Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can a big enough computer come up with a Theory of Everything? Eric Holloway says yer dreamin’…


Some physicists hope for such a computer even if they wouldn’t understand it and it would put them out of work. But is that possible? Eric Holloway told Mind Matters News:

Scientists have demonstrated some progress in this direction. They fed data for two fundamental particles into a neural network, and the network was able distinguish the two particles. With just the right algorithm, data and enough computer horse power, then AI may just, as the late Stephen Hawking predicts, put human physicists out of a job.

“However, there is a problem with this approach is known as the No Free Lunch theorem (NFLT). It basically says there is no best learning algorithm. In fact all algorithms are exactly identical in performance, when averaged across all possible problems.

“That means, in general, the scientists’ fancy neural network is just as good as lottery players picking numbers based on how many birds fly past their window. An astounding claim, but rigorously proven by physicists David Wolpert and William Macready.

News, “Can a powerful enough computer work out a Theory of Everything?” at Mind Matters News

Bottom line: The rigorously proven No Free Lunch theorem shows that physicists will always be needed to determine the correct questions. No computer will do all our thinking for us.

You may also enjoy:

No materialist theory of consciousness is plausible. All such theories either deny the very thing they are trying to explain, result in absurd scenarios, or end up requiring an immaterial intervention
(Eric Holloway)


A materialist gives up on determinism. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne undercuts his own argument against free will by admitting that quantum phenomena are real.(Michael Egnor)

We don't need any new questions or theories, no matter how they're generated. By 1905 physics already explained everything that needed explaining in the realm of energy and force and motion. The field should have retired at that point. polistra

Leave a Reply