Hi John,
If I remember correctly Robert Rosen does not accept Church Thesis.
This explains some fundamental difference of what we mean respectively
by "machine".
I use the term for digitalizable machine, which, with Church thesis, is
equivalent with "programs", or with anything a computer can imitate.
With Church thesis all computer (universal machine) are equivalent and
can emulate (simulate perfectly) each other.
The machine I talk about are mathematical object in Platonia. I never
use machine in the materialist sense of something having some body to
act in a environment, because my goal is to find out why immaterial
machine in Platonia are confronted with stable appearance of
materiality.
I hope this can help a little bit,
Best,
Bruno
Le 17-févr.-06, à 21:27, John M a écrit :
> <snip>
>
>
> Now a silly point: after so much back and forth about
> 'machines' and our best efforts to grasp what we
> should understand, would it be asking too much to
> re-include a BRIEF identification about the way YOU
> use the term? (Never mind Loeb).
>
> It would help me for sure. I could not decipher it
> from the quoted URLs (yours included),
> <snip>
>
> Lately on the Rosen-list Robert Rosen's 'machine' term
> got so mixed up that my understanding what I developed
> some 5-6 years ago got mixed up. It is different from
> yours, which just adds to the confusion. Yours is also
> going on over at least 2-3 years.
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Feb 20 2006 - 06:42:39 PST