> "Computation" doesn't exist.
--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
"Computation" doesn't exist. It is an observer-relative concept.
--
On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.Does all computation generate heat?(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)Hmm… Not that simple. In the 1950s, Hao Wang has given the first proof that there exist universal machine working in a completely reversible way, without any erasing of information. Wang was a mathematical logicien, and his result was ignored.In 1961, Landauer, a physicist, working on the Maxwell Daemon problem, discovered that the only computational process that generates heat is the erasure. To erase 1 bit of information Landauer shows that you need to dissipate at least kTln(2) energy, with k the Boltzman constant and T the temperature.So, in principle, given Hao Wang + Landauer, we can build a machine doing computation without using, nor dissipating any energy, except for the start and ending of the computation.Then, most algorithm in quantum computing require full reversibility, and should work with very few amount of energy, except similarly for the local read and write, or starting vs stopping behaviour.Both from mechanism and physics, I conjecture that there is a core physical reality which is a BCI algebra, which means no erasure of information, and no duplication of information. This CANNOT be Turing universal, and it is unclear to me which of erasure and duplication can be truly physical. It is just well above the scope of the present knowledge of the machine’s physics to answer this, and among physicians, this leads to discussion of black hole, non cloning theorem, etc. Open problem for me.Of course, in arithmetic, no computation at all use energy, given that they use only the arithmetical truth, which are out of time and space, and any physical category. The physics emerge from this, as an invariant pattern for all Turing universal observation, defined by a sort of bet on first person experiences. Energy should be retrieved from that Core physics. I speculate that the Monster Group plays a role here.Bruno- @philipthrift
> Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On 1 May 2019, at 19:58, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.Does all computation generate heat?(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)Hmm… Not that simple. In the 1950s, Hao Wang has given the first proof that there exist universal machine working in a completely reversible way, without any erasing of information. Wang was a mathematical logicien, and his result was ignored.In 1961, Landauer, a physicist, working on the Maxwell Daemon problem, discovered that the only computational process that generates heat is the erasure. To erase 1 bit of information Landauer shows that you need to dissipate at least kTln(2) energy, with k the Boltzman constant and T the temperature.So, in principle, given Hao Wang + Landauer, we can build a machine doing computation without using, nor dissipating any energy, except for the start and ending of the computation.Then, most algorithm in quantum computing require full reversibility, and should work with very few amount of energy, except similarly for the local read and write, or starting vs stopping behaviour.Both from mechanism and physics, I conjecture that there is a core physical reality which is a BCI algebra, which means no erasure of information, and no duplication of information. This CANNOT be Turing universal, and it is unclear to me which of erasure and duplication can be truly physical. It is just well above the scope of the present knowledge of the machine’s physics to answer this, and among physicians, this leads to discussion of black hole, non cloning theorem, etc. Open problem for me.Of course, in arithmetic, no computation at all use energy, given that they use only the arithmetical truth, which are out of time and space, and any physical category. The physics emerge from this, as an invariant pattern for all Turing universal observation, defined by a sort of bet on first person experiences. Energy should be retrieved from that Core physics. I speculate that the Monster Group plays a role here.Bruno- @philipthriftIn the curious case of quantum computation, it seems it may be the case that there is no heat generated until a "measurement" is made.Is that right?That is right, unless you are using a special quantum algorithm which does “measurement” during the computation. But if not, then the computation corresponds to a unitary, completely reversible, process, and no heat is generated.Bruno
> Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way?
> Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be?
> Do you think God would need any appreciation from us?
> Our collective crime [...]
> [...] is that we abused our free will
> to go against the Universal Laws.
> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to [...]
On 3 May 2019, at 04:41, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way?
Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be?
Do you think God would need any appreciation from us?
Rather, it is we who need to appreciate God!
God created the entire creation and He governs it flawlessly according to His Laws. The entire creation submits to His Laws, except some criminals…
The way I understand it, we, humans and snakes, are criminals who have been contained on a planet. Our collective crime is that we abused our free will to go against the Universal Laws. We have an appointment, in the Divine Court, that will be kept as scheduled. We have been given a temporal life so that each one of us can generate evidence (data: speech and deeds) for or against ourselves.
Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to understand and consequently be pleased with God, contented to submit to His Laws and Decrees, and grateful for the guidance, looking forward to an immortal life of luxury and perhaps the most prestigious jobs anyone can ever aspire for: in service of Allah, The One and Only God, The KIng of the Mighty Throne of The Entire Creation!
There is no compulsion to follow God's Laws, but the criminals will not be allowed to leave this planet. They will go from living upon it to living within it, in The Fire!
On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?But the problem of evil is not that simple.
> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to [...]
The religious believe that repeatedly declaring that God is sooo big and sooo strong and sooo super nice helps you to keep that super nice being from sticking you into a torture dungeon for eternity. But I don't believe that, I believe the God described in the Bible or the Koran is far more evil than the Satan as described in those books because nothing, absolutely nothing, is more evil than torturing somebody for eternity, not even if it's for the crime of eating a apple when told not to.
On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Indeed.
But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.
With provable(p) written []pconsistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>pf = false, t = trueconsistent = ~[]f = <>t = consistent(t),
Gödel’s second I. Theorem, put in equivalent version:
<>t -> ~[]<>t
<>t -> <>~<>t<>t -> <>[]f
It is that last one where the clue is the more apparent:
Said by PA, or ZF, or any sound Löbian machine: it says the following:
If I am consistent, then it is consistent that I am inconsistent
--
No. Erasing data generates heat. So reversible computation is, in principle, possible without hear generation.
Brent
On 5/1/2019 1:56 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
--
By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.
Does all computation generate heat?
(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
- @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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
On 3 May 2019, at 20:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Indeed.
But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.
With provable(p) written []pconsistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>pf = false, t = trueconsistent = ~[]f = <>t = consistent(t),
Gödel’s second I. Theorem, put in equivalent version:
<>t -> ~[]<>t
<>t -> <>~<>t<>t -> <>[]f
It is that last one where the clue is the more apparent:
Said by PA, or ZF, or any sound Löbian machine: it says the following:
If I am consistent, then it is consistent that I am inconsistent
Notice however that this assumes you know what t and f are.
In the formalism they are just markers that are invariant under the rules of inference.
In the semantics they refer to some model.
Beware of the priest who tells you he knows the real model.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E6E28BF8-EF23-41B2-854E-CE40A49874C3%40ulb.ac.be.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9dd3dd1-299e-3929-fde7-b3dfcc6e452a%40verizon.net.