On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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 <liz...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.