Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
From: Robert J. Kolker (robert_kolker_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/02/04
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:32:27 GMT
Bill Hobba wrote:
> Whoa there Bob. Except for the infinite tape requirement is it technically
> a trivial matter to physically contract a Turing machine.
Who there, yourself. It is the indefinite length tape (which does not
exist in the real world) or a pair of infinite push down stacks (which
do not exist in the real world) that distinguishes a Turing machine from
a mundane finite state automata.
> My point is that
> the mathematics that describes how such a real physical device would operate
> captures in an essential way how it would behave. The only out I see is my
> statement 'captured in an essential way' - one could argue that it is just a
> model and a real machine would not act quite in the same way - eg its tape
> would not be infinite or it will occasionally make errors, the tape may
> break etc. To me that is the essential issue - if we have in our
> mathematics captured the essence of what is happening - I believe we have.
The essence is strictly in your head. Nature doesn't have essences and
qualities. Nature just is. Here is a rubbing point. When thinkers are so
delighted with their models and so damned impressed by their cleverness
that the confuse their own artifacts with the Real Thing. What you have
is not Understanding, but Idol Worship.
> That being the case if the mathematics that describes the physical situation
> does not mesh quite right (eg requires constants to be put in by hand) then
> it is an indication a better description is lurking about - just like if a
> real Turing machine did something inexplicable like solve the halting
> problem.
The better description lurking about is a function of what is really
real and what our honest to god abilities enable. If that better
description requires a ten pound brain and a computer the size of
Jupiter, we are not going to have it. Your expectation of something
better that is also within our grasp is a lovely expression of faith and
it would do a religous zealot proud. You have implicitly assumed that we
are gods. We are not.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: The ultimate luxury ?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
