On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 5:46:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:25, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 1:06:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Jun 2019, at 14:38, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:03 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > *with Mechanism* [...] >> >> >> Bruno, you use that word a lot, and I mean a LOT, but I'm still not sure >> what you mean. I don't want you to give me your definition I want you to >> give me examples of what you think it is and what you think it is not. >> Let's start with these, no need for long explanations, a simple yes or no >> will do and will give me an idea of what you're talking about: >> >> Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism? >> >> >> I have never use the expression “a mechanism”. A cuckoo clock is an >> informal not well defined notion, because it is unclear what you mean by >> this (the physical object, or the simple counting algorithm that it >> implements). >> >> I would need to define “a mechanism”, I would define it by anything >> Turing emulable, with this defined in the purely mathematical way like >> Church, Post, Turing, ... >> >> >> >> >> Is a roulette wheel a mechanism? Is a Tritium atom with a half life of >> 12.32 years a mechanism? Is the multiplication table a mechanism? >> >> >> >> If you define them in such a way that they are Turing emulable, then they >> are “mechanism”, but I use the term “programs” or “digital machine” >> instead. >> >> By “Mechanism” I have always mean “the mechanist hypothesis” which is the >> conjunction of “Yes doctor” (= my consciousness is invariant for some >> digital functional substitution) + the Church-Turing thesis. >> >> Mechanism, i.e. the mechanist hypothesis, should be sees as an hypothesis >> in psychology or theology: the belief in a special sort of possible >> technological reincarnation, or re-implementation. Then a reasoning shows >> that the physical appearances must be retrieved from some digital-machine, >> or sigma_1 arithmetical modes of machines self-reference, and that has been >> confirmed up to now. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > > It is sort of true in a way all of science is *Turing-emulable*: > Everything we do science, every theory - from physics to biology - is > simulated (implemented as programs) on conventional computers. There's > numerical relativity, numerical cosmology, quantum Monte Carlo, > computational chemistry and biology, on and on. > > Now new computers made of qubits (of exotic materials) or goo (of synbio) > are being made, so whether these allow *non-Turing-emulable* "programs" > to be realized is the question. > > > As David Deutsch shows in his seminal paper on quantum computing, a > quantum computer does not violate Church’s thesis. Babbage machine can > emulate all quantum digital algorithm, and the quantum computable functions > is the same as the Turing or combinator, or sigma_1 arithmetical computable > function. > > What mechanism explains, and quantum computing confirms, is that universal > machine can exploit the infinitely many computations which exists below our > substitution level to accelerate some type of computations, in the relative > indexical (first person plural) way. > > With mechanism, most of “reality” is NOT computable, like most of the > arithmetical reality is NOT computable. The universal machine itself is > only partially computable, and no one can build a mechanical procedure to > associate the machine’s behaviour to its code. If “I” am a machine, > basically everything which I am not is not a machine. > > Bruno > > > > Every *current scientific theory* is TE "Turing-emulable" (via the languages they are currently expressed in), and that includes, of course, QM (in its current formulations).
By "qubits" of "exotic" materials above, I was thinking of material computing: Material computing exploits unconventional physical substrates and/or unconventional computational models to perform physical computation in a non-silicon and/or *non-Turing paradigm*. - https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/nature/SpInspired/workshops/TEMC-2019-Tokyo/programme.pdf And there's *synbio computing* as well. In unconventional/natural computing <http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/> there’s a notion of *intrinsic computing* (IC). This notion deviates from the conventional view of computing as having a materially substrate-independent semantics. A *panpsychic semantics* (true experiential entities) is a match for IC. - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/ Science is just a genre of fiction that we find useful in particular contexts. Who knows what it will be in 100 years. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/adbfaf48-38d6-4457-82c7-3a6901cd271e%40googlegroups.com.
