From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Theoretical Computer Science
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:46:45 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau31.ira.uka.de

In article <Bz3ytM.7xp@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1g85nrINNoo8@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes in part:
>...
>|> problem. It *may* be able to determine a solution for SOME problems,
>|> but not more. (Remember that the Halting Problem is not about
>|> determining infinite loops in some programs, but in ANY program. That
>|> is a big difference.)
>And if even a few problems can be solved this way, the theory is
>"a little bit pregnant".

No, you've misunderstood me. The Halting Problem is: "Find an
algorithm that determines for *every* algorithm if it halts". This
algorithm gets proven impossible if you try it on the negation of
itself.

Given a certain subset of all possible algorithm, it may (or may not -
one possible criterion is given by Rice's Theorem) be possible to
determine their halting behaviour. The Halting Problem as stated by
Turing is only about the special set of *all* possible algorithms.

If you show that a "solution by ESP" works on a subset of algorithms
not covered by the criteria of Rice's Theorem, you have gained
nothing.

>|> Right, but the mere existence of such phenomena does not imply that
>|> they would make code-breaking easier.
>All that matters is that they MIGHT make code-breaking easier.  If
>that is true, then the entire purpose of the code is undermined.

You're right in this, but consider that this does not only apply to
encryption conceived and done by CS methods, but just to *everything*
you want to keep secret in one way or another. (Think about the
password file on your computer, which is probably DES encrypted; if I
can "read your mind" I'm able to determine your password even without
being able to break DES, if by ESP or not...)

>|> No doubt that this would be interesting and leading to new textbooks.
>|> :-) But to design a machine to have ESP abilities, you first had to
>|> have a working theory on how ESP works (yet to come), then this theory
>|> had to imply that ESP can be done with certain machines (doubtful), it
>|> had to imply that ESP is based on a formal system, (which is the only
>|> thing that can be done which machines that are defined as formal
>|> systems themselves) which is even more unlikely given the fact that
>|> there exist concise theories on certain phenomena that CANNOT be
>|> described by formal systems (take the position of an electron in an
>|> atom. This is impossible to determine, as quantum mechanics shows).
>
>Recall that the entire discussion was based on the PREMISE that 
>ESP exists (which I doubt).  Since noone can describe it,
>it is impossible to say what it ISN'T.

There have been efforts to describe what it *is*, and these are by now
mainly based on individual experiences gathered, despite that noone
has yet found out *how* it works. I know this is a flaw, but so far we
have to live (and argue) with what is there.

>You seem to think that computers are not physical entities!
>I would point out that, if ESP exists and is mediated by some
>not-yet-known mechanism, there is no reason why the mechanism
>cannot, in principle, be used by machine (since we don't know
>anything about it).  You seem to dismiss the possibility of

Not the possibility, rather the likeliness. I simply see no way to
match the ESP phenomena known by now into the formal systems that make
up computers. There may well be a possibility to match ESP into
electronical (or whatever) devices, but this would require rewriting
the theoretical premises on how these machines work too.

>circuits or devices which might interface between conventional
>materials and "ESP-mitters" or whatever.  Remember, real,
>physical, computers operate by using the very same quantum 
>phenomena you indicate are indescribable by formal systems!

Wrong. Electronical computers use the macroscopic effect of electric
current, which is on its level measurable and describable. This
consists of the *sum* of many individual electrons which are by
themselves not describable, but this doesn't matter, like the exact
position of each electron in a molecule (which is not measurable) is
not needed to describe the molecule in its entirety (distribution of
mass, for example).

>(The software engineers mottoe:  there will be new hardware 
>next year, and then all our problems will be over! :-))

Seems like *you* use this motto. (There will be ESP hardware...)

>When there is a theory of ESP, I will use it.  Until then I use
>the union of all claims made about it.  (Bear in mind that this
>is for purposes of argument.)

Why use the union rather the intersection of claims? Because that
would leave too little to argue about? ;-)

Seriously, with this argument you can put claims in my mouth that I
never supported, based on some other people supporting them. We should
restrict our arguments against each other to what was claimed by each
other. 

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal