> On 19 Jul 2019, at 19:31, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 16:01, John Clark wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> > Nobody ever used the Turing Machine as an architecture for computation, >> >> Everybody's architecture for computation without exception can be reduced to >> a Turing Machine and nobody has ever found anything simpler, aka more >> fundamental, that could be implemented physically. >> >> > > Well... meet the domino computer: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_computer > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_computer> > >> >> >> > outside of theoretical domains. Not even Turing himself, for the simple >> > reason that it would be terribly inefficient. >> >> Yes, obviously a paper tape would be very very slow so for economic reasons >> a vast number of bells and whistles are added, but those are all just a >> matter of engineering convenience, so if you're just talking about >> philosophy, and for most on this list that's all they're interested in, then >> they are all irrelevant. >> >> > Computers to this day mostly follow the Von Neumann architecture, >> >> Most do some don't, such as Dataflow Machines or Graph Reduction Machines. >> But talking about the difference between Von Neumann architecture and non >> Von Neumann architecture is like talking about the difference between a >> steam engine and a gasoline engine while Turing was talking about the laws >> of thermodynamics. > > Exactly, that is my point. > >> >> > It seems clear to me that Turing Machines, Van Neumann Machines and GPUs >> > are just implementations of something which is purely abstract -- >> > computation. >> >> Turing Machines are in a more fundamental category than the other two. All >> Van Neumann Machines and GPUs are Turing Machines but not all Turing >> Machines are Van Neumann Machines or GPUs. > > The only equivalence used in Computer Science is in completeness: Van Neumann > Machines and GPUs are Turing Complete, in the sense that they are as general > a computational device as a Turing Machine. I never heard or read anyone > before claiming that Turing Machines are physically more fundamental, in the > sense that they are at some root of a category to which modern digital > computers belong. My question to you then, is this: > > How do you decide if something is a Turing Machine or not? Is Domino a Turing > Machine? What about my brain? What about the billiard ball computer? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiard-ball_computer > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiard-ball_computer>
In a sense, the Turing machine is the most abstract way to see a (information treating) machine, making it possible to see any such machine as a Turing machine, That is what convince Gödel, as the human themselves is directly a Turing machine unless we suppose that there is no substitution level. This is due to the fact that we have simple label for the state of the machine, and that state can be a brain state, or a combinator, or whatever. I remind that a Turing machine has a set of symbols for the state, q1, q2, q3, etc.. defining what the machine do in each state when in front of any inputs. That is very general. But of course you are right, that does not make the machine fundamentally physical, on the contrary, it makes it more abstract, and as such, as much arithmetical than physical (if that word could be defined without Mechanism). Bruno > >> >> >> > You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> > matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that >> > matter is the dream of computations, >> >> All theories need experimental conformation and the above theory has been >> tested many times and the results have always been negative, people have >> dreamed of computation but nothing happens, the law of the conservation of >> mass/energy has always remained true regardless of dreams. > > Most people can remember having dreams, I imagine you can too. Then you know > that your brain is somehow capable of generating a "fake" reality just for > you. So can you ever prove to yourself that you are not dreaming? > > Telmo. > >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oy7LzAecQ6VA4pp9XNM_%2BU8dCXE7u-kfnejWyxeFa%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oy7LzAecQ6VA4pp9XNM_%2BU8dCXE7u-kfnejWyxeFa%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9e6d2cc-bb24-414f-be7b-b1df37b5c258%40www.fastmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9e6d2cc-bb24-414f-be7b-b1df37b5c258%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C3090B6C-FBC0-47D1-B272-64364D269089%40ulb.ac.be.
