Thanks Bruno. I'll look this up and also I want to scan through your seven steps series for November. The later posts in these I think will help me make contact with the concepts. I want to be able to understand your Sane paper - especially the later parts. Is there any english translation of your thesis still underway as it says in the "pages" part of the list?
On Jan 4, 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Oops, soory. I sent an empty answer. > > Actually I agree with all you say here, so an empty comment was a good > comment! > > I think all this becomes simpler once you grasp that a computation, in > the math sense, is a very well defined object. > If a computation exists, it can be proved to exist in elementary > arithmetic. > > And it exists there with a relative measure. This can not necessarily > prove in arithmetic (but init can be proved for arithmetic in set > theory). But here Stathis' intuition is correct, we don't have to > prove in arithmetic the existence of the measure to be able to "live" > it, and develop a first person perspective. > > An hardwareless computer is well defined mathematical notion. > Conceptually, it is even difficult and not yet solved problem to > define an hardware computer (despite its common use could give you the > contrary feeling). > Without the rize of quantum computation, I am not sure I would have > ever believed in a notion of physical computation. > Cf also, the Mallah implementation problem. > > Bruno > > On 03 Jan 2010, at 14:55, Nick Prince wrote: > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
