I agree with you both.
The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus
Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of
the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and
are taken as self evident.
This path is a dead end.
The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the
author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title
or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no
definition of "meaning" other than the one presented in a quote from S
Dear Joseph et al.
I join your point of view regarding the good all era of omnipotent
computation.
This message is just to bring to your attention another related issue.
In our recent post-conference INBIOSA discussion we came across a new
Hamletian question:
“Are mathematics and computation real
Dear Krassimir,
Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I
would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it
into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark Burgin,
which are dismissed out of hand.
>From my point of vie
Karl did an interesting remark.
Yes, "circle", "distance", "equal", etc. are terms understood by everybody.
But it often happened that mathematicians attribute definitions to
terms used in a non math context.
E.g., a circle is a set of points in the Euclidean plan lying at a
given distance from a p
-Original Message-
From: boris.sunik
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:10 AM
To: ithea-...@ithea.org
Subject: General Information Theory
Dear Colleague,
For your information:
http://www.GeneralInformationTheory.com
Regards,
Boris Sunik
On the existence of the term "information"
Let me pick up the the idea expressed by a colleague that "... in fact, such
a thing as 'information' does not exist at all" (sorry, not a verbatim
citation).
This is in fact true. The idea can be better understood if one states: "such
a thing as a 'circ
