> In a message dated 98-10-21 14:11:42 EDT, email@example.com (Joe
> >1. What physical process in nostalgia nature cannot be emulated in a
> > Turing equivalent machine such that Artificial Reality (AR) couldn't
> > emulate Real Reality (RR) with 365 times speedup, thus providing a
> > satisfactory "connection to ordinary physical reality" for
> Just about any chemical process. The best computers in the world
> yet fold proteins in any length of time, but you fold a couple
trillion > > per
Who me? Oh yea, thats right. I almost forgot to fold a few trillion of them in the last second - I must have been distracted :-) Last time I went on a nature hike however, I don't recall noticing that level of detail. If you did, I admire your perception, but I'd have to stay away from that trail for my version of R&R.
> Likewise the fastest reactions are far too fast for any transistor or
> abacus arm, even nanoscale ones.
Not too fast however, to simulate their macroscopic effects for many applications. Unless your studying chemistry. Maybe experimental chemists will be motivated to become Lilliputian Posthumians.
Physical limits to switching speed is a good argument against Von Neumann architecture capabilities, but those limits are not as negative for other architectures.
> You may also be able to simulate human experience
> without bothering with complex chemistry, but that remains to be seen.
Very good arguments supporting this are available today. Very good refutations of those arguments remains to be seen.