PDA

View Full Version : Converting software to hardware



KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-18, 04:24 PM
What are the ways of converting software to hardware? I know one. FPGA can be converted to different hardware configurations. If under external conditions a computer can gain memory and then convert it to useful hardware, what ways exist for it to do it?

Shaula
2011-Oct-18, 04:52 PM
Well, with an FPGA it doesn't gain hardware - it just reconfigures it. Software can usually make hardware do amazing things, but there is always an inbuilt hardware limitation. And no matter how smart the software it cannot magic matter out of thin air. You could have a cell type program - lots of small, simple machines that can grab matter and make it into copies of themselves or other useful components. And hypothetically you could use software to simulate and design new components - but it still needs some for of pre-existing hardware to interact with the world. And so far I don't know of many complex programmes that have that sort of self-modifiability.

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 05:00 PM
Software can be compiled to hardware - this is how most complex devices are designed today (including FPGAs). Typically, a special purpose Hardware Description Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_description_language) (HDL) is used: e.g. Verilog or VHDL (if you want to do it properly). There have been various attempts to compile general purpose programming languages (e.g. C or C++) to hardware but these usually use a subset of the language and/or require the software to be restricted in some way.

There are also various reconfigurable computing architectures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconfigurable_computing), which (supposedly) combine the best of both hardware (performance) and software (flexibility). Personally, I think they create a programming model that is so complex that the trade off is not worth it.

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 05:04 PM
If under external conditions a computer can gain memory and then convert it to useful hardware, what ways exist for it to do it?

How do you picture it gaining memory? Just someone adding more chips?

One thing that has been talked about for decades is fine-grained SIMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simd) (otherwise known as intelligent RAM) where each memory cell or column has a simple processor associated with it. I think many of the programming problems have been solved (in principle) and it could be a very efficient way of exploiting silicon area but it hasn't yet proved competitive against more traditional CPUs.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-18, 06:15 PM
How do you picture it gaining memory? Just someone adding more chips?

What i mean by memory is soft memory. Adding more chips is a good idea but for making hardware. But what sort of hardware is going to come out of soft memory? I thought of "formation is information" and remembered Dr Kaku mentioning that a sort of hardware is being produced by intel consisting of millions of microchips connected to each other that can be formed to many hardware forms. But what is this soft memory going to change to and how?

The other way to think about it as Shaula also mentioned is to feed some matter. but what is this matter going to be formed to in order to save information or soft memory?

Strange
2011-Oct-18, 07:16 PM
What i mean by memory is soft memory.

But what do you mean by "soft memory"? :)


But what sort of hardware is going to come out of soft memory?

Well, memory is memory. It can't become something else unless it was designed as some sort of reconfigurable component originally.


I thought of "formation is information" and remembered Dr Kaku mentioning that a sort of hardware is being produced by intel consisting of millions of microchips connected to each other that can be formed to many hardware forms.

I am not aware of Intel working on architectures of millions of processors (last I heard, 80 cores was the largest experimental device they had produced. Plenty of other companies are working on this sort of large scale parallelism. The most commercial applications currently are GPUs (graphics chips) because they need that level of processing and are naturally parallel problems.

It is going to be a software challenge making this more widely useful though.

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-18, 07:27 PM
FPGAs are arrays of logic with programmable interconnections. You can configure the logic to act as memory, but a given FPGA will only support a given amount of memory, and logic cells used for memory can not be used for other purposes. You have a fixed amount of logic that you can reconfigure for various purposes. If there isn't any unused logic in the FPGA, adding memory requires that you upgrade to a larger FPGA.

It's again not clear what you're getting at. There's nothing special about memory implemented on a FPGA, other than that the hardware can be reconfigured to something else if the memory is unneeded. It's slower and more power hungry than real physical memory hardware, and a lot more expensive, but if you already have the FPGA for other things and don't need a whole lot of RAM, it can make sense.

profloater
2011-Oct-18, 08:28 PM
OK this is not my area but I have been involved with projects where a solution such as resizing and reforming an image in order to drive something complex like a carpet printing machine was accelerated by moving data to what amounts to an analog computer (as hardware amplifiers) to compute faster than serial. However I suspect that speed improvements make even those techniques obsolete. In any situation where an analog exists for example using a soap bubble to calculate stresses in a complex section including dynamic stresses you could imagine hooking up a scanner to watch the bubble rather than compute on a super computer. Is that what you are getting at or am I misunderstanding your question?

