Best Computer Science School in Utah

Steve smorrey at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 22:00:38 MDT 2007


I'm not saying they are either possible nor impossible.

I'm saying that given our current understanding, they appear to be impossible.
But I will take the patent office viewpoint on them.  I'll believe in
them when I can see a working prototype complete with an explanation
of how it works.

http://www.google.com/patents?q=Perpetual+Motion&btnG=Search+Patents

Same thing with computing.
How much of computing science is going to become irrelevant should
quantum computing take off?  How many new laws are waiting to be
discovered?


On 9/26/07, Levi Pearson <levi at cold.org> wrote:
> Steve <smorrey at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Then again the basic assumptions are really just best guess models to
> > describe what we observe.
> >
> <nice history of scientific advancements and theory refinements snipped>
>
> Are you telling me that perpetual motion machines are, in fact,
> possible?  Because I'm aware of all that stuff you said (and you did
> say it well), but I still say perpetual motion machines are
> impossible, and I don't think I'm going to miss out on anything for
> believing so.
>
> By show of hands, who believes that perpetual motion machines are not
> impossible?
>
> Computing is another matter entirely.  We're not trying to uncover the
> basic laws of computation through experiment.  We know the basic laws
> because we invented them and built machines to exactingly implement
> them.  When a computer scientist tells you something is not computable
> and provides a proof, you can be quite certain that if the proof
> holds, he's 100% correct.  And I believe this is the real context
> we're discussing, not the realm of physics.
>
>                 --Levi
>
>
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>



More information about the PLUG mailing list