Among other things, Bruno is pointing out that if we assume everything in
the universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's, the
distinction btw subjective and objective reality is lost, and there's no way
to distinguish "simulated physics in a virtual reality" from "real physics."

I accept this -- there is no way to make such a distinction.  Tough luck for
those who want to make one!! ;-)

-- Ben G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of
> Turing Machines?
>
>
> Dear Ben,
>
>     So then it is:
>
>     Boolean Algebras /equivalent  Turing Machines in the
> mathematical sense.
>
>     I am asking this to try to understand how Bruno has a problem
> with "BOTH
> comp AND the existence of a stuffy substancial universe". It seems to me
> that the term "machine" very much requires some kind of "stuffy
> substancial
> universe" to exist in, even one that is in thermodynamic equilibrium.
>     I fail to see how we can reduce physicality to psychology all
> the while
> ignoring the need to actually implement the abstract notion of Comp. I
> really would like to understand this! Sets of "zero information" fail to
> explain how we have actual experiences of worlds that are "stuffy
> substancial" ones. It might help if we had a COMP version of "inertia"!
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:49 PM
> Subject: RE: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of
> Turing Machines?
>
>
> >
> > The statement "Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing
> > Machines" doesn't seem quite right to me, I guess there's some kind of
> > logical typing involved there.  A Turing machine is a kind of machine
> > [albeit mathematically modeled], whereas a boolean algebra is
> an algebra.
> >
> > Boolean algebra is a mathematical framework that is sufficient to
> > model/design the internals of Turing machines...
> >
> > In a conceptual sense, they're "equivalent" ...
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:29 PM
> > > To: Ben Goertzel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of
> > > Turing Machines?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ben,
> > >
> > >     So you are writing that the class of Boolean Algebras are a subset
> of
> > > the class of Turing Machines?
> > >
> > > Kindest regards,
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:58 AM
> > > Subject: RE: turing machines = boolean algebras ?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Essentially, you can consider a classic Turing machine to
> consist of a
> > > > data/input/output tape, and a program consisting of
> > > >
> > > > -- elementary tape operations
> > > > -- boolean operations
> > > >
> > > > I.e. a Turing machine program is a tape plus a program
> expressed in a
> > > > Boolean algebra that includes some tape-control primitives.
> > > >
> > > > -- Ben G
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:25 AM
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: turing machines = boolean algebras ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ben and Bruno,
> > > > >
> > > > >     Your discussions are fascinating! I have one related and
> > > pehaps even
> > > > > trivial question: What is the relationship between the class of
> Turing
> > > > > Machines and the class of Boolean Algebras? Is one a subset of the
> > > other?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kindest regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to