1Z wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sorry, but I still don't understand the counterfactual aspect.

> Whether they are part of the "internal characteristitcs of a
> computation"
> depends, question-beggingly , ont what you mean by "computation".

I think I agree with that.  I'm trying to come up with a non-question 
begging definition of computation and I think the idea that a rock 
implements all computations implies that computation can't be defined in 
terms of some chracteristic of its sequence of internal states.

> If you think a computation is nothing but a string of 1's and 0's,
> counterfactuals
> will be very difficulty to find.

So you're agreeing with me that it's impossible to distinguish noise and 
computation based their sequence of internal states (e.g. 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to