On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>:
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital
computer.
So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition.
because
it embrace everything.
Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
simulations,
representations and all other information related aspects of the
universe.
It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the
physical
world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation
can be a
morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate
yet
related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members
of the
Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are
Identical.
Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego
pieces? No, my dear legologist.
What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces
entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is
whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and
thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is
used
ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to
increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it.
Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to
their
input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of
transformation
Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that
produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile.
A cruise missile is not a computation.
Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation,
nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all
computations).
I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no
controversial notions. the notion of computation is based on the
mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and
(mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and
computability theory are standard branches of computer science.
Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the
notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise
definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal
systems.
Bruno
But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used,
the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines,
uses or build it.
These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are
made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or
to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired
outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer.
. It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call
"essence of computation" instead of "computation" as such. or
alternatively "the self sustained process for which the computation is
_ever_ made for"
of information, including transformations that are automorphisms.
A simulation is an special case of the latter.
So there are things that are computations: what the living beings do
at the chemical, physiological or nervous levels (and rational,
social
and technological level in case of humans) . But there are things
that
are not computations: almost everything else.
We are using a very narrow definition of computations and thus miss
the
computations that physical processes outside of our CPUs and GPUs are
performing. If the functions of an Isolated physical system are
such that
the transformations they induce in/on their cover space (?) of
representations are a simulation of the physical system, what
obtains? A
one to one map of the system that co-evolves with it. When we
consider
physical systems interacting with each other, could they
additionally have
partial emulations of each other within their "self-simulations"?
--
Alberto.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
