On 23 Sep, 08:00, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2009, at 23:47, Flammarion wrote:
> > On 22 Sep, 21:53, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well little problem in gmail sorry.
> >> So I do it again /o\
> >> Sorry I wanted to write "it does *add* nothing".
> >> Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how
> >> you can
> >> relate physically running a program on a computer, and running it
> >> on an
> >> abaccus, with a pen and a sheet of paper, in my mind. The only
> >> relation is
> >> the abstract computation.
> > 1. The notion of immaterial computation needs defense since all known
> > computers are material
> Physicisist cannot yet define computation (except in a sense
> immaterial quantum computations).

I have absolutely no idea why you would say that. Physicists tend to
have computers on their desks and tend to regard them as physical.

> it is a notion dicovered by mathematicians.

matehmaticians can discover numebrs, but they
still need matterial things to writh them with,

> I am no more sure what you mean by computation, now. How does your
> primary matter implements computations?

Same way it implements being a chair.
By beign the bearer of properties that
implement it.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to