2012/9/11 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> > 2012/9/10 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> >> > > No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
> >> > > Church
> >> > > Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
> >> > bearing
> >> > > (from the program's perspective).
> >> > If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can*
> >> > define
> >> > a "meta-program" that has access to (part of) its own hardware (which
> >> > still
> >> > is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a computer).
> >> >
> >> It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access to
> >> is
> >> the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has only
> >> access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from
> >> that
> >> interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated outside.
> >> <\quote>
> >> Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not
> >> clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty).
> >> I should have expressed myself more accurately and written " "hardware"
> >> or
> >> "relative 'hardware'". We can define a (meta-)programs that have access
> >> to
> >> their "hardware" in the sense of knowing what they are running on
> >> relative
> >> to some notion of "hardware". They cannot be emulated using universal
> >> turing
> >> machines
> > Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine.
> The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just that
> may lose relative correctness if we do that.
Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a program
it has access to the "outside" through IO, hence it is impossible for a
program to differentiate "real" outside from simulated outside... It's a
simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a
program, not an algorithm and not a computation.
> We can still use a turing
> machine to "run" it and interpret what the result means.
> So for all intents and purposes it is quite like a program. Maybe not a
> program as such, OK, but it certainly can be used precisely in a
> step-by-step manner, and I think this is what CT thesis means by
> algorithmically computable.
> Maybe not, but in this case CT is just a statement about specific forms of
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 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
> For more options, visit this group at
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at