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-20, 12:13 PM
But what do you mean by "soft memory"? :)

This link to some extent is close to what i mean.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228346.600-robot-builds-its-own-body-from-sprayable-foam.html
In fact my focus is mostly on the relationship between genetic system and mind as a brain software. You see there are creatures that change their genetic system quickly like "sea squirts" from a kind of animal to a kind of plant. Is it possible to change genetic system so quickly at different space conditions in the universe?


I am not aware of Intel working on architectures of millions of processors
I'll try to find it but don't trust memory.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 12:29 PM
This link to some extent is close to what i mean.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228346.600-robot-builds-its-own-body-from-sprayable-foam.html

So you are talking about self-replicating machines?


In fact my focus is mostly on the relationship between genetic system and mind as a brain software.

That is a one-way relationship: gentics defines the brain; the brain has no effect on genes.


You see there are creatures that change their genetic system quickly like "sea squirts" from a kind of animal to a kind of plant.

They do not change their "genetic system" (whatever that means) they change their form, become sessile at maturity. It is their genes that control this.


Is it possible to change genetic system so quickly at different space conditions in the universe?

Apart from the fact their "genetic system" is not changing, no. Apart from things like mutation, genetic engineering, etc.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-20, 12:52 PM
That is a one-way relationship: gentics defines the brain; the brain has no effect on genes.
Apart from the brain picking the partner which affects the genes of the offspring, but that's an indirect effect that doesn't modify the genes of the individual himself.

I think this thread is another offspring of KhashayarShatti's apparent belief in Lamarckian genetics.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-20, 01:55 PM
So you are talking about self-replicating machines?.....

No.


They do not change their "genetic system" (whatever that means) they change their form, become sessile at maturity. It is their genes that control this.

So you mean that when someone travels into space his/her genetic system may decide to change form. He/she may change to a plant without losing genetic system. So travellers of universe should be aware of this condition. She may go Juli and come back Alu Evera.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 02:01 PM
So you mean that when someone travels into space his/her genetic system may decide to change form.
How did you come to that conclusion?
He was responding to your comments about organisms that already go through changes in thier life because that is how thier life cycle works.
The way a butterfly grows, or a frog from a tadpole is part of their genetic make-up. There is no conditions that change the way this happens.
We have no mechanisms in our genetic make-up that does any kind of morphing. About the only thing that changes in humans is during the time of puberty. It's how we grow, how we've always grown, and not something that changes.

Nothing can change these things during an organism's lifetime.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 02:04 PM
No.

Then I have no idea what the link to a robot making a copy of itself was about.

Edir: OK, I only skimmed the robot story and was mislead by the headline. It is more a configurable robot. I still don't see what that has to do with computer memory.


So you mean that when someone travels into space his/her genetic system may decide to change form.

No. Your genetics determine how you develop. Your genes will not be changed by something like being in space.

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-20, 02:45 PM
What are the ways of converting software to hardware? I know one. FPGA can be converted to different hardware configurations. If under external conditions a computer can gain memory and then convert it to useful hardware, what ways exist for it to do it?

The way I see it, software is information and hardware is the actual physical system, like circuitry, storage media etc. More generally the blueprints for a building is software and the actual building is hardware, so in this understanding we've been converting software to hardware since antiquity.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 06:48 PM
If under external conditions a computer can gain memory and then convert it to useful hardware, what ways exist for it to do it?

When you say "memory" do you actually mean storage devices (RAM, ROM, disk, etc) or do you mean data/information?

