From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Tue Jun  9 10:06:12 EDT 1992
Article 6023 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.224511.29070@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
References: <1992Jun1.161622.23110@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jun1.183817.10392@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 22:45:11 GMT
Lines: 81

In article <1992Jun1.183817.10392@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>In article <1992Jun1.161622.23110@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil  
>Rickert) writes:
>> In article <1992Jun1.142749.8520@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
>Clarke) writes:
>> 
>> >SH (and others) argue plausibly that computation alone cannot give 
>> >consiousness.  If physicality is not abandoned, then either the C-T
>> >thesis is false or Laplace's view is wrong.  C-T is only a hypothesis,
>> 
>>   What has C-T to do with anything.  C-T is neither true nor false.  It
>> is not the type of thing that can ever be true or false.  It is merely
>> a cultural belief withi mathematics.  People can stop believing it
>> if they like.  But you can't talk about it being false.
>> 
>C-T says that recursive, Turing machine computation is the only effective
>way to compute.  If the formalisms of the science of physics can compute
>anything physical and C-T is true, then a Turing machine properly programmed
>could predict (simulate) anything, including the behavior of 
>intelligent critters.
>
>C-T could be falsified by the discovery of another means for effective, 
>that is precisely specifiable, scientifically reproducible calculation.
>Something like Douglas Adam's computational bistro would qualify :-) 
>More seriously David Deutsch has speculated that there may exist quantum
>mechanical computers that transcend Turing computation.
>
>A comment on your other posting:
>>nonsense, that there is nothing special in the analog representation of
>>information, and that digital representation is often preferable due to
>
>This is precisely the point I am trying to get at:  there may well
>be something special about raw, analog, undigitized information.
>
>To make my case more succinctly, according to QM, one can predict the
>probability of given experimental outcomes, but not the experimental
>outcome itself.  Thus a Turing machine can only calculate the probabilities
>of quantum events, not the events themselves.  The only way to determine
>the outcome of events is to look at the physical (e.g. analog) outcomes
>themselves.  Nor can heuristics such as randomly throwing non-quantum 
>dice be used to determine outcomes since nastinesses such as 
>Bell's inequalities will cause the simulation to depart from reality.  
>The only way to simulate quantum events is to carry out the full  
>complex-valued, superimposed wave state calcualtion.  Even then 
>the only result is probabilities of events, not predictions of 
>the actual events.
>
>QM is not relevant to your digitally interfaced room, but may well
>play a role in the observer within the room in a way consistent with 
>Harnad's transducer idea.  Were the digital data fed directly into a 
>Turing machine-equivalent, the result might not be conscious perception 
>in much the same way as a Turing machine cannot predict quantum
events.

A QM machine can't predict quantum events, either!

>
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

I'm quite certain that the numerical probabilities in the state
calculation are Turing computable to any desired degree of accuracy
(when our theory is adequate to set up the calculations at all), and
beyond this we cannot go; no dice-rolling, even with the benefit of
contact with real QM phenomena, will give any more information than
the bare probabilities, if QM is valid.  Nowhere do you exhibit any
evidence for a super-Turing capability coming out of QM; it is
certainly unreasonable to fault any machine for being unable to
predict what cannot be predicted, and it is not evidence for the claim
that there is a better kind of machine:  _no_ "machine" can predict QM
effects.


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


