tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post8748850749009367493..comments2023-09-07T06:36:59.520-04:00Comments on The Virtual Philosophy Club: Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden VariablesIra Glicksteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10800080810596424897noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post-85874137716836205852013-12-02T21:06:28.139-05:002013-12-02T21:06:28.139-05:00Howard, yes, of course a digital computer will, on...Howard, yes, of course a digital computer will, on average, fail after a probabilistic number of hours that we call "Mean Time Between Failure" and MTBF for a PC is in the order of several tens of thousands of hours. Even a new computer could fail during the first hour, or it could last several times the calculated MTBF.<br /><br />In that respect, your comment that a computer is, like the sunrise "very reliable" gives the computer more credit than it deserves :^)<br /><br />By the way, when your comment came in I was just completing a re-read of our discussion from Sept 2007, where you, Joel, and I tread much the same ground and our opinions have not changed much since then.<br /><br />If anyone else is following this discussion, I recommend that they click <a href="http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2007/09/causal-determinism-was-gods-warriors.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> and read our wonderfully "scholarly" conversation from six years ago. Perhaps, like the discussions of Socrates as reported by Plato, our collegial banter will survive well after our time on Earth.<br /><br />Love from Ira Glicksteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800080810596424897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post-70206575585521869802013-12-02T20:32:55.716-05:002013-12-02T20:32:55.716-05:00Here is a better discussion of the Physics of comp...Here is a better discussion of the Physics of computers. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/VLSI/VLSIText/PP-V3/1s/V3.Ch9-1s.PDF<br /><br />HowardHoward Patteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181204289094297715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post-38983988518218984722013-12-02T20:11:35.302-05:002013-12-02T20:11:35.302-05:00Ira asks in what way a digital computer is not str...Ira asks in what way a digital computer is not strictly deterministic.<br /><br />Computers are not Platonic forms. They are made of matter and dissipate energy. They are limited by the laws of physics. See for example a discussion of these limits at<br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf<br /><br />To keep the argument simple, the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure)of our best transistor gates is ~10^14 operations. That alone violates strict determinism<br /><br />HowardHoward Patteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181204289094297715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post-73717878315347470802013-12-02T12:35:57.259-05:002013-12-02T12:35:57.259-05:00Howard, thanks for your comment.
In what way is a...Howard, thanks for your comment.<br /><br />In what way is a digital computer, running a "random number generator" with a previously used initial "seed" NOT "<i>strictly</i> deterministic"? I agree if there is a hardware failure, the "random" sequence may terminate or be different, but, absent a failure, the sequence will be bit-for-bit the same, will it not?<br /><br />By coincidence (or perhaps pre-determined?) only a few hours before you posted your comment, someone I do not know, came from Google to this Blog and landed on <a href="http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2007/09/causal-determinism-was-gods-warriors.html" rel="nofollow">this topic from 2007</a> where I make the same point and you, Joel, and I have a similar discussion about determinism. For some reason, I happened to look at the "Live Traffic Feed" in the right hand column of this Blog and I noticed his or her action. All I know about this person is that he or she was surfing with a Firefox 25.0 browser and Windows Vista. <br /><br />I had forgotten about that specific Topic from SIX years ago, but I clicked on the link in the "Live Traffic Feed" and there was my great Topic on "Causal Determinism" along with your excellent comments!<br /><br />As Chairman of my PhD Committee, you may remember that, as part of my work I did an Independent Study for Prof. Augie Mueller of the Biology Department where I built a computer simulation of the evolution of life called "Hexlife" and that Prof. David Sloan Wilson was quite interested in it and had me present it to his Biology Seminar.<br /><br />Quoting from the 2007 Topic: <br />"HexLife is a very well-controlled situation and the model for my concept of causal determinism. It is run within a PC and is therefore both finite and discrete.<br /><br />"I make use of the PC 'random number generator' to determine when and where genetic mutations and crossovers occur, how much of the 'sunlight energy' falls on any given location, and so on. However, I allow the user to select one of a number of pre-set 'initial random seeds' (or make up his or her own). Thus, if something interesting happens during a given run, that run can be repeated and will proceed bit-for-bit in the exact sequence to allow the user to analyze and exactly recreate that interesting event. In that sense, HexLife is perfectly predictable, so long as the PC does not malfunction.<br /><br />"In any case, I was quite pleased when my HexLife program turned out to exhibit a logarithmic 'power spectrum' of extinctions (many small extinctions, a lesser frequency of moderate extinctions, and few large extinctions) just as Stephen J. Gould ('punctuated equilibrium') says characterizes the evolutionary history of life on earth! ...<br /><br />"Although not specifically programmed to do so, the total living biomass increases as new organisms evolve and become more effective at exploiting the environment and other organisms. The biomass stabilizes as a balance is reached between resources (dead matter and energy available in each location). Then, as yet other organisms evolve, there are extinctions, which are noted as significant reductions in the living biomass. Extinctions are characterized on a logarithmic scale and, amazingly, each increment of the scale eventually gets about the same number of extinctions. ..."<br /><br />We know there are almost certainly millions of "Earth-like" planets in the Universe and at least some of them have independently evolved biological life. We would not expect the same DNA code we find on Earth, but I believe you would agree there would be some kind of DNA-like memory and some code. Also, I would expect Gould-like "punctuated equilibrium".<br /><br />So, at least that type of statistical determinism (like the very close to 50/50 results we can count on from a fair coin "randomly" flipped thousands of times) can be counted on. <br /><br />Ira GlicksteinIra Glicksteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800080810596424897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429570072441023296.post-12518812377398442382013-12-02T00:03:57.718-05:002013-12-02T00:03:57.718-05:00Good review, but a computer is not strictly determ...Good review, but a computer is not <i>strictly</i> deterministic. It is just very reliable, like sunrise.<br /><br />HowardHoward Patteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181204289094297715noreply@blogger.com