> > > 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.
I'm curious as to the perceived distinction between a cup of coffee doing a computation (being used to do a computation in a symbolic domain) and the cup of coffee literally being the computation (.i.e. the coffee cup has been computed by the universe). In my mind consideration of the former does not lead to any useful understanding of the latter. It is the latter that is our goal, it seems to me, if we target a true understanding of the universe. Just wondering if this aspect is something I am just plain missing? If feel like I am missing something... Colin Hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---