On 24/04/2017 1:42 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 09:38:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a
computation with physics first, without relying on abstract
mathematical notion.
A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am
currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical notation
if you wish, but the process is not the notation. Any process that
takes input and produces output is a computation. All physical
objects do this. And physical objects do not know any mathematics.
That is the definition of a physical process, not a computation. If we
take the usual (mathematical) meaning of computation, then I can point
to a potential counter-example: beta-decay. Recording the arrival
times of electrons from beta decay using a clock and electron detector
gives a time series that to our best knowledge is random and hence
uncomputable. It is an undeniable physical process that is not a computation.
Which means that the physical universe is not Turing emulable. I thought
the idea was that the physical world was not emulable because it relies
on the statistics of the infinite processes running through our
conscious state. Beta decay is not emulable because quantum randomness
is not computable (pseudo-randomness will never do in the long run). I
do not see that these reasons for non-computability are the same.
In any case, one could include beta decay as a computation -- simply
claim a violation of the Church-Turing thesis. That might not be such a
bad idea.
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
