Jason wrote:
It's been known since the 1970s that arbitrarily efficient computers
could be constructed that could perform an infinite number of
computations with a finite amount of energy, but only if the
computations done on that computer are logically reversible.
Performing a non-reversible c
Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't think the calculation has to be reversible in order to be the
calculation of a reversible phenomena. We use irreversible computations all
the time to calculate simple Newtonian processes which are certainly reversible.
I agree that a computation of a reversible
Hello Jason,
please excuse my ignorant interjections here but, as a
non-mathematician, non-philosopher, I need to work things into a plain
English version before I can feel that I understand them, and even then
the edges of things get fuzzy with far more ease than they get straight
and clear c
Jason, I think there may be some incorrect assumptions behind your argument.
Let me state the facts as I understand them and you can check them against
your assumptions or correct me if I'm wrong.
The only reason we need reversible computation to do an infinite number of
computations is that phy
Mark Peaty wrote:
Hello Jason,
please excuse my ignorant interjections here but, as a
non-mathematician, non-philosopher, I need to work things into a plain
English version before I can feel that I understand them, and even then
the edges of things get fuzzy with far more ease than they get str
Wei Dai wrote:
Jason, I think there may be some incorrect assumptions behind your argument.
Let me state the facts as I understand them and you can check them against
your assumptions or correct me if I'm wrong.
The only reason we need reversible computation to do an infinite number of
computa
Jason wrote:
If that is true then my underlying assumptions were flawed. My
argument assumed that a non-reversible universe could not be simulated
by a computer with bounded memory and using only reversible
computations. The way I arrived at this assumption was imagining a
non-reversible unive
Stathis P wrote:1-14-07:
John,
So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for the
sake of not being thought ignorant by the majority maybe he should
say it's spherical, but in fact there is no reason t
The current wikipedia article on multiverse theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
could do with a section explaining the motivations for proposing MV
theories.
I am sure someone here could oblige.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this m
I assumed bounded memory due to the limited amount of matter and energy
available to build the computer. For instance I've seen it said that the
total information content of this universe is about 10^90 bits. If a
civilization gathered all the mass and energy available in their universe to
build
Mark Peaty wrote:
Hello Jason,
please excuse my ignorant interjections here but, as a
non-mathematician, non-philosopher, I need to work things into a plain
English version before I can feel that I understand them, and even then
the edges of things get fuzzy with far more ease than they get s
Jason wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't think the calculation has to be reversible in order to be the
calculation of a reversible phenomena. We use irreversible
computations all the time to calculate simple Newtonian processes
which are certainly reversible.
I agree that a computation
John Mikes wrote:
Stathis P wrote:1-14-07:
John,
So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for the
sake of not being thought ignorant by the majority maybe he should
say it's spherical, but in fact
Thank you
John M
On 1/14/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis P wrote:1-14-07:
>
> John,
>
> So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
> reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for
the
> sake of not bein
Hi, Jason, and let me join the 'welcoming' members.
(I have no intention to join the professional discussion (Wei Dai et al.) -
what can a former polymer chemist say in it, who's 'scientific'
career.concentrated in times before the expansion of the computer-usage,
anyway? )
Mark brought my name
Jason wrote:
I assumed bounded memory due to the limited amount of matter and energy
available to build the computer. For instance I've seen it said that the
total information content of this universe is about 10^90 bits. If a
civilization gathered all the mass and energy available in their un
Brent Meeker writes:
>> > I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
>> computationalism > is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
>> a rock nor a computer may be > conscious. There is no natural syntax
>> or semantics for a computer telling us > what should count
17 matches
Mail list logo
