I suspect that is wrong. What specifically is hyper computation?
-
-
Replying to @onnlucky
Hypercomputation is a domain of decidable but only approximately computable problems. For instance, most of geometry is decidable but not computable with finite resources. The three body problem is another well-known example.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
But computation, and the problems you compute on, are two different categories.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For example, what if I implement a Turing machine by using aperiodic tilings (or some other Penrose ideas) such that running this machine for any significant program is decidable but not computable?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @onnlucky
Yes, you can use computable models to explore uncomputable domains, such as the real numbers. You can also use such uncomputable constructs to define Turing machines, but you cannot implement them. The set of hypercomputatable functions is a true superset of the computable ones.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
So to your original tweet. Were you implying there could be another kind of compute? Or was it a statement on complexity classes?pic.twitter.com/2EVsZ5yQyB
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @onnlucky
The classically computable universe is the set of mappings between the integers. Traditional physics assumes geometric hypercomputation, i.e. allows the universe to implement continuous functions between the reals. Quantum mechanics allows functions from reals to complex and back
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I always think of QM as lazy evaluation, needed to keep the universe computable under time dilation, which was needed to prevent runaway information.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @onnlucky
QM is what happens when you consider particles and space to be real and project one into the other.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Not sure if particles are real, only in the sense that water waves are real. But it can be both at the same time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, I think like water waves particles only have an approximate existence. The weird thing is that we are made from particles, so we also only exist approximately, with respect to the substrate. When we see the substrate decohere, it is actually us who are losing coherence.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.