>>11691332I agree with pretty much everything you're saying in the first paragraph. Here's what I think (I'm the OP)
The only way to have a complete description of a thing, is to perform the specific motion of matter that constructs the total system of the thing.
Matter, not computation/information, is fundamental. This is understood already because physical arrangements of matter limit the computation that can be performed. If it were information, not matter, it could continuously be divided, which we know is not possible. So the information is limited by the matter, not the other way around - the matter must be fundamental.
So then, any arrangement of matter that is not equivalent to some other arrangement of matter, is NOT EQUIVALENT to the other arrangement of matter. Even if you had a supercomputer that completely descibed the system of differential equations that completely models the waves in a bucket of water, the computation in the computer must literally become, in terms of the physical arrangement of matter, equal to a bucket of water. The protons, electrons, and the more fundamental quanta, must be arranged as they are in a bucket of water.
They must become a bucket of water. The only way to a true perfect description of a bucket of water, is to BE a bucket of water.
This is extended to the thought experiment in the OP. The computation of "eating an apple", even if you include emergent qualia from it, can only exist insofar as a person physically eats the apple. ONLY ACTUALLY EATING THE APPLE is a true description, and formal grammars are abstractions that can not describe everything there is to know about structures.
That means that there is a limit to the effectiveness of algorithms and languages. We CANT "explain eating an apple" because that is not, and never will be, in any grammar, "eating an apple".
continued...
