On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it. > > According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD > stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every logical > element functions as a processor so all computations proceed at once in > every cycle of time. This is the only way everything in the universe could > possibly get computed. A computation here can't possibly wait for one on > the other side of the universe! > I don't see why not. By this reasoning, it would be impossible to simulate the neurons of a brain brain (which operate in parallel) on a single-core CPU, but this violates the Church-Turing thesis. A single sequential computation can compute and emulate everything a multi-processor CPU can. > > If Bruno's UD requires a single processor of reality it simply cannot > describe actual computational reality..... > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis Jason > > > On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:41:39 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies >>> if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first >>> programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. >>> Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it >>> then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the >>> second instruction of the second programme, and so on. >>> >> >> If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second >> instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible >> programs. >> >> >>> This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running >>> into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, >>> or various other contingencies... >>> >> >> This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion, >> instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time >> on the CPU. >> >> >>> >>> This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first >>> programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid >>> certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. >>> >> >> There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves >> instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely >> often. >> >> >> >>> ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> >> >> PS I like the "while (true)" statement. What would Pontius Pilate have >>> made of that? :-) >> >> >> :-) Good question, I haven't the faintest idea. I could have used >> "while (i == i)" but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might >> fail. >> >> Jason >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
