You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

SodaPopinski comments on Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 02 November 2015 10:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SodaPopinski 06 November 2015 01:42:37AM 0 points [-]

I agree with your sentiment. I am hoping though that one can define formally what a computation is given a physical system. Perhaps you are on to something with the causal requirement, but I think this is hard to pin down precisely. The noise is still being caused by the previous state of the system, so how can we sensibly talk about cause in a physical system. It seems like we would be more interested in 'causes' associated to more agent-like objects like an engine than formless things like the previous state of a cloud of gas. Actually I think Caspar's article was trying to formalize something like this but I don't understand it that well: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/msg/publication_on_formalizing_preference/

Comment author: Houshalter 07 November 2015 09:43:12PM 2 points [-]

Read Causal Universes first if you haven't.

I think causality is the only requirement for "computation". Step A causes step B. A computation has happened. If A and B are independent, then there is no computation happening..