If I remember correctly Robert Rosen does not accept Church Thesis.
This explains some fundamental difference of what we mean respectively
I use the term for digitalizable machine, which, with Church thesis, is
equivalent with "programs", or with anything a computer can imitate.
With Church thesis all computer (universal machine) are equivalent and
can emulate (simulate perfectly) each other.
The machine I talk about are mathematical object in Platonia. I never
use machine in the materialist sense of something having some body to
act in a environment, because my goal is to find out why immaterial
machine in Platonia are confronted with stable appearance of
I hope this can help a little bit,
Le 17-févr.-06, à 21:27, John M a écrit :
Now a silly point: after so much back and forth about
'machines' and our best efforts to grasp what we
should understand, would it be asking too much to
re-include a BRIEF identification about the way YOU
use the term? (Never mind Loeb).
It would help me for sure. I could not decipher it
from the quoted URLs (yours included),
Lately on the Rosen-list Robert Rosen's 'machine' term
got so mixed up that my understanding what I developed
some 5-6 years ago got mixed up. It is different from
yours, which just adds to the confusion. Yours is also
going on over at least 2-3 years.