x1091px

>>8504093
the nine billion names of god

>>8504135
To emphasize a point of my question, I'm asking about computer programming. The act of programming.
In the sense that having sex or meditating is associated with spirituality.

>>8504093
No, but the maths behind it can be

File: 03.jpg (18KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x270px

>>8504093
>mfw he still hasn't processed the Torah using a Ming-Mecca chip.

>>8504217
Tantric sex and meditation raises one's consciousness to a higher plane; I know of no computer programming case that would come close to that.

Have you had mystic experiences like that when you program?

>>8504217
sex is only "spiritual" to hippy women and the creeps who prey on them.

File: Virginia_Davis.jpg (240KB, 614x447px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 614x447px

>>8504232
It's not really about computers at all, I'm speaking about specifying algorithms. A cooking recipe is one too.
It feels to me like that's something significant behind it.
The Church-Turing thesis is odd enough for me, given how it's beyond math, but a statement about the world, yet not physics in the sense we learn it.

>>8504258
The Church-Turing thesis seems odd because it's basically unfalsifiable metaphysics.

I guarantee you there's nothing spiritual about debugging

>>8504093
Absolutely. Check out TempleOS.

File: sicp_wizard.jpg (95KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x492px

We conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells

You can certainly describe it in a compelling way, even if it's not really that compelling in actuality.

an activity in which you create with language alone. This itself is a fascinating exercise in how much complexity the human mind can express through language.

Imagine building a house, first defining with words the world in which it is to be built, then carefully crafting your tools through cautious descriptions of form, function, and degrees of freedom. Before you even dig the foundation of your house, you must generally define not only your tools but parametrize how long the tools will exist, how much space of your work station they take up, and tables and sets through which to retrieve the tool when the walls of the house go up. After this you define every motion, every movement of brick and splatter of mortar using a language that is impossible to misrepresent. Orating everything to the most literal object imaginable, you must craft your words in a way that prevents it from repeating an action to infinity, dropping one billion bricks where you only needed three, or tearing the house down after completion so it can start all over again.

the goal in programming is succinctness, trying to fit as much complexity into as few lines of instructions as possible, as opposed to other forms of "art," in which succinctness can be appreciated, or seen as a novel approach, but generally spurned in favor of breadth of expression. Humans appreciate large-effort works on a large scale, so it is interesting to consider for a time a form of communication with a complete literalist in which the least amount of effort is valued above all else.

>>8504632
Terry doesn't want my people using his OS and I respect his wishes.

>>8504603
>It states that a function on the natural numbers is computable by a human being following an algorithm, ignoring resource limitations, if and only if it is computable by a Turing machine.
Sounds pretty falsifiable to me.

>>8504845
>ignoring resource limitations
Did you just ignore this part? What experiment would you set up to try and falsify this claim and how could you be sure it was truly falsified considering you do no have access to unlimited resources to test it?

>>8504861
>What experiment
It's math. You would disprove it by a counter example, or any other technique of mathematicam proof.

>>8504845
>a function on the natural numbers is computable by a human being following an algorithm, ignoring resource limitations
This is vague mumbo-jumbo. To this very day, there is no universally accepted definition of what an algorithm is. "A set of instructions" and "recipe" just doesn't cut it.

>>8504244
>this is what atheists actually believe

Yes deus ex machina

>>8504867
How would you use maths to show that a function which is computable by a Turing machine cannot also be computable by a human? If they both follow an algorithm, then what is stopping the human from computing the problem in the same way the Turing machine did excluding resource limitations. If there's an exception to this, then how would it be found using mathematics? This sounds very much like an empirical problem to me and because we don't have an unliited supply of resources it cannot be falsified by experiment like other empirical problems can.

>>8504093
No, nothing is 'spiritual' or 'mystical'. You cannot provide evidence to suggest these are anything other than emotional states, in which case, why not just describe them as such.

>>8504872
Well, naturally. What do you believe?

>>8505071
You could show an example of something computable by a human but not a turing machine.

>>8505084
Oh shit, I forgot it was an ''if and only if' claim. I guess you're right, it could be falsified.

>>8505091
>Admitting you're wrong instead of doubling down
It's like you don't even know where you are

File: 1471220932093.jpg (32KB, 344x345px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 344x345px

>>8505109
lol

>>8505080
>the most valuable things we learn in life can be described through languaje
Your life must be very boring.

>>8505124
An inability to articulate a thought through language doesn't mean it cannot be in theory. Perhaps there are things language cannot describe - I don't know - but I do know I don't have to believe in something I have never seen anything evidence for.

>>8505125
Oh fuck off, why have you spread it to this thread as well?

>>8505080
Bad bait.
>>8505151
Evidence doesn't exist.

>>8504212
I liked the story. It would have felt a little more like it intended if read when it was written, since the power of computers now is obviously way greater than what they use in the story now. But it's a neat idea.