[extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations

[Anna Taylor]

Lee wrote:
>I think I see your meaning: it would be possible with
>such machinery to exhibit any moment in the *past*,
>but moving around information instantaneously
>entirely in the present seems very problematic. To
>exhibit your current moment to you, the GOD would
>have to have already known it before your present
>moment was computed. 

I can see how threw reading history it could be
possible to imagine machinery to exhibit any moment in
the past, I could see how in philosophy, the
probability that moving around information
instantaneously may seem problematic, and based on my
beliefs, "God does have to have already known it
before your present moment was computed".

>The model which we were thinking about, however, did
>not contain ---I think it's proper to say---an
>observer. We were discussing a computation of a
>subject, that is, of an entity, and that being need
>not have any sense experience to confuse the issue. 

>Then the next step was to load a sequence of such
>states into storage so that a "movie" could be
re->run, or load them into a look-up table using for
the >address a perfect hash function of the state. 

Would that mean either the movie is being re-run or it
is being written at new? What makes for a really block
buster movie, a re-run or a newly written script?

Even if you load it into a table, you won't know what
to pick out.  What will be the best run of a database
program? A13+D42 or A1 + B1 or A1+ (T1+D42) +
{(T2-T1)(A13..ect..)
It's not about how many words/numbers you have in a
database, it's how you correlate the database, what
questions you ask of it based on what answers you
expect/want from it.

Thanks Lee, always a pleasure, you always come back
with something out there and creative.
Anna:)





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com