On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must >>> solve a NP-hard problem to figure out what to do next, >>> >> >> >> Protein folding? >> > > > He uses anyway a bad example, NP-hard problem are computable I never said they weren't. > they just take exponential time to solve. > Just? It means that even if your computer is the size of the Earth it will take you a trillion years to find the answer, and if you make the question just slightly more complicated it will take ENORMOUSLY longer than a trillion years to find the answer. > We were talking about non-computable problems, and nature could use > unknown non-computable things for consciousness > There is not a scrap of evidence that nature knows how to solve NP-complete problems (much less non-computable problems!) any better than we can. Although we don't know for sure most think that even a Quantum Computer couldn't solve NP-complete problems, most think that there is a class of problems that are harder than those that any conventional computer could solve but not as hard as NP-complete problems, and a Quantum Computer could solve those. Obviously no computer of any sort can solve non-computable problems, and neither can nature. John K Clark -- 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/d/optout.
