On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required randomness from a tape of
random bits, couldn't it?
The question might then be asked:
"Where did the tape of random bits come from?"
To which I guess a response of sorts might be:
"Well, where did the Turing machine come from? Probably from there."
If you can have unexplained order, then you can have unexplained
randomness, can't you?
Sure, but then you've gone beyond Turing emulation. A tape providing the
random numbers would have to be a realized (not just potential) infinity.
Going beyond Turing emulation? Doesn't the definition of a Turing
Machine involve infinite memory and and infinite tape?
And infinite tape which is all blank except for a finite header.
"Referring to his 1936 publication, Turing wrote that the Turing
machine, here called a Logical Computing Machine, consisted of:
...an infinite memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite
tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be
printed. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
OR:
"A Turing machine has an infinite one-dimensional tape divided into
cells. Traditionally we think of the tape as being horizontal with the
cells arranged in a left-right orientation. The tape has one end, at
the left say, and stretches infinitely far to the right. Each cell is
able to contain one symbol, either ‘0’ or ‘1’."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/
But, beyond that...you believe that there are no actual infinities?
Why do you believe that?
I find it a concept that leads to logical problems. In almost every
instance "infinite" can be replaced by "arbitrarily large". Where it
can't it tends to be problematic.
You believe that space-time is finite?
You believe that there isn't an infinite causal chain behind us? You
believe that there was a "first cause"?
I think a "first cause" is probably incoherent. But the past could be
finite without there being a "first cause".
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
