On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

What is most interesting is that the QC can run an arbitrary number of classical computations, all at the same time. The CC can only barely compute the emulation of a single QC.

You are talking about QC and CC as though they were material computers with finite resources. Once you've assumed material resources you've lost any non-circular possibility of explaining them.

No, I am pointing out that real computations require real resources. Only when we ignore this fact we can get away with floating castles in midair.

Brent just point out that arithmetic contains infinite resource.
What do you mean by "real computations"? Do you mean "physical computations"? Why would they lack resources?


Dear Bruno,

I am talking about physical systems that have the capacity of carrying out in their dynamics the functions that implement the abstract computations that you are considering. The very thing that you claim is unnecessary.

But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained in comp as a a persistent relational entity, so I don't see the problem. It is necessary in the sense that it is implied by the comp hypothesis, even constructively (making comp testable). It is even more stable and "solid" than anything we might extrapolate from observation, as we might be dreaming. Indeed it comes from the atemporal ultra-stable relations between numbers, that you recently mention as not created by man (I am very glad :).

Dear Bruno,

Matter is not primitive as it is not irreducible. My claim is that matter is, explained very crudely, patterns of invariances for some collection of inter-communicating observers (where an observer can be merely a photon detector that records its states). This is not contradictory to your explanation of it as "persistent relational entity", but my definition is very explicit about the requirements that give rise to the "persistent relations". I believe that these might be second order relations between computational streams. and can be defined in terms of bisimulation relations between streams. I question the very idea of "atemporal ultra-stable relations between numbers" since numbers cannot be considered consistently as just entities that correspond to 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We have to consider all possible denotations of the signified. See http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html#signified for an explanation. Additionally, there are not just a single type of number as there is a dependence on the model of arithmetic that one is using. For example Robinson Arithmetic and Peano Arithmetic do not define the same numbers. So we have multiple signified and multiple signifiers and cannot assume a single mapping scheme between them. I suppose that a canonical map exists in terms of the Tennebaum theorem, but I need to discuss this more with you to resolve my understanding of this question.




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