Brent Meeker wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm considering rejecting the idea that a computation can be
> >>distinguished from noise by some internal characteristic of the
> >>computation. I don't think you can make the idea of "information hidden
> >>in noise" well defined. By Shannon's measure noise is information.
> >
> >
> > You can easily distinguish computation from noise using counterfactuals
>
> Can you make that more concrete - an example perhaps?
Counterfactuals come from the undertlying physics of the computation.
Cups of coffee don't have any woth speaking about-- you can't force
them into the same state twice.
Whether they are part of the "internal characteristitcs of a
computation"
depends, question-beggingly , ont what you mean by "computation".
If you think a computation is nothing but a string of 1's and 0's,
counterfactuals
will be very difficulty to find.
That may well be a /reductio/ of "a computation is nothing but a
string of 1's and 0's".
> Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jul 31 2006 - 13:12:59 PDT