4 ms·

Is the catenary example just a case of really fast computation? Using the substrate computer directly is faster than using an emulated computer atop it. A real

Is the catenary example just a case of really fast computation? Using the substrate computer directly is faster than using an emulated computer atop it. A real scene renders faster than any raytracer. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we treat the mind as an analogy with the high tech of each epoch, steam electricity computation. But Turing equivalence exists. I haven't found Roger Penrose's arguments about quantum computation in mitochondrial microtubules very compelling.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
>> Is the catenary example just a case of really fast computation? It is, but I think its speed comes from the fact that it doesn't have to go through any discrete states during the computation. There's a start state where the weights are hung off the chain, then the end state where it settles into a new shape, but what is between? An infinite number of states? You can perturb it, even, while it's settling, and it will still not change its end state, which is not something you can do to any kind of machine. The computation is also "free" as in gravity. I don't know how we could build a machine to do that and I don't think we can describe it as a Turing machine. Btw, what makes it a computational device is that the shape of the catenary matches the shape of a load-bearing arch. It's one physical system calculating another. So it's not just using the physics of one system to calculate itself. But you are right. The universe calculates its own state faster than any computer running in-universe could. Well, why? That's just one thing we don't fully understand. Maybe thinking of the universe as a computer is applying the wrong analogy, and maybe we do the same thing with minds, as you say about electricity etc. I can't say I understand Penrose's arguments very well. I'm not a phycisist. Turing equivalence exists, of course. But there is something to the fact that I don't get stuck in a loop if I think that "this sentence is false".

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

>> Is the catenary example just a case of really fast computation? It is, but I think its speed comes from the fact that it doesn't have to go through any discrete states during the computation. There's a start state where the weights are hung off the chain, then the end state where it settles into a new shape, but what is between? An infinite number of states? You can perturb it, even, while it's settling, and it will still not change its end state, which is not something you can do to any kind of machine. The computation is also "free" as in gravity. I don't know how we could build a machine to do that and I don't think we can describe it as a Turing machine. Btw, what makes it a computational device is that the shape of the catenary matches the shape of a load-bearing arch. It's one physical system calculating another. So it's not just using the physics of one system to calculate itself. But you are right. The universe calculates its own state faster than any computer running in-universe could. Well, why? That's just one thing we don't fully understand. Maybe thinking of the universe as a computer is applying the wrong analogy, and maybe we do the same thing with minds, as you say about electricity etc. I can't say I understand Penrose's arguments very well. I'm not a phycisist. Turing equivalence exists, of course. But there is something to the fact that I don't get stuck in a loop if I think that "this sentence is false".