On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 11:42 PM, Eric Hawthorne wrote:
I'm in the camp that thinks that emergent systems are real phenomena,
and
that eventually, objective criteria would be able to be established
that would
allow us to say definitively whether an emerged system existed in some
t
Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BG: You seem to be making points about the limitations
>> >of the folk-psychology notion of identity, rather than about the actual
>> >nature of the universe...
>>
>>
>> BM: Then you should disagree at some point of the reasoning, for the
>> reasoning is
Dear Bruno,
I followed the UDA link and read the post and fell flat on my face when
I read the term "classical teleportation". I would like to know what is the
theoretical basis of a belief that "classical teleportation" is even
possible? I can accept TM emulability for the sake of the argumen
Dear Bruno and Friends,
I found these statements:
http://www.imaph.tu-bs.de/qi/concepts.html#TP
Teleportation with purely classical means is impossible, which is precisely
the observation making the theory of Quantum Information a new branch of
Information Theory. This makes it all the more
Dear S.P.K.,
try this one, there is a collection of
possible and impossible machines, classical
versus quantic.
s.
Quantum Information Theory - an Invitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101061
Authors: R. F. Werner
Comments: 51 pages, 12 Figures, LaTeX+dvips. Will appear in a volume
"Quantum
Tim May wrote:
>
> OK, the example.
>
> Go.
>
> Black and white stones, with rules for moves that can be written on a
> small index card. Similar to a cellular automaton, though not as
> general.
>
> And yet from simple rules on a simple grid, emergent properties:
>
> * "thickness" (a measur
Colin Hales wrote:
> Here is another possible confusion: emergence as a descriptive artefact vs
> emergence as real layered behaviour in a real system. The wording
> initially looks as if you think emergence is not real. The emergence is real
> (whatever we consider real is!). Example: There ar
Dear Stepen, I did not say
">information is only information to a "recognizer" of such. <..."
but can you imagine an "unrecognized" information, just floating around?
it would take a special definition of information (maybe even weirder than
Shannon's bit, the meaningless dot/sign if not assigned i
> Colin Hales wrote:
> > Here is another possible confusion: emergence as a descriptive artefact vs
> > emergence as real layered behaviour in a real system. The wording
> > initially looks as if you think emergence is not real. The emergence is real
> > (whatever we consider real is!). Example
9 matches
Mail list logo
