| re: this could help |
| [9009] by "proxy thing" (pool-138-88-117-244.res.east.ver)
on Thu 31 Jan 2002 22:13:04
[ reply ] [ up ]
|
You can build all the chemical deterministic machines you want, but it won't make you feel any better. It just makes us late for school.
Not, mind you, that I think there is no difference between digital robots and chemical deterministic machines. |
|
|
|
| re: this could help |
| [9015] by "FrereKhan" (bowerbird.qut.edu.au)
on Fri 01 Feb 2002 02:27:31
[ reply ] [ up ]
|
DIFS. Good point.
I DON'T WANT TO BE ONE OF THEM EITHER!!!!
Tell me why exactly Mr. Physics says we can't know? BTW, there is something fundamentally philosophically different about a life where everything is deterministic compared to its opposite. Even if we can never know which category we inhabit. |
|
|
|
| re: this could help |
| [9255] by "RobPfeifer" (246.234.35.212.in-addr.arpa.ip-p)
on Sat 09 Feb 2002 18:45:53
[ reply ] [ up ]
|
When there exists a minimum distinguishable distance between any two points (Planck length) and minimum distinguishable period of time between two events (Planck time) this appears to me to restrict the universe to a finite information density while of finite size. Therefore I am sorry, but you cannot be in infinite deterministic machine.
The universe is still only finitely large, but space _is_ expanding. If the universe is open, perhaps you can be an infinite deterministic machine if you wait infinitely long for this.
The distinction between an infinite deterministic machine and a finite deterministic machine is that the laws governing an infinite deterministic machine may be infinitely complex, though this may not be apparent unless you hit on the appropriate (potentially finite) data window(s) where their behaviour differs from simpler finite approximations.
In other words, they may behave in a manner defying finite length explanation - apparent randomness, or free will.
Explain if there is a significant difference.
Rob |
|
|
|