Brent Meeker wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>I'm considering rejecting the idea that a computation can be > >>distinguished from noise by some internal characteristic of the > >>computation. I don't think you can make the idea of "information hidden > >>in noise" well defined. By Shannon's measure noise is information. > > > > > > You can easily distinguish computation from noise using counterfactuals > > Can you make that more concrete - an example perhaps?
Counterfactuals come from the undertlying physics of the computation. Cups of coffee don't have any woth speaking about-- you can't force them into the same state twice. Whether they are part of the "internal characteristitcs of a computation" depends, question-beggingly , ont what you mean by "computation". If you think a computation is nothing but a string of 1's and 0's, counterfactuals will be very difficulty to find. That may well be a /reductio/ of "a computation is nothing but a string of 1's and 0's". > Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
