From: Joscha Bach < Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:52 AM To: Jeffrey Epstein Subject: Re: Attachments: signature.asc Hmm. I'd say that there is a multidimensional space in which =nderstanding is projected. Understanding is the creation of a mapping =etween the features of a domain and a function that I already know how =o compute, so I can simulate the domain. Shallow understanding involves =apping of a particular feature configuration, deeper understanding =xplores the latent variables of the feature set. There is usually more =han one way of creating such a mapping, and when we have found several, =e can also identify relationships between the mappings. Category theory =ystematizes that. When you describe your understandings (such as the path of light through =pace), it seems to me that your perspective is descriptive, i.e. you =ook at the emergent pattern that is generated by your understanding, =ithout looking at the structure of the generator itself. I try to =nderstand that generator, i.e. how to create a structure that can =roduce the desired pattern. This constructive perspective is what =omputationalism is all about. Btw, Google has just announced that they think they might be getting =loser to quantum supremacy: =ttps://www.technologyreview.com/s/610274/google-thinks-its-close-to-quant=m-supremacy-heres-what-that-really- means/ If they ever get there, I will be forced to revise a part of my current =reliminary model of how the world works, which would be very exciting. =t would probably mean that digital physics must be wrong, and finite =utomaton computationalism must be only treated as a theory about models =uilt on constructionist formal languages, and I might get converted to =cott Aaronson's views. > On Mar 9, 2018, at 12:08, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: > understanding is a multi dimensional space the language is a =rojection in that space. or an arrow in category theory. the =ocal point has history . so li