= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mitchell_Porter comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
Are you saying, then, that the meaning of a computation depends on what the user thinks or the programmer intends, rather than being intrinsic to the computation?
Well, it could depend on what the computation thinks.
But my point was that the brick wall doesn't keep track of the ball.
Whether a robot tennis player keeps track of the ball or not doesn't depend on what I think it does or how I thought I designed it. It is a fact of the matter.
Suppose I dip the ball in paint before I start hitting it against the wall, so it leaves paintmarks there. Is the wall keeping track of the ball now?
You can't keep track of sheep by dropping pebbles down a well.