Comment by josephcsible
8 months ago
> (2) ZFC is consistent with two different statements, "BB(x) = a" and "BB(x) = b" for two different a, b. This means that a disproof of either statement cannot exist.
> This, in turn, means that there is no observation you could ever make that would distinguish between the values a and b (for the identity of BB(x)). No matter what you believe the value of BB(x) might secretly be, there are no consequences; nothing anywhere could ever change if the value turned out to be different. Because, if there were an observable consequence of the value being different, the hypothetical observation of that consequence would be a disproof of the value that didn't cause it, and no such disproof can exist.
There's one part of this I don't understand. "BB(x) = n" means "there is at least one x-state Turing machine that halts after exactly n steps, and there are no x-state Turing machines that halt after more than n steps", right? Then why wouldn't this approach work (other than the numbers being way too big to actually do in this universe)? WLOG, assume a < b. Run all possible x-state Turing machines for b steps. If any halted on step b, then you've disproved "BB(x) = a". If not, then you've disproved "BB(x) = b".
The trick is that if none halt on `b` steps, you don't know that BB(x)<b. Specifically, if you have one TM that keeps going, you don't know whether that TM halts eventually or keeps going forever.
Sure, you don't know whether BB(x) < b or BB(x) > b for that reason, but wouldn't you still know BB(x) ≠ b, and isn't that good enough?