4 ms·
That's not useful by itself, because "anything cam model anything else" doesn't put any upper bound on emulation cost, which for one small task could be larger
by lupire 2y ago
That's not useful by itself, because "anything cam model anything else" doesn't put any upper bound on emulation cost, which for one small task could be larger than the total energy available in the entire Universem
- pixl97 2y agoI mean, that is why they mention super-Turning processes like quantum based computing.
- dinosaurdynasty 2y agoQuantum computing actually isn't super-Turing, it "just" computes some things faster. (Strictly speaking it's somewhere between a standard Turing machine and a nondeterministic Turing machine in speed, and the first can emulate the second.)
- staunton 2y agoIf we're nitpicking: quantum computing algorithms could (if implemented) compute certain things faster than the best classical algorithms we know. We don't know any quantum algorithms that are provably faster than all possible classical algorithms.
- dinosaurdynasty 2y agoWell yeah, we haven't even proved that P != NP yet.
- red75prime 2y agoEither the brain violates the physical Church-Turing thesis or it's not. If it does, well, it will take more time to incorporate those physical mechanisms into computers to get them on par with the brain. I leave the possibility that it's "magic"[1] aside. It's just impossible to predict, because it will violate everything we know about our physical world. [1] One example of "magic": we live in a simulation and the brain is not fully simulated by the physics engine, but creators of the simulation for some reason gave it access to computational resources that are impossible to harness using the standard physics of the simulated world. Another example: interactionistic soul.