Fundamental Compressionist Philosophy.

[Detlef Morgenstern]

-- Does a falling stone compute? --

Yes. It represents a complex network of differential equations
reflecting these physical phenomena:
- cinematics
- gravity
- principle of the conservation of energy
- aerodynamics
and - if fast enough -
- thermodynamics, gas dynamics, and optics.

Why would everyone oppose?
We associate the term 'computing' with, at least, these two features:
- can program it    (programmable computer)
- can program it to reflect any law (regularity) I want
  (universal (programmable) computer).

Computing:
I give a (request) pattern to my computer,
and my computer returns a (response) pattern.

Programming:
I give a (program) pattern to my computer defining
which (response) pattern should be given
in return to which (request) pattern.

Hence, a computer must be able
- to detect a (request) pattern
- to asscociate a (request) pattern to a (reply) pattern
- to create a (reply) pattern.

For a programmable computer, the
- set of request patterns
- set of reply patterns
- set of request->reply associations
can be arbitrarily modified.

We can program by instructing - modifying a set of connected switches
in a way that they will reproduce the desired request->reply
associations.
We can program by training - presenting the desired request->reply
associations to a computer which was instructed beforehand to learn
our lecture.

Two-state switches are a minimal physical implementation of a thing
that
- can detect a pattern
- can associate one pattern to another
- can create a pattern.

Here, Andrew, I agree.
But then you write:
> Since the only active part of this system would be the switches,
> it would then be undeniable that they were solely responsible
> for all of its algorithmic functionality.

Same I could say:
'Since the only active part of French cuisine would be electrons,
protons and neutrons,
it would then be undeniable that they were solely responsible
for all of its aromatic functionality.'

Which still unanswered question can be answered, knowing that
(binary) computing rests on switches?

I think, we have to dig a little deeper.
How must we arrange the switches that least effort is needed to
instruct the system for the set of desired request->reply
associations?

We can approach this from the content side - which Gerry is doing.
We can approach this from the hardware side - which I try to tackle.
How?

Externally, a computer must be able
- to detect (request) patterns
- to asscociate (request) patterns to (reply) patterns
- to create (reply) patterns.
So why not make this the sole internal principle of the computer?
Understand a computer's internal communication as
- each unit of the computer can detect  (request) patterns
- each unit of the computer can asscociate (request) patterns to
(reply) patterns
- each unit of the computer can create (reply) patterns
      and:
- the reply of one unit becomes the request to another unit.

Gerry mentions a 'cost of processing'. I think, it is even harder.
We must consider the 'cost of programming'.
If we earn less from a computing program than we had to invest in
programming it, we lose.

I can imagine computing without compression, if computing is
understood as
'I give a (request) pattern to my computer, and my computer returns a
(response) pattern.'

It is difficult to imagine computing without programming.

I can imagine programming without compression:
Put all the desired request->reply associations into your computer,
say, as a large lookup table (which is a kind of trivial 'training').

It is difficult to imagine an *efficient* way of programming which
has nothing to do with compression.

Along this longer chain
Computing <-> Programming <-> Programming Efficiency <-> Compression
I accept CasC.

Programming as a means of arranging causal (request->reply &
reply->request) chains.
Computing as causality running along these chains.

Regards,

Detlef



__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de