Gordon wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
David Deutsch wrote:
>The quantum theory of computation is the theory of all abstract tasks
>that can be performed by physical systems. As I just said, it is
>pointless to invent some other class of abstract tasks and call them
>'computations'.
BM: Unless one is foolish enough dreaming to explain what *is*
a physical system from the notion of natural numbers, which, in the mind
> of some platonist, is a simpler notion.
Gordon:
Yes:
1.when you reject alot of others fields
Which fields do you think I reject? My feeling is that it is the
physician or cognitive scientist like Dennet who reject fields, if
not experience data.
2.And forget about the contrdictions in your web of Belief (we all
hold?)since birth.
Not only I don't forget it, but I keep reminding everyone of the
Godelian consistency of inconsistency. Well before my birth (and even
beyond should I say) the ideal correct machine has developped a web
of contradictory belief.
3.Ignore the fact that it's hard to test and hard to Falsify, remeber
our our Holodeck friend?
Please, I use our Holodeck friend to define what the computationalist
hypothesis is. And I acknowledge the impossibility of falsifying NOT-COMP.
But then I show how to falsify COMP.
Yes once you ingore all that then yes it is simpler but where does that
notion come from in the first place???
Good question. But at least anybody having enough introspective
power can appreciate the mystery of numbers, and making comp explicit
gives a way for explaining why this mystery is *absolutely* insoluble.
I don't see how it is possible to assert that computation must be a
physical (quantum) concept when all our physical theories first postulate
the numbers as having meaning. Deutsch assertion that computability
should be a branch of physics is a highly non standard statement, for
logicians and mathematicians. (David is well aware of this as he told
it himself in the FOR book).
Now this dont mean my theory or anyone is fully right or wrong, but I
dont ignore (nore does David) the rest of the Private mixture of
Knowledge web of belief we all hold, one of those mixture or may lay
beyond may be right?
Even your perhaps is in a abstract sense who know but I thing it the
negation of the negation thats the problem within your idea???
Negation of negation? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
>From your good friend the anit-thesis
Gordon. ;D
;-)
Bruno
