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
> even
> >> 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
> it
> 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.

Quentin


> 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
> algorithms.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34417440.html
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.
>
>


-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to