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
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,
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to