> On 19 Jul 2019, at 23:30, Dan Sonik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:33:05 PM UTC-5, telmo 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] >> <javascript:>> 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> > >> >> >> > 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. > > This takes a bit of practice to develop the habit, but if you do it long > enough you can actually "wake up" in your dreams and become lucid.
See my long text “Conscience and Mechanism” which contains a full chapter on dreams, lucid dreaming, contra lucid dreaming. I note my dreams since 1970, and have train myself in Lucid dreaming. You can augment the frequency, but the more you do it, the more you augment the frequency of “contra-lucid” dreams, which are dreams where you convince yourself that you are awake. In fact, at some point, almost all lucid dreams are followed by a “false awakening”. At some point, every lucid dreams where followed by my writing the dreams in my diary and then waking up again, and writing the dream, and waking up again, and this in sometimes long succession of false awakening, where each time I was about sure to be “at last really awake. So, we can’t use lucidity to convince ourself that we can know in any way that we are awake. So, we can know that we are dreaming, but we cannot know that we are awake, except in the weal Theatetus sense of believing to be awaken and being awaken. > (And conversely, prove you are not dreaming when awake.) Which is what I am just denying. > During your day to day wakeful life, three or four times a day, look at a > piece of text... then look away for a few seconds, then look back at the > text. When awake, the text you read will be the same on each sample, because > the text is "real" and exists. In your dream, if you do this, you will find > that the text changes each time you try to read it again. Probably because > your brain cannot make a persistent, law like reality on its own, but needs > something (i.e. reality) to remain consistent. Try it! It's fun… It is very fun, but the brain can fail you completely. In one dream, I was dying so badly that I conclude that I was not dreaming, and that I was in the usual so real reality (just because I did not fly well!). Also, I have done the experience with “looking at a text”, and conclude I was obviously awake, and it is only after the (real I suppose) awakening that I notice that the text was changing and even in a very bizarre way, but in the dream, that seems boringly normal and an evidence I was awake. We can do dream which are utterly irrational. In a dream I panicked because I thought I found a totally convincing proof that the modus ponens was not valid, and the reason was the shape and color of the curtain. Yet, in other dreams, I found correct proof of some mathematical statement. All cases are possible. Bruno >> >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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/d3186fc8-1ed8-49d2-83d4-dccdf626c9f2%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3186fc8-1ed8-49d2-83d4-dccdf626c9f2%40googlegroups.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/550BC9C4-1798-4755-8331-45BE95EFB261%40ulb.ac.be.
