Can Turing Machines Understand Infinity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether Turing machines can understand the concept of infinity. Participants explore the implications of infinity in relation to human understanding, computational limitations, and philosophical interpretations. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, the halting problem, and the nature of undecidable statements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that understanding infinity involves knowing when to stop, contrasting human capabilities with those of Turing machines, which may loop indefinitely due to the halting problem.
  • Others question the meaning of "understanding infinity" and propose that if Turing machines can simulate human brains, then they might also understand infinity.
  • A participant argues that humans can reason about infinite objects without needing infinite resources, using finite axioms to prove statements about natural numbers and reals.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of human understanding, particularly regarding undecidable problems like the Riemann hypothesis and Goldbach's conjecture, suggesting that humans also struggle to know when to give up.
  • Some participants reference Gödel's work on undecidable statements, noting that both machines and humans face similar challenges in determining undecidability in various logical systems.
  • Humor is introduced through references to literature, such as Philip K. Dick's story about evolving hamsters, which adds a light-hearted tone to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of understanding infinity, the limitations of Turing machines, and the implications of undecidability. There is no clear consensus, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining "understanding" in relation to infinity and the implications of the halting problem. The discussion also touches on philosophical interpretations of infinity and the nature of undecidable statements, indicating a rich interplay of ideas without resolution.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
I had a conversation with someone once upon a time (it was quite a while back actually), and we came to the question of whether or not Turing machines could ever understand infinity. We agreed that we as humans are intimate with the extant and divisible infinities mainly through our sensory-perception, and more generally, we are able to grasp at analytic continuation. Although, computers work in modulo math and can only count up to the number of bits of information they can hold. Any opinions? Has there ever been any literature on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "understand infinity" mean? Which output to which input corresponds to an understanding?

As Turing machines can in principle simulate a human brain: Do we "understand infinity"? If yes Turing machines can do so as well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nomadreid
In my view to understand infinity means to know when to stop because looping forever would serve no purpose.

The problem with computing machines is that they can’t always know when to halt and thus are doomed to keep working a problem forever. It’s known as the halting problem and Turing proved that there is no general algorithm that can determine if a given program will halt or not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

In any event, all halting problem answers are best summed up as 42, he said humorously. :-)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything_(42)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Janosh89
undecidable = irresolute?? Or does the latter have other connotations?
 
Gear300 said:
I had a conversation with someone once upon a time (it was quite a while back actually), and we came to the question of whether or not Turing machines could ever understand infinity. We agreed that we as humans are intimate with the extant and divisible infinities mainly through our sensory-perception, and more generally, we are able to grasp at analytic continuation. Although, computers work in modulo math and can only count up to the number of bits of information they can hold. Any opinions? Has there ever been any literature on this?

Well, you don't need infinite resources in order to reason about infinite objects. We can prove things about the natural numbers and the reals, etc., using finitely many axioms.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nomadreid
Gear300 said:
we as humans are intimate with the extant and divisible infinities mainly through our sensory-perception
Ah? How do our senses record infinities? When is the last time you saw, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard an inaccessible cardinal?
 
jedishrfu said:
In my view to understand infinity means to know when to stop because looping forever would serve no purpose.

The problem with computing machines is that they can’t always know when to halt and thus are doomed to keep working a problem forever. It’s known as the halting problem and Turing proved that there is no general algorithm that can determine if a given program will halt or not.

But humans aren't any better. For problems like the Riemann hypothesis or Goldbach's conjecture, they may never know whether eventually they will prove them or refute them, or neither. They never know when to give up. Except when they get hungry or bored.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu and nomadreid
nomadreid said:
Ah? How do our senses record infinities? When is the last time you saw, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard an inaccessible cardinal?

We had a few in my yard. We could see them feeding but we couldn't touch as they were too skittish and flew away at the slightest sound.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nomadreid
stevendaryl said:
But humans aren't any better. For problems like the Riemann hypothesis or Goldbach's conjecture, they may never know whether eventually they will prove them or refute them, or neither. They never know when to give up. Except when they get hungry or bored.

This is all true but sometimes we get lucky and discover Godel who's shown us that there are always undecidable statements in any system of logic and knowing that will give us pause. Also we can get tired or die from exhaustion and infinity becomes more infinite while others laugh at our folly.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
jedishrfu said:
This is all true but sometimes we get lucky and discover Godel who's shown us that there are always undecidable statements in any system of logic.
First, far from "any" system of logic, but that is nit-picking. The more important point is that Gödel (Turing, Rosser, etc.) pointed out how to generate a few undecidables, and a few specific examples were pointed out (Cohen and Gödel, Matiyasevich et al, etc.), but unless a given problem fits into this list (modulo isomorphism or as a problem requiring the solution of an undecidable), or has been proven or disproven, or is part of a system in which all problems are decidable, there is no general procedure to tell if a given problem is undecidable. So we are back to square one, with machines and humans theoretically having the same problems.
 
  • #11
nomadreid said:
First, far from "any" system of logic, but that is nit-picking. The more important point is that Gödel (Turing, Rosser, etc.) pointed out how to generate a few undecidables, and a few specific examples were pointed out (Cohen and Gödel, Matiyasevich et al, etc.), but unless a given problem fits into this list (modulo isomorphism or as a problem requiring the solution of an undecidable), or has been proven or disproven, or is part of a system in which all problems are decidable, there is no general procedure to tell if a given problem is undecidable. So we are back to square one, with machines and humans theoretically having the same problems.

You are back to square one, I am perfectly fine running in my hamster cage at work. :-)
 
  • #12
jedishrfu said:
I am perfectly fine running in my hamster cage at work.
Philip Dick wrote a short story "The Infinities" in which hamsters evolve into pure energy and zap a meanie human. Maybe you are on your way :bang:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
  • #13
nomadreid said:
Philip Dick wrote a short story "The Infinities" in which hamsters evolve into pure energy and zap a meanie human. Maybe you are on your way :bang:

No, more likely to be attacked by the hamsters for maligning them and their wheel here.
 
  • #14
nomadreid said:
Ah? How do our senses record infinities? When is the last time you saw, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard an inaccessible cardinal?

"I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in every thing ..."
William Blake
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K