Le Mercredi 8 Février 2006 10:41, Russell Standish a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:34:22PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > To the list,
> > I don't understand how some of you accept the term "we are machine" and
> > not "we are digitalisable at some level and hence emulable at that
> > level", could someone enlight me on this apparent contradiction ?
> > Quentin
> Machine means more than Turing machine. For example, I would count a
> Geiger counter connected to a radioactive source as a machine, yet no
> Turing machine can reproduce its pattern of clicks.
> "We are machine" simply means to me that there is no immaterial soul
> breathing life into our bodies - we are ultimately 100% material.
we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount of information...
so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite, hence
digitalisable at the level of information that you could know about the
object, so I don't see why a radioactive source and the click pattern on a
geiger counter cannot be simulated... You could object randomness, but
generating (and executing) all program by the UD will generate all "random"
string as well.