On 27 May 2015, at 18:18, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com
> wrote:
> You are proposing anyons, chilled to perfection, might be the seat
of non-biological consciousness?
The study of artificial consciousness is a game for dilettantes and
is a bit of a bore, but Artificial Intelligence is an astronomically
rich subject. What I am proposing is that anyons would be a way to
make a non-biological intelligence that is far more powerful that
anything biology could ever come up with. Or at least it would be
once we know for sure that anyons exist, and if we're lucky (or
unlucky depending on how you look at it) in just the next year or
two we may find out for certain that anyons do indeed exist .
They are quantum Turing Universal, and fault tolerant. I agree that
they are very cute. Condensed physics seem to be able to emulate
quantum fields. Anyons and quantum topology suggest relations between
knot theory and quantum statistics.
But none of this violates the classical Church-Turing thesis, and the
classical universal dovetailer dovetails on the quantum computations
too.
If quantum computation is the winner there is a reason for it, as the
only way to manage the white rabbits and other malin génies away.
We can justify the bit from the qubit, but assuming computationalism
(with the Church-Turing-Post-Kleene-Davis understanding) we have to
justify the qubits as well, and if it works, there is a gift, which is
that at the metalevel, we will be able to distinguish what is true
about the machine from what the machine is able to justify rationally,
and similarly for other modalities.
Church thesis makes computable equivalent with the sigma_1
provability, and this is exploited to distinguish the arithmetical
emulation of programs execution and what machines can justify about
them and their person relationship with them, with the pronouns
mathematically defined, indeed in arithmetic.
I can explain to you, but you have to be cured from you theory that I
have to be a crackpot, before.
I think that you are not the only one which does not know much about
the relation between computability and (sigma_1) arithmetic.
Without doubt, the physical reality is Turing universal, but that, per
se, does not make it more primitive.
In a sense, it is up to you to explain us how a Turing universal
machine can distinguish a physical emulation from an arithmetical
emulation.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
