OP seems to have a very confused idea of what an algorithmic process means... they think the process of humans determining what is truthful "cannot possibly be something algorithmic".
Which is certainly an opinion.
> whatever it is: it cannot possibly be something algorithmic
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349299
Maybe OP should have looked at a dictionary for what certain words actually mean before defining them to be something nonsensical.
> Maybe OP should have looked at a dictionary for what certain words actually mean before defining them to be something nonsensical.
Making non-standard definitions of words isn't necessarily bad, and can be useful in certain texts. But if you do so, you need to make these definitions front-and-centre instead of just casually assuming your readers will share your non-standard meaning.
And where possible, I would still use the standard meanings and use newly made up terms to carry new concepts.
Maybe you need to update an outdated model?
Nothing in physics requires us to use your prior experience as some special epoch.
Meaning is mutable social relationship as language meaning is not immutable physics.
The model I am using is the conventional understanding of physics. What model are you using?
> language meaning is not immutable physics.
Our understanding of physics is not complete, so why would our model of it be final? No one is saying it is.
Everything we currently know about physics, all the experiments we've conducted, suggests the physical church turing thesis is true.
If you want to claim that the last x% of our missing knowledge will overturn everything and reality is in fact not computable, you are free to do so, and this may well even be true.
But so far the evidence is not in your favor and you'd do well to acknowledge that.