Physical limits of inference · HackerPapers discussions

Physical limits of inference — mentioned by derbOac

Sun, 07 Dec 2025 16:16:19 GMT

The former isn't even a new proof: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4169/amer.math.monthl...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physical limits of inference — mentioned by derbOac

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 19:23:11 GMT

This has been on my mind the last few years and I've thought about writing an academic paper about it in one domain. I've sort of increasingly suspected that some domains might involve an intrinsic amount of stochasticity or uncertainty that is baked into things. As in, an amount that becomes nonignorable relative to what you're trying to predict. There's some math and comp sci papers that basically argue (in a proof sense) you there must be a limit to modeling. It's been awhile since I read the papers but my recollection is that the modeling process itself creates (necessitates?) a certain…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Physical limits of inference — mentioned by 0d9eooo

Sun, 07 Jun 2020 22:53:26 GMT

Related: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 At some point the complexity of a system becomes great enough that it's impossible to simulate it perfectly. The interesting question for me lately is how and under what circumstances can you ignore the complexity for some purpose. For example, underlying what is represented in that poster is some set of physical processes that are ignored in that poster. The system at that physical level of description would be even more complex, probably too complex to represent on a poster. So why the level of analysis of the poster? Similarlly, at some point it's…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.