Re: Bruno's argument

From: 1Z <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:19:08 -0700

Brent Meeker wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >
> > Brent Meeker wrote:

> > The underlying physics of the thing will tell youwhether
> > it is capable of supporting countefactuals without
> > running a programme at all. There is something objectively
> > machine-like about machines -- complex , but predictable
> > behaviour.
> But so far as we know all machines, all physical objects, are described
> by quantum mechanics and therefore are subject to random variations,
> i.e. they could have done otherwise.

That applies to your PC. How often does it randomly crash ?

> So I don't see how that helps in
> distinguishing computation from noise.

You can't tell the difference between doing something
random once every day and doins something
random billions of times a seconc ?

> Are you thinking of abstract
> computation - which of course can be deterministic if you rule out
> randomness in the abstraction?

we construct machines to rule out randomness within
certain limits.

> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Jul 31 2006 - 16:20:09 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST