A Turing machine is a minimal theoretical computer that could compute any algorithm in principle. Back in the 40s when Turing proposed it, it was radical because machines until then had always been built for dedicated tasks. What he defined was a device that could be progrogrammed for any computation, assuming indeed that its task was computable in the first place. Modern computers are what could be considered extensions to a Turing machine in that they are more sophisticated.
An algorithm is a deterministic set of rules to deliver a result in a finite time. Thereâs that word again â deterministic. In other words, itâs just following rules. The word âfiniteâ is important also. It doesnât matter if takes a machine a long time, say millions of years, but it must produce a result which does not require infinite resources. An algorithm is therefore both deterministic and finite (whereas the âInfinite Creatorâ is not finite).
But I would like to ask your opinion: can algorithm be not in Turing machine way as we are usually used to think? Pure algorithm, for example?
Iâm not sure I quite understand you correctly. I think what you are contemplating should not be called an âalgorithmâ.
Algorithms cannot, in my view, generate âinformationâ. They merely manipulate or transpose existing information using rules. I think all information to which we are exposed has an ultimate source â the Infinite Creator.
Back in 90s, Roger Penrose wrote a book called the âEmporerâs New Mindâ in which he suggests animal brains have deep connections to the underlying quantum world (which is not deterministic).
Here he is discussing computation (aka algoritms) and consciousness:
Iâm sorry to interrupt your dialogue. I just wanted to say that many people have tried to get to the quantum world from the point of view of the psyche, but so far I have not seen convincing works that could be purposefully applied to a human being and human societies. Maybe you are more knowledgeable than I am?
So far, Lynne McTaggartâs book The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe seems to me the most interesting at the moment.
Will add this for now. Described very well as a âcreate conditionâ:
11.18Questioner: Then we have crusaders from Orion coming to this planet for mind control purposes. How do they do this?
Ra: As all, they follow the Law of One observing free will. Contact is made with those who call. Those then upon the planetary sphere act much as do you to disseminate the attitudes and philosophy of their particular understanding of the Law of One which is service to self. These become the elite. Through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their own free will.
If you some one threatens your livelihood, or even your life, or takes away all other options in order force you to do something that you would not otherwise do⌠and you eventually do it because you feel you have no other choiceâŚ
does that count as your own free-will?
I remember asking God that questions a couple of years back.
There is a contradiction in your question Iâm trying to untangle (but cannot). Youâre saying âyou have no (other) choiceâ and asking âdoes that count as your own free-willâ at the same time. Maybe itâs a question does it count by others as your own free-will. So if you donât count why youâre asking. Maybe because in this case itâs an issue because even if you donât count you have not much to tell them against âbut you did agree/sign etc.â.
The âtrolley problemâ is incorrect. If someone put people on rails itâs not your problem what to do. If you donât touch itâs karma of who has put 'em on rails, but if you pull the lever you intrude. Itâs a third choice to avoid the incorrect choice. Very often we donât see the third choice and forget of who has created the situation, but Iâm not saying the third choice is always correct.
So Iâm not answering you but noting that the binary logic of the questionâs choice is not always binary in fact.
Also itâs more or less generally accepted that tortures is an indication that such confession is not a free-will (âlessâ because itâs not always, as for example in Crocus City Hall). But itâs still an issue because such conditions are reached gradually by small steps when people say it counts as free-will.
And I have an observation that in this binary logic if (as you say) you did something they will say âyou did it by your own choiceâ, if you didnât do they will say âyou didnât do by your own choiceâ, so they are trying to ignore your third choice (which is ignore the wrong choice). Quiet quitting - is another example of the third choice.
We all know that you are news - but are you king King of the Jews?
I understand the issue of false dichotomies. Moreover, I agree with you about the trolley problem. But try expressing it in a real world situation, and watch how shocked people are and how they look on you as a moral misfit!
But there is some dilemma here in connection to the question of free-will. I grappled with it a couple of years back, as I have said, and Iâm reminded of a piece I wrote in which I expressed the following:
âMy consent may be taken by force, but I do not give it freely.â
Indeed, I am aware of the contradiction here but it alludes to the heart of matter.
Hereâs another question I guess, but thereâs no dilemma here for meâŚ
If you feed poison to a trusting animal, could you then declare that the animal ate it because of its own free-will?
Something about this reminds me of
vocabulary, as if the extent of a personâs
vocabulary are like rails limiting where
language can take them. The Ra Materials
seems chocked full of obscure words
Iâd guess many people donât comprehend
well. But in the chance they strive to
understand context and meaning then
might that drag them along to new
horizons? This spills into the idea of
reading the Law of One in another
language with a similar striving to seek
context and meaning - which then may
extend the reach of their rails. Language
translation tools seem a growing
beneficial influence of AI interaction,
for many, many literary works. The
effort to provide access to the Law of
One in many languages seems admirable,
thank you for multi-lingual outreach.
Maybe the answer is here, but I cannot go on further. If we talk about aggression we think itâs partial (they force to do, but you direct the hand to sign). But when the event is happened we treat it like boolean and donât know how to deal with it:
I know whatâs wrong with copyright and why it has negative pattern. If one makes a chair he says he spent energy on that that´s why he wants it to be compensated. Similarly if one spent time on composing a song or heâs a Fraunhofer Society created mp3 algorithm and stating he wants payment for that (âdo you want it for free or what?â) this payment question is addressed to those who takes. But letâs address the payment question to those who created: âHow much do you want for that?â. Current status intends to say the amount is infinite, and thatâs wrong just because itâs a slave concept. Even starting from such statement (itâs needed to be compensated) the demander does not says how much and heâs inconsistent in that.
Because information has different nature.
Edit: Also such concept requires all states in Earthâs map to support it, otherwise it tends to collapse (because it can be easily copied in a separate state - as I said because of nature of information). And it contradicts with statement each state has own policy (not saying about Universe).
