On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine,
it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's
argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this.
I am not convince by that argument. Show me a rock program
computing the prime numbers.
Show me a Turing machine that can compute the prime numbers
Easy but tedious, and distracting exercise.
Show me how to emulate just K, that is the function which send
(x, y) to x. it is not obvious this can be done, because y is
eliminated, you need a black hole for it, and a proof that it
does not evaporate.
You are becoming a physicalist, Bruno!
You seem to be concerned by Landauer's principle, and the
difficulty of eliminating physical information. This is not a
problem for a Turing machine. It is a finite state machine, so
define one state as (x,y) and another as (x). Then the operation
when the machine finds itself in the state (x,y) is to move to the
state (x). Not a problem. Even a rock can do it!
How? The physicist in me is pretty sure that there is no K, nor S,
in the physical core.
But I could agree that with pebble, we can argue that we can
implement an approximation of K.
But not of much more complex program. If you believe that, you will
first need to show me how you read and retrieve the information for
the rock, and how the rock computes.
Digital computation is just a sequence of states.
Not really. It is a sequence of states brought by a universal machine
(and then by infinities of such universal machines).
With the rock, as we warm it gradually (by the sun, or in the fire),
it passes through a sequence of states. We identify these correctly
to give whatever computation you want.
Any sequence of physical state can be made into any computation, by
changing the universal machine. computation is a relative notion. you
need to make precise the universal machine you talk about when
mentioning a computation.
This is the basic pan-computationalism thesis -- everything is a
computation, and everything is a computer.
That does not follow. With computationalism, almost everything is NOT
a computation. The computable part of arithmetic is only a tiny part
of arithmetical truth. That play some role in the measure problem.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.