From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@rawbw.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2008 - 23:08:07 MDT
John Clark writes
> Lee Corbin said:
>
>> they are not running on the same machine
>
> How does the program know that? And that's the important question; I
> don't care if objectively I'm dead as long as subjectively I'm alive.
(BTW, would you mind supplying a bit more context, like just what
question I was trying to answer? I just don't remember exactly where
we are in these multiple threads, especially with a brain that badly
needs an upgrade. And besides, I've been spoiled by Stathis and
some of the other superb communicators on this list.)
Ah... well... all in a night's work. I'll go back and quote more of
what I said (and maybe what you said) <sighs with great weariness>
Oh, that wasn't too hard to find. I didn't post but one or two items
in this thread. Whew!
Said I:
>> Heartland wrote
>>
>> > you can't seem to comprehend why you could have the same process
>> > using different atoms and different processes using the same atoms.
>>
>> John, let's say that you have purchased one copy of a simple computer
>> program, and you run it on two of your ancient 286 Intel machines
>> under QNX or MS-DOS or whatever OS is on them.
>>
>> The two processes, though on different machines, are identical to me.
>> That is, what can you [say] about one process that you can't say about
>> the other, except for "they are not running on the same machine",
>> "they were not started at exactly the same time", and "one may be
>> executing slightly more slowly than the other for some dumb reason".
>
> And just what is so different about these different machines? Why atoms
> of course, it always comes back to atoms.
WELL, SO WHAT? Heartland SAID "you could have the same
process using different atoms". In your one line no doubt rather
hastily snapped off reply, you disagreed with both his claims there.
I am addressing (patience, Lee, patience) the *first* of Heartland's
claims, namely "you could have the same process using different
atoms".
He is right! Admit it! It won't kill you for once in your life to say
that you misunderstood, or whatever.
Then I proceeded to list some differences that can exist in the way
that the processes are run, just to be thorough. But you took
exception to that too.
>> one may be executing slightly more slowly than the other [.]
>
> A good thought experiment should be as simple and bare bones as
> possible, you're adding crappy copies and all sorts of other
> complications that add nothing to understanding.
You're simply not taking the time to read carefully. As soon as
someone says "John Clark wrote..." you go into assault mode.
I'm AGREEING with you that these things DO NOT affect
the *PROCESS*. But that just goes to prove that what he
said was *correct*: you *can* have the same process running
on two different machines, er, two different sets of atoms.
>>As for different processes using the same atoms [.]
>
> Read what heartland wrote, he was talking about different atoms using
> the same atoms, I don't know what he was trying to say and I doubt if he
> knows either.
Okay, here is what he said, once again:
>> > you can't seem to comprehend why you could have the same process
>> > using different atoms and different processes using the same atoms.
Hmm. Perhaps you think that he meant *concurrently*? Maybe in the
same machine? I don't know what you were assuming, but you didn't
want to give an iota of possibility that "your enemy" might, just might,
have said something that was not horribly, hideously, and totally wrong.
Notice that I'm not asking you to show true guts and apologize,
just acknowledge---using whatever excuse you want, (say that his
writing style was so bad that....), that his first of the two claims,
which was, once again, namely
>> > you could have the same process [going] using different atoms
was not incorrect.
Lee
P.S. Ten-to-one JC comes back with a one-liner and says
"then it's not the same process", and if I ask him why not,
he'll probably have to say, "well, it's not the same atoms
at the same time" :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT