Hi elephant and all,
[snip]
> You might think some disrespect intended in the brevity of my
> replies sometimes - far from it. But you sense that I am dismissive in
> other ways? I will try to be less hasty.
I'm not actually bothered by the curt language, and don't mind light-hearted
insults. What bothers me is when this rhetorical technique frustrates a
serious discussion. I am glad that you recognise this, and am pleased to
continue this thread.
> JONATHAN:
> > It's strange that you dismiss the idea of the "analogue computer" as
> > "oxymoronic". The idea has been around for years, and machines by that
name
> > have been built.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> On the last point: that proves nothing. The idea of artificial intelligence
> has been around for years, and machines to which its name has been
> attributed have also been built. That doesn't stop the whole notion of
> artificial intelligence being based on a mistake about what we ordinarily
> call 'intelligence'.
Personally, I consider digital computers to be a (particularly useful) subset
of analogue computers. The digital computer is restricted because it is
designed to work only with rational numbers, and then only a subset of
rational numbers (because of the need to put a finite limit on accuracy). In
principal, the analogue computer could represent any REAL number (not just the
rational numbers). In practice though, even the analogue system is restricted
by the quantum nature of its own components. I hold to my original position
that many physical systems can be configured and used as computational
devices, including electric currents through silicon semiconductors, beads on
wires and even falling apples.
ELEPHANT
> It is not the processing of data into data but the
> creative handling of the projection of data onto the continuous which
> constitutes what we have always called intelligence: intelligence as is
> displayed in an intelligent scientist. It is possible to redefine
> 'intelligence' so that Artificial intelligence is not an oxymoron, but only
> at the expense of making a calculator in some degree 'intelligent' (not a
> high quality outcome).
I fully agree. I would extend this to say that computers computate, but only
intelligent minds calculate.
Elephant, I think this is actually a pretty good answer to the question:
> > Do you think digital computers perform mathematical calculations?
The difference seems to be that while "computation" is a blind mechanical
process, "calculation" contains elements of weighing up the results,
eVALUating them and looking for MEANING i.e. computation is calculation
without QUALITY.
ELEPHANT
> force=mass*acceleration
>
> This is really the key Newtonian contribution, and yes, you are absolutely
> right, it is a distinction between acceleration and force.
Quite right, but there is something interesting that Newton never explained.
The mass above refers to the inertial resistance to acceleration. In the law
of gravity, gravitational attraction is directly proportional to the same
mass. The result is that in a vaccuum all bodies (from feathers to cannon
balls) fall with the same acceleration, because inertial resistance and
gravitational force cancel each other out . There is absolutely no intuitive
reason why this should be so.
> JONATHAN:
> > The story doesn't stop there. [with Newton]
> > Acceleration requires the action of a FORCE on a
> > MASS, and Newton implicitly accepted the idea of force at a distance. This
was
> > not acceptable to Einstein;
ELEPHANT
> BTW - I never did understand what was supposed to be so worrying about
> action at a distance.
This is a terrible problem for materialists. The gravitation would have to be
communicated by contact with something physicial (material) in order to
explain it. How does the moon "know" that the earth is there pulling on it
from a quarter of a million miles away. Science demands an explanation and
Newton didn't give it.
> > while one can feel the accelerating force of the
> > seat back when the car accelerates,
[ a reasonable example of a force operating though clear physical contact]
> > the parachutist in free fall cannot feel
> > the acceleration towards earth. The parachutist is in free fall, and feels
> > himself to be weightless. Thus, in General Relativity, the concept of free
> > fall becomes one of following the "natural curvature of space", and a
> > gravitation is conceived as the curvature itself (i.e. large masses tend
to
> > bend space so that objects in free fall are directed towards them).
> ELEPHANT:
> Too true. And along the way they confuse lesser minds. Just as I read this
> I'm confused (as many have been) about how space can be curved, given that
> "curved" is a spatial decription. You seem to know about this and might be
> able to guide us through the detail distinguishing the metaphor from the
> maths. Have you any neat clarifications to offer? (please don't recommend
> books - I can reread feynman any time but I have alot of other stuff to get
> through)
I'm not really qualified to answer this - my understanding is as a layman. One
of the best examples I know of relates to a flat two dimensional map. On the
map, you can trace a route that goes 10 miles North, turns 90 degrees
Eastwards and goes 10 miles, then turns another 90 degrees Eastwards and goes
another 10 miles.
This route gives three sides of a square, so start and finish are 10 miles
apart. Now if you plot a similar map on the curved surface of planet Earth,
and go not 10 miles but 6000 miles each stage, the route is actually a
"triangle" with 3 right angles in it!!! Thus the simple rules of geometry that
apply in a single plane are no longer applicable when the "flat" surface
becomes curved. Similarly, the simple geometry of 3 dimensions can become
"curved" in a 4th dimension.
Does that help at all? (I thought not ;-)
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
