Given a 3D piece of origami, can you flatten it without damaging it? Just by looking at the design, the answer is hard to predict, because each and every fold in the design has to be compatible with flattening.

This is an example of a combinatorial problem. New research led by the UvA Institute of Physics and research institute AMOLF has demonstrated that machine learning algorithms can accurately and efficiently answer these kinds of questions. This is expected to give a boost to the artificial intelligence-assisted design of complex and functional (meta)materials.

In their latest work, published in Physical Review Letters this week, the research team tested how well artificial intelligence (AI) can predict the properties of so-called combinatorial mechanical metamaterials.

Next, you seem to assume that when I catch a ball, my mind solves equations unconsciously, brining together inertia, gravity, air resistance to calculate my response. You may be right, but I don’t think most neuroscientist agree with you. That’s another computationalist prejudice. Rather than solving equations, my nervous system uses experience and extrapolation through repeated trial and improvement to hone a skill in extrapolating paths; no equations involved. As I say, I could be wrong, it’s an empirical question. But as far as I know, the balance of evidence and theory supports my interpretation.

The meaning of semantics is not just that it means something, but that it can be used to make statements about the world, beyond the formal system used to express that meaning. That, too, is definitional.

Your main argument seems like a really desperate move to sustain the computationalist faith that you assert at the beginning in the face of huge, perhaps insuperable difficulties.