On Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM, Robin Vickery <robinv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
>
> I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
> pendulum to demarcate units of time then the pendulum is obviously
> part of the machine.
>
> But if I make a computer that uses the physical properties of a
> radio-isotope to generate random numbers, you seem to be be saying
> that the radio-isotope is not part of the machine, but instead part of
> nature.
When a pendulum swings, it's slowed, stopped, and reverses
direction based upon the equal-opposite force from a combination of
gravity and the machine to which it's attached. It is then a part of
the machine.
A radioactive isotope will decay on its own, regardless of
influence from the machine with which it is being monitored.
So your argument, creating a likeness between two unrelated parts,
is equivalent to saying that all of nature is potentially part of all
machines.
If I want to turn on a light at random, I could attach an X10
motion detector to a tree in the woods. When a deer happens to walk
by, it would trip the motion detector and activate the receiver, which
would then allow electricity to flow and power the lamp. By your
definition (and please don't take this message as accusatory, it's
simply for the love of argument, not a personal attack as some would
believe), the deer is then part of the machine, despite it's
predetermined and/or externally-influenced (hunting season!) choice of
path.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
