2008/11/16 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> But if any computation can be mapped onto any physical state, then >> every computation can be mapped onto one physical state; and why not >> the null state? >> > I'm not sure that works. In the original idea the mapping was to be > one-to-one (which is possible since a stone or other physical object has > many microscopic states).
I don't see why the mapping can't be one(physical-state)-to-many(computation-states). This wouldn't work if you actually tried to keep track of the computation - in that case you would need some sort of index variable - but that isn't a problem if you don't require that the computation interact with the world at the level of substrate of its implementation. > If the mapping is something like: > > computation-state1---map1---->physical-state0 > computation-state2---map2---->physical-state0 > computation-state3---map3---->physical-state0 > ... > > then the inverse mapping, > > physical-state0---1map--->computation-state1 > physical-state0---2map--->computation-state2 > physical-state0---3map--->computation-state3 > ... > > has to implicitly provide it's own order. So for the physical-state0 to > implement the computation there would have to be another index variable, > like time, to order the inverse mapping. Then it would really be > > physical-state0@ t=1---1map--->computation-state1 > physical-state0@ t=2---2map--->computation-state2 > physical-state0@ t=3---3map--->computation-state3 > ... > > Right? > > Brent. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
