181–183 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atoms don't decay? Radioactive decay isn't a thing? But at least we agree there is nothing we can predict.
We can predict decay process as sqrt(1-exp(-t/T))|1> + sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can predict decay process as sqrt(1-exp(-t/T))|1> + sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>
If I were to give you ten atoms of Po210, could you tell me which one will be next to turn into Pb206. What's your algorithm to do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more concise explanation is that, computation is the transformation of information. Any transformation of information is computation, and is thus subject to some theory of computation. A physical process involves the transformation of information, so can be studied with a theory of computation.
> A physical process involves the transformation of information, so can be studied with a theory of computation. A rock rolling downhill has state-dependent future behavior you could describe informationally, but nothing is gained by modeling it with automata theory instead of Newtonian mechanics, and it isn't computing in any substantive sense.