Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
> > not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
> > require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
> > physical
> > implemented by a wide variety of systems)
> Yes, but any physical system can be seen as implementing any computation with
> the appropriate
> rule mapping physical states to computational states.
I don't think such mappings are valid
a) without constraints on the simplicity of the mapping rules
b) without attention to counterfactuals/dispositions
> Attempts are made to put constraints on what
> counts as implementation of a computation in order to avoid this
> uncomfortable idea, but it
> doesn't work unless you say that certain implementations are specially
> blessed by God or something.
I don't know where you get that idea. Dispositions are physically
respectable. Simplicity constraints are the lifeblood of science.
> So at least you have to say that every computation is implemented if any
> physical universe at all
> exists, even if it is comprised of a single atom which endures for a
Hmmm. So much for the quantitative issue. What a strange view of
physics you have.
> That's an absurd
> amount of responsibility for a little atom, and it makes more sense to me
> (although I can't at the
> moment think of a proof) to say that the atom is irrelevant,
Any finite quantitiy is infinitely greater than zero. I *can* think of
> and the computations are implemented
> anyway by virtue of their status as mathematical objects.
Assuming Platonism has been proved, whcih it hasn't.
(NBB "implemented" means a lot more than "theoretically true" !!!)
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at