Peter: As I recall all "I" wrote (and the post marked it as >>> was: So if I have a system with finite number of physical states, it will take a matching finite number of (base)-computations leaving an infinite number untreated. Out of them I can take a deduction for muiltiplying the finite number of physical states by the finite number of the base-states to get to the total number of computability on that system in parallel - still a finite number. I still have an infinite number of unbtreated cases left. Damn that infinite! Cantor's curse. John M * I wanted to point to the 'flipside of it' which was not addressed in your reply: mixing finite and infinite. Those >>>>> marks drive me crazy. too. John

----- Original Message ----- From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> John M writes: >> >> > Peter Jones writes: >> > >> > > >> > > Hmm. Including limitations in time? >> > >> > Yes, if an infinite number of finite computations are run >> > simultaneously on >> > a system with a finite number of physical states. >> > >> > Stathis Papaioannou >> > ------------------------------------- >> > So if I have a system with finite number of physical states, it will >> > take a >> > matching finite number of (base)-computations leaving an infinite >> > number >> > untreated. Out of them I can take a deduction for muiltiplying the >> > finite >> > number of physical states by the finite number of the base-states to >> > get to >> > the total number of computability on that system in parallel - still a >> > finite number. I still have an infinite number of unbtreated cases >> > left. >> > Damn that infinite! Cantor's curse. >> > >> > John M >> >> Suppose there is a very simple physical system that goes through two >> states, >> "on" and "off". You wish to map these states onto a binary sequence which >> at >> first glance seems too long: 10110100... You write down the following: on >> the >> first run, on->1 and off->0; on the second run, on->1 and off->1; on the >> third run, on->0 and off->1; and so on, for as long as you like. It is >> not common >> practice to change the code from run to run when designing a computer, >> but >> that is just a matter of convenience. If you specify exactly how the code >> changes the meaning is unambiguous, and in principle the two physical >> states >> can encode any number of binary states, or even more complex >> computations. > > A computation is not a series of states. A computation is an > implementation > of an algorithm, and algorithms include conditional statements which > must be modelled by something with counterfactual behaviour -- > by something which *could have* execute the other branch. > >> The above probably seems silly to most people reading this, because the >> burden >> of the computation falls on the specification of the code, the physical >> processes >> being essentially irrelevant. Nevertheless, we may have the situation >> where the >> code specification is documented in a big book while the computer (such >> as it is) >> carries out the physical processes which, if we to refer to the book, >> performs >> perfectly legitimate computations. We could even design a driver for a >> monitor to >> display the computations, again using the book. Now, suppose the last >> copy of >> the book is destroyed. The computer would still do its business, but it >> may as >> well be a random number generator for all the good it does us without the >> code >> specification. But what if, by the book, the computer is actually >> carrying out >> *conscious* computations? Would it suddenly cease being conscious as the >> book >> is burned in a fire, or gradually lose consciousness as the book's pages >> are >> ripped out one by one? > > > No amount or arbitrary mapping can transofrm a situation without > counterfactuals > into one with them > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---