Brent Meeker wrote: > 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.
You have to be able to say what *would* have happened if the computation had gone down the other fork of an if-then. That requires some causal stability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Counterfactual_theories_of_causation > > 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. I think the idea that a rock implements all computations is the wrong place to start. > > 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)? No: I'm saying you do need to find counterfactuals, and since they aren't in bit-strings ("movies" or recordings), bit-strings aren't computations. Therefore, rocks don't compute merely by going through a succession of internal states. > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
