Re: posibilites
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:04:00 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@ gems.vcu.edu
reply to Jeff Prideaux....(welcome back!)
In the Machine/metaphor book, Dawdney refers to a non-Turing version of
"Physical computers". [Also in "Intelligence, the eye the brain and the
computer" , M. A. Fishler and O. Firschein, Addison Wesley, 1987....text for
my "complexity" course last time]. These include....the spaghetti computer, the
rubber band comp., the string comp. and the soap bubble comp. Each seems to
overcome some limitation on the Turing computer.
In "Chaotic Logic" by Goertzel, [Plenum, 1994], he critiques Kampis' and
seems to agree that life is NOT Turing computable. He assserts that it may
be "stochastic computable" but apparently without proof.
Rosen asks us to go beyonsd the traditional bounds of "objective"/
"sublective" distinctions and extend the notion of objective beyond the Church-T
uring thesis border. He uses protein folding as an example in one instance.
Forgive me, but does the categorization you propose coincide with these
ideas or not. your use of the word "computable" is not clear.
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky