• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Interesting Items...

I did watch maybe half an hour of The Matrix, but was disappointed that there were no matrices in it, not even linear operators or vector spaces, so I gave up.

One matrix sounds rather lonely, anyway.
 
Black Hole said:
We could be all entities in a computer simulation
Click to expand...
Now that would be boring. But if the computer were particularly simple, say a Turing Machine or iMac, you wouldn't even be conscious of what was going on. So, in that sense, you would notice the difference,
 
Black Hole said:
No you wouldn't - the simulation (including the simulation of your own consciousness) would merely be running extremely slowly (and so would your perception of it).
Click to expand...
Rubbish! How could a read write head and tape possibly produce consciousness? It has to come from the particular structure of the brain, possibly its complexity and density.
 
You're either trying to wind me up deliberately, or you are not appreciating the full consequences of running the universe as a computer simulation. If I am just code, reacting to stimuli generated by other pieces of code, time is meaningless. The processor can take as long as it needs to work out what the next stimulus should be - and as a Turing Machine is capable of anything any other universal computer can do (albeit inefficiently), that's all it needs to be.
 
Can a Turing machine jump into the air? Paint a picture? Sing? Boil a kettle? Be sad?

You are confusing abstract computations with physical processes. There is nothing in the abstract theory of computations which says a computer can do anything, just that one computer can emulate the calculations of another.

If such a simulation were possible, and you thought you were part of it, then you would know you weren't, because the computations would not be self aware. But, of course, quantum mechanics and uncertainty would prevent the computation from happening, or make it depart from what it intended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you're definitely missing the point.

How do you know you are jumping in the air? Only by the sensory inputs. My perception of self-awareness is only the product of computation.
 
Black Hole said:
No, you're definitely missing the point.

How do you know you are jumping in the air? Only by the sensory inputs. My perception of self-awareness is only the product of computation.
Click to expand...
But what place do sensory inputs have in computing? If you run a computer program, all you get is a computer program running, especially on a Turing Machine. All that happens is a tape being written and moved left and right.
 
Could this be a BH5? Of course, it is only given 2 stars in today's paper:

Code: 
   ———————————————————————
  |   |   |   |   | X | O |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  | X |   | X |   |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   |   |   | O |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   | X |   |   | X |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  | O |   |   |   |   | O |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   | X |   | O |   |   |
   ———————————————————————
 
Black Hole said:
:dunno:

I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...
I am always deliberately obtuse! No, are you talking of an analogue computer or digital? If the former, what you say might be possible, but Occam's razor would exclude it as an unnecessary assumption.

For a digital computer, no, what you say is not possible, and doesn't even make sense! The simple reason is that although a computer might be able to calculate what everything in the universe is doing, debatable, that is not the same as actually creating that universe, see Turing Machine, which can obviously creare nothing.

There may be another reason why such a computer is impossible. It would have to include itself in its simulation, and that sounds suspiciously like the halting problem paradox.
 
At last, a (2-star) Kurosu I think I can award ●︎●︎●︎●︎●︎

Code: 
   ———————————————————————
  | X |   |   |   |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   |   |   | X | X |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   | O |   |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   |   |   |   | O |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  | X |   |   | O | X |   |
   ———————————————————————
 
It was definitely more difficult than two stars. I did get stuck, temporarily, but still completed it within 4 minutes. I’ll hold off on giving it five stars just in case one turns up that I can’t do! ••••
 
I make them harder for myself by deliberately only considering tier 3 reasoning once tier 2 has been exhausted, but it took a while for me to spot the ---XOO >> X--XOO.
 
Yes, I usually spot those - but this morning I think I have a touch of brain fog and it took me longer to make that connection.
 
And yet they call this one 3-star (offered purely for amusement, not challenge). Can you believe that??:

Code: 
   ———————————————————————
  |   |   | O |   | X |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  | O |   |   | O |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   |   |   |   | X |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   | O |   | X |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  | X |   | O |   |   |   |
  |———|———|———|———|———|———|
  |   | O |   | X |   | O |
   ———————————————————————
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top