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. > > Cheers
Hi, 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. Regards, Quentin
