From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Jun 23 13:21:12 EDT 1992
Article 6311 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Digital Better?
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.191429.2447@cs.ucf.edu>
Keywords: digital analog quantum
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jun17.182829.18441@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 19:14:29 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <1992Jun17.182829.18441@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil  
Rickert) writes:
> 
> 	anything analog can do,
> 	  digital can do better.
> 	digital can do anything
> 	  better than that.
> 

This is an unproven belief.  Perhaps you can point me at 
references that demonstrate the superiority of digital.
(Flames to rec.audio :-)

The converse is an unproven belief also.  But here I must
invoke my favorite dead horse as evidence in favor.

I don't think anyone has done a rigorous quantum mechanical 
analysis of the A/D process, but my intution is that it 
would show that an A/D conversion is essentially an
observation in the sense of quantum mechanics.  Thus
a system employing A/D conversion would not enjoy certain
quantum subtleties arising from intereference.  (Depending on
what interpretation you favor, the A/D collapses the wave
function, takes a particular branch in the tree of worlds, or
is part of an apparatus which permits only certain 
measurements to be made)

This may have nothing to do with AI, or natural I, but I think
it is far from certain that digital is better than analog or the
converse.
  
--
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


