On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 2:39 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I stand corrected. But that just means I chose a bad example. My point > was that consciousness doesn't require Turing completeness. You agreed > with me about the paramecium. > I agree Turing completeness is not required for consciousness. The human brain (given it's limited and faulty memory) wouldn't even meet the definition of being Turing complete. Jason > Brent > > On 7/10/2024 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > There was a study done in the 1950s on probabilistic Turing machines ( > https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400882618-010/html?lang=en > ) that found what they could compute is no different than what a > deterministic Turing machine can compute. > > "The computing power of Turing machines > provided with a random number generator was > studied in the classic paper [Computability by > Probabilistic Machines]. It turned out that such > machines could compute only functions that are already computable by > ordinary Turing machines." > — Martin Davis in “The Myth of Hypercomputation” (2004) > > To see why consider that programs can similarly split themselves and run > in parallel > with each of the possible values. To each instance of the split program, > the value it is provided will seem random. But importantly: what the > program can computes with this value > is the same as what it would compute had the value come from a "truly > random" quantum measurement. > > It would make a difference if it were a quantum computer or not. >> > > For us observing the program run from the outside, it would make a > difference. But the program itself has way of distinguishing if it is > receiving a value that came from a real measurement of a quantum system, or > if it was provided the result of a simulated quantum system. > > > And going the other way, what if it didn't have a multiply operation. >> We're so accustomed the standard Turing-complete von Neumann computer we >> take it for granted. >> > > A program will crash if it's run on a hardware that it's not compatible > with. This is why you can't take a .exe from windows and run it on a Mac. > But if you run a windows emulator on the Mac you can then run the .exe > within it. > > The program the has no idea it is running on a Mac, it has every reason to > believe it is running on a real windows computer, but it is fooled by the > emulation layer (this emulation layer is what I speak of when to refer to > the "Turing firewall"). That such layers can be created is a direct > consequence of the fact that all Turing machines are capable of emulating > each other. > > Jason > > > -- > 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/1c7cc5d2-93a1-4ac3-ab70-d5a99341346b%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c7cc5d2-93a1-4ac3-ab70-d5a99341346b%40gmail.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/CA%2BBCJUiCxPqjP%3Dx-_tVSW2%2By7K7RgDgEhMyCEK35HGNytVvAWg%40mail.gmail.com.
