From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Mar 24 09:57:56 EST 1992
Article 4654 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Summary: Big automata need big boulders
Message-ID: <45263@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 92 18:21:23 GMT
References: <1992Mar18.095140.9984@husc3.harvard.edu> <45094@dime.cs.umass.edu> <11354@cs.jhu.edu> <6711@pkmab.se>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 22

In article <6711@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:

 >In article <11354@cs.jhu.edu> 
 	orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
 
 	>>there are an infinite number of possible FSA traces.
 
 >If we're talking about nonphysical mappings anyway, why don't you make
 >each state infinitely short, and compress the infinite number of possible
 >traces onto the rock anyway?

This may be the same as David Chalmers' point that "Putnam needn't assume an 
infinite number of physical states for his argument."
	My concern is that if the physical states are extremely short,
then his assumptions of continuity and distinctness are false (or at 
the least, arguable).  It is important for his argument that the 
physical states are distinct, and if you chop time finely enough,
this is not clearly the case.
	This is why I feel that his result cannot be true as he stated
it (even for his weak form of realization), without specifying some
limitations on the size of the FSA with respect to the size of the
physical system: the automaton/rock ratio, so to speak.


