Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!torn!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Randomness and free will
Message-ID: <DMBo00.7A@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <823175308.29461@ray.division.co.uk> <1996Feb1.192126.28158@nb.rockwell.com> <4evu83$neg@longwood.cs.ucf.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 21:35:59 GMT
Lines: 57
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:169400 comp.ai:36757 comp.ai.philosophy:37428 sci.philosophy.meta:24215

In article <4evu83$neg@longwood.cs.ucf.edu>,
Tom Clarke <clarke@longwood.cs.ucf.edu> wrote:
>yqg023@sunshine.rockwell.com ( Jim Glass ; JF ; GLASS ; x586-0375 ; (W) ; 634-000) writes:
>
>>In article <823175308.29461@ray.division.co.uk>, ray@division.co.uk (Ray McConnell) writes:
>>|> 
>
>>A random robot is still a robot.
>
>This is an open question.  If the randomness of the robot is
>via a random number generator, then the various results about
>the capabilities of Turing machines + random number generator
>show that no new and interesting behavior should be expected -
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Turing machine (robot) would still behavre mechanically
>(like a robot).
>
Depends on your definition of "new and interesting". Since the alphabet has
a finite number of characters, you seem to be implying that no text of final
length can contain anything "new and interesting". How come you seem to be
reading the usenet postings? If the number of the possible combinations is
so large that they could not be exhausted during the lifetime of the universe
(perhaps just even the lifetime of the human race), then the above "in
principle " argument is totally meaningless.

>If the randomness arises from some sort of quantum hardware
>making essential use of quantum coherence effects, then there
>are no theorems yet relating what the quantum machine can computer
>versus conventional Turing machines.  For example quantum computers
>may be able to solve NP problems, maybe not.
>A robotic machine using quantum phenomena thus might be able to
>utilize the solutions of problems beyond conventional computers
>and thus exhibit non-mechanical or non-robotic behavior.
>
>These are special times in computational research.
>
As I have pointed out above, a simple calculation of the number of possible
states in the brain (classical), taking just 10^11 0-1 neurons (and the brain
is definitely more complex than this) gives you enough states for any purpose
you can dream of (and much, much more) _without_ invoking QM.

>Tom Clarke
>
>-- 
>There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>                                     Hamlet - Shakespeare
>
Very true, there is no need to invent the new ones.

Andrzej

-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
