Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote:

On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his position, PO can (will) just invent new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in order to somehow justify his busted intuitions.

 My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though it looks like it does:
  On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
 > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
 > BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
 > Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
 > a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
 > then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).

Right - magical thinking.
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the multiple levels involved.  In his head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why PO does not /realise/ that he can't think his way through it?
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it.  Somehow PO tries, gets into a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond that of everybody else, due to my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the planet, and my ability to eliminate extraneous complexity".  How did PO ever start down this path of delusions?  Not that that matters one iota... :)
Mike.