Brent Meeker wrote:
> Hello Marchal
> On 05-Sep-01, Marchal wrote:
> > Even if we are "more than" a universal computing machine, it is easy
> > to explain there is a sense in which we are *at least* universal
> > computing machines (even the kind which can know that()), and that is
> > enough for making the world possibly very complex.
> We are certainly *less* than universal turing machines - since a
> universal turing machine requires infinite storage to work with.
> Brent Meeker

The storage issue is completely bogus. UTMs require unbounded storage,
but only a finite amount of storage at any finite time in their
computation. A human being working with a pile of pebbles will die
before exhausting the world of its pebbles. Hence, homo sapiens, with
its extra-somatic storage devices can implement any possible Turing
machine, limited only by lifespan. I don't think the fact that humans
die whereas UTMs (being theoretical constructs) live forever is a
relevant fact in the definition of universal computation.


Dr. Russell Standish                     Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre          
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Reply via email to