Turning a Light Switch On & Off

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

"This means, he conceded when asked in an interview, that even a bucket of rusting nails should have, in principle, the computational oomph of a desktop computer, a human brain or the universe itself."

― Forte, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

LINK

― Forte, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I can't be bothered registering to see whatever you've linked to. This is quantum computing, something that has generated a talk:results ratio of several billion to one. Or to none, possibly. It is nonetheless endlessly fascinating.

― Martin Skidmore, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

talk: results ratio of several billion to one = ilx

― mark s, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Not quantum computing but rather what seems a rather daft attempt to translate mathmatical theorems into philisophical outcomes.

In brief, what the author misses is that yes SOME systems and patterns equivilent to automata get VERY COMPLICATED VERY FAST but that still MANY MANY others dampen and fade into statistical meaninglessness. This is the same sort of stupid popularizing that was going on around chaos theory a few years back.

― Sterling Clover, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha I'm not going to read this but is it stephen wolfram? what a nutjob.

― Josh, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes.

― Kris, Tuesday, 11 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but sterl a BUTTERFLY is FLAPPING ITS WINGS over TOKYO therefore you are abt to swept away by a TIDAL WAVE!! QED!!

― mark s, Wednesday, 12 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

and oh don't get me wrong stephen wolfram is super-smart I am sure and understands all the common objections to his bullshit. it's the 'inventing a new way to do science' and the publishing his own book so he can get all the printing right that contributes to the nutjobness. I haven't seen his book anywhere yet but the key part I think would be where he says what you're supposed to to instead of THE WAY ALL SCIENCE AND MATH HAVE BEEN DONE UNTIL NOW. get the impresion that it is something dodgy like 'run lots of c.a. in mathematica and PICTURES COME OUT, DON'T YOU SEE YOU FOOLS'

― Josh, Wednesday, 12 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

BUT IS IT ART YOU HARLOTS?

― Queen G of the lamenting anal labias, Wednesday, 12 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

five years pass...

I believe that a bucket of rusting nails has unlimited computational power. But it has a really shitty user interface.

― Aimless, Saturday, 14 July 2007 17:32 (eighteen years ago)

how is it that the linked nytimes article isn't behind a pay wall? anybody?

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 14 July 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

it is for me

― Lingbert, Saturday, 14 July 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

I didn't read the article, but would a rusted bucket of nails know how to turn a light switch on or off?

― Pleasant Plains, Saturday, 14 July 2007 20:03 (eighteen years ago)

It knows, but won't do it without better working conditions.

― Aimless, Saturday, 14 July 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

Lingbert, i "registered" with nytimes.com long ago but have never paid any money to them

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:37 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.