I like the new twist in this thread. Something that should keep me interested. Just a clarification, when I said logic was thinking Boolean logic, that on a bare level everything is true\false, black\white.
I'll add my two cents to the mini discussion, the parts themselves adhere to the laws of physics whether built to be a computer or used as a paperweight. But that's pretty much the end of that, pre-assembly it most likely is not a computer unless Svidgen's counterclaims can be debunked his assertion seems pretty solid.
lulz ... is that so? That could be true. Though, if it is, I think it may require us to redefine computer:an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program. (Oxford American Dictionary)
I don't agree with that definition, what is a quantum computer, or an optical computer? They may have some electronic componants, but the actual computation is not done by electronic means.
I would also question the ability for storing data, lots of computers don't have hard drives and essentially start with a completely blank slate. These can be machines that boot over the network, or a dumb terminal, or in the past machines didn't always have hard drives, I even had one.
Originally Posted by svidgen
If you were to assert that God created all particles for the purpose of processing and storing "data,"
Hah, I most definately do not assert that. However, on the subject of storing data, information cannot be destroyed, and therefore must always be stored in one form or another.
Perhaps the big bang might be considered both the ultimate program and ultimate boot-up sequence.
Here's another thought, perhaps the universe is a computer, and was created for that express purpose. We could very well be inside some civilisations hypercomputer or perhaps we are in a civilisations simulation of their own universe, or even a simulation of a universe wildly different to their own. As soon as we get the computational power required, you can bet we'll be running these simulations ourselves.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
Anyone remember ADA used to control Missiles Silo,
enter a long password then turn the keys and press a few buttons
(it's the red or the blue one ? who care!!)
They just press the wrong buttons. Oh my God !!! that's evils...
Then you should have nothing further to say! If you don't agree with the standard definition, you don't get to just make up a new one that suits your ideas! Vocabulary is a social matter; so, your definitions aren't a basis for an argument. Find a standard definition from another source if you don't like the one I used. I'll even take one of the ones from answers.com if you like ...
A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information. (answers.com)
By this definition, the necessity of the electronic aspect is sort of replaced with a mathematical ability aspect (a device that computes).
Anyway, I do see your concern with the first definition ... So, in terms of quantum computers, I believe that they still rely primarily on electronic operations--they merely use quantum processes as an "input" to some extent. The same could be said in regards to light computing. In fact, electrons are essential in reflecting light, which I presume to be a fairly common need in light computing.
And of course, as our computers evolve (or rather our engineers), we may have to evolve the definition of that word, as a society. Though, for now, we need to work with a standard definition. We can't just create one to suit our arguments.
... lots of computers don't have hard drives and essentially start with a completely blank slate.
That's not really important. If the machine even has a rudimentary temporary storage system, perhaps even a single capacitor that can store a bit for only a split second, it still qualifies as storage. There are no special qualifications for the length of storage in the definition. And on that note, even the capacitor may be unnecessary ... Though, I personally believe at least one capacitor (or similarly functioning device), with the purpose of "remembering" a bit, is an essential component.
... information cannot be destroyed, and therefore must always be stored in one form or another.
I tend to use this "information always exists" idea in God arguments a lot. Though, I don't feel that it's suitable for this discussion. For one, all evidence suggests that "information" is NOT a thing with a physical existence. In terms of storage, all we can do is represent or symbolize that information by changing the orientation of some matter in some way (write it down, turn a capacitor on, magnetize an area of something, etc.). The fact that the "information" is "always out there" is irrelevant. It's a matter of whether the computer is storing a retrievable representation of it.
Perhaps the big bang might be considered both the ultimate program and ultimate boot-up sequence.
A neat idea, I guess. Though, the big bang is just an event. I could see it being a boot-up; but not the program. I do, however, see how one might interpret the universe itself as a computer. In terms of our definition, I think it then comes down to whether the universe was intelligently created or "just happened."
In regards to the Matrix-like universe-computer, I can't really buy into that. I mean, on some level, we already sort of do that. For instance, a farm is just a bio-computer. The end result of the "computation" is generally food (and waste). Though, I have fundamental problems with calling a biological / self-growing system a computer.
I'm hinging primarily on the word FOR in the definition (an electronic device for storing and processing). We can put a seed in the ground for some purpose, but we don't really have control over how it grows. It's output is based on complex genetics, combined with a complex and largely uncontrollable environment, combined with the seed-state (down to the subatomic level), combined with factors we can't even know about. More importantly, the plant grows! It's not created ... it grows! It makes itself--we don't make the plant! That FOR in the definition, if not meant to distinctly say so, at least heavily implies that a computer is a human-made thing (or at made by an intelligent being), an assemblage of naturally occurring elements that will sustain their physical state, except for those changes which are dictated by the program.
I see, I don't agree on that single definition you picked, so that's game over is it? I have to say, a lot of your argument seems to be based on imaginative understanding of that solitary definition, so much so that you really stretch yourself when you say, "in terms of quantum computers, I believe that they still rely primarily on electronic operations--they merely use quantum processes as an 'input' to some extent." Well sorry but that just isn't how it works.
Here are some more definitions for computer:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a set of instructions.
Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computer
Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
Originally Posted by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/computer
one that computes ; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
So including these three definitions, we have two that say computers are electronic, one that merely says they are usually electronic but leaves the door open, and one that doesn't even mention the method by which computation is done. I think the best definition on there is from wikipedia as it imposes no restrictions on it's makeup. In my last post I also forgot to mention mechanical computers, surely you can't still claim those are electronic merely for making up 0.02% of the mass, or whatever the fraction is. Here are some more.
At the end of the post you dismiss the simulation argument with hand waving and for some reason start talking about farms and seeds, which leads me to believe you didn't get what I said at the end at all. My point was that if we are in a simulation, there is absolutely no way we could know so long as it was self consistent, and therefore we could very easily be in such a simulation. Indeed, we could be in a simulation performed by a civilisation who are themselves inside a simulation.
Anyway, I'm done with this now.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
...my point was that if we are in a simulation, there is absolutely no way we could know so long as it was self consistent, and therefore we could very easily be in such a simulation. Indeed, we could be in a simulation performed by a civilisation who are themselves inside a simulation....
42
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
~ Terry Pratchett in Nation
Any computer programming language is generally an artificially designed language which represents the computer computations. These are the medium of communication between the computer machine and its users. Learning a programming language is a complex task and may require a lot of practice and experience to master in it.
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
~ Terry Pratchett in Nation
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by svidgen
Bookmarks