Evgenn I have not much time this week. I just added a paragraph below. I will ask this with more detail later:
2012/8/2 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> > Alberto, > > I have one more question. > > On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following: > > Evgenii, great questions >> >> 2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> >> >> On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following: >>> >> > ... > > > Let us say that there is some conglomerate of atoms. When it >>>> >>>>> computes and when not? >>>>> >>>>> From a black-box perspective, they compute when they are open to to >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> environment and they maintain its internal entropy. That may be the >>>> definition of life too. From inside, they must live in a predictable >>>> environment with smooth phisical laws where entrophy dangers and >>>> opportinities can be discovered to react appropriately >>>> >>>> >>> I would suggest to consider a series as follows: >>> >>> A greath exercise, >>> >> >> >> 1) A rock; >>> >>> A rock does not compute but it may be said that it maintain its >> internal >> order by generating a newtonian force equal and opposed to every force >> exerted against it. So it may be considered that perform a analogical >> computation. But a rock does not preserve and extend its information by >> reproduction. >> >> >> 2) A ballcock in the toilet; >>> >>> It is an analogical device with a detector (the piece thar floats) and >> an >> actuator (the piece that closes the flux of water) . Both are solidary. >> The computation is the most simple possible: upon a threshold the flux of >> water is interrupted. >> >> > Could you please describe a bit more what the difference in computation do > you see between a rock and a ballcock? > > A quote about the rock to this end: > > "Take that rock over there. It doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything, > at least to our gross perception. But at the microlevel it consists of an > unimaginable number of atoms connected by springy chemical bonds, all > jiggling around at a rate that even our fastest supercomputer might envy. > And they are not jiggling at random. The rock’s innards ‘see’ the entire > universe by means of the gravitational and electromagnetic signals it is > continuously receiving. Such a system can be viewed as an all-purpose > information processor, one whose inner dynamics mirror any sequence of > mental states that our brains might run through." > > Evgenii > > http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/02/**rock-and-information.html<http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/02/rock-and-information.html> It could be said that even an elemental particle computes, because it interacts in defined ways with other particules. Matter then is a parallell computer with as much nodes as particles etc. But this is a paralelized version of the idea of the universe simulated by a computer program, with the variation that the computer is the whole universe itself. Life, thus would be a computation over a computation, because living beings compute at the macrostate level, using macrosciopical laws, not at the particule level. Byt I think that the idea of particle computing is wrong. the idea of a simulation trougn steps that represent a new state of every particle is wromg, whether the steps are caculated by a computer or the whole universe. Among other things because time is not a first class citizen in any cosmological theory. I think our observations, that is, life, determine a local time, but that´s all. I think that the best view of the particles according with the theory are trajectories in a static space-time within a manifold where nothing changes. This is the idea of the block universe. Computation at the level of particles is wrong from my point of view. And thus the idea of a computation in a rock does not .refer to the interactions between individual particles. From my point of view my description of a rock as a newtonian computer is just a intriguing curiosity for now. A ballcock perform some computation it generates good outcomes for the humans no matter if the flux of water is intense or slow and thus it may be considered as candidate to be a part of a living being. What living being? It may be part of what Dawkins call "the extended genotype" of the human being. like a car or any human invention. Then a rock have a similar function if this rock is part of a wall in a house, for example. > > -- > 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<firstname.lastname@example.org> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ > **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.