On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that you are trying to use a technical term in a non-technical > > way to "fight" a non-technical argument. Do you really think that I'm > > asserting that virtual environment can be *exactly* as capable as > > physical environment? > > No, I think that you're asserting that the virtual environment is close > enough to as capable as the physical environment without spending > significant resources that the difference doesn't matter. And I'm having > problems with the "without spending significant resources" part, not the > "that the difference doesn't matter" part.
I use "significant" in about the same sense as "something that matters", so it's merely a terminological mismatch. > > > All interesting stuff is going to be computational anyway. > > So, since the physical world can perform interesting computation > automatically without any resources, why are you throwing the computational > aspect of the physical world away? > I only add one restriction on allowed physical structures to be constructed for captive systems: they must be verifiably unable to affect other computations that they are not allowed to. I'm sure that for computational efficiency it should be a very strict limitation. So any custom computers are allowed, as long as they can't morph into berserker probes and the like. > > In most cases, computation should be > > implementable on universal substrate without too much overhead > > How do we get from here to there? Without a provable path, it's all just > magical hand-waving to me. (I like it but it's ultimately an unsatifying > illusion) It's an independent statement. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