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-20, 07:28 PM
When you say "memory" do you actually mean storage devices (RAM, ROM, disk, etc) or do you mean data/information?
Within the context of science & tech.,i mean information. About the point you mentioned in your earlier post, referring to the link, what i understood is that a robot can shape itself depending upon the environmental conditions that it faces(I hope i'm right i mean i hope if i've understood it properly). Is it possible it could do it by visual information and by what algorithm it could visualize viability of itself?

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 08:12 PM
Within the context of science & tech.,i mean information. About the point you mentioned in your earlier post, referring to the link, what i understood is that a robot can shape itself depending upon the environmental conditions that it faces(I hope i'm right i mean i hope if i've understood it properly). Is it possible it could do it by visual information and by what algorithm it could visualize viability of itself?

Ah, that makes more sense. As I understand it, the reconfigurable robot in that article has to be created manually. The software then "learns" how to move the new form (that part is actually quite well established). I guess we are quite a long way from the robot itself (or perhaps a "master" robot) figuring out what is needed and then building it. Although it could use (you'll like this) a genetic algorithm to try out different forms to find the best for the job.

If you are interested in this aspect of robotics you might want to take a look at:
Polypod (ai.stanford.edu/users/mark/polypod.html)
Polymorphic Robotics Laboratory (http://www.isi.edu/robots/)
modular robotics at PARC (http://www2.parc.com/spl/projects/modrobots/)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reconfiguring_modular_robot)

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-21, 06:36 AM
Ah, that makes more sense. As I understand it, the reconfigurable robot in that article has to be created manually. The software then "learns" how to move the new form (that part is actually quite well established). I guess we are quite a long way from the robot itself (or perhaps a "master" robot) figuring out what is needed and then building it. Although it could use (you'll like this) a genetic algorithm to try out different forms to find the best for the job.

If you are interested in this aspect of robotics you might want to take a look at:
Polypod (ai.stanford.edu/users/mark/polypod.html)
Polymorphic Robotics Laboratory (http://www.isi.edu/robots/)
modular robotics at PARC (http://www2.parc.com/spl/projects/modrobots/)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reconfiguring_modular_robot)

Thanks for your information. Though i'm not focussing on robots or transformation, It seems to me so far that these robots receive packets of information and reconfigure accordingly.
So far so good. Since i'm thinking that the universe has crude hardware(planets, stars, gas,....). Now very important:
1- This hardware came from somewhere in a reconfigurable manner. In this case the question gets repeated and repeated.
2- This hardware came from information(arranged as software perhaps an OS software) that we don't know what it is.

From scientific point of view,
A)- Is there any possibility for the second case? I'm trying to keep the subject within the context of science & technology obviously . So please no magic .
B)- Is there any possibility that something could be reconfigured from one essence to another essence by information? I mean i don't understand big bang in which perhaps a sort of reconfiguration occured, but which type?

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-21, 09:37 AM
So far so good. Since i'm thinking that the universe has crude hardware(planets, stars, gas,....). Now very important:
1- This hardware came from somewhere in a reconfigurable manner. In this case the question gets repeated and repeated.
2- This hardware came from information(arranged as software perhaps an OS software) that we don't know what it is.

From scientific point of view,
A)- Is there any possibility for the second case? I'm trying to keep the subject within the context of science & technology obviously . So please no magic .
B)- Is there any possibility that something could be reconfigured from one essence to another essence by information? I mean i don't understand big bang in which perhaps a sort of reconfiguration occured, but which type?

There is a view in quantum physics that reality is fundamentally information and that everything derives from information. Perhaps look up things like "information theory of quantum physics." There are interesting parallels between Shannon's information theory and thermodynamics, i.e. there is an information theoretic entropy and a thermodynamic entropy. Also look up things like Complexity theory and complexity measures e.g. Kolmogorov complexity. There are a variety of different complexity measures. These measures allow you to calculate the information content of e.g. a particular physical configuration or process.

Shaula
2011-Oct-21, 02:23 PM
It depends how you define software. If you see it simply as a series of rules about how to order processes and so on then the laws of physics are an operating system for the universe. They have, in essence, reconfigured matter according to their rules. If you see it as deterministic, however, you are not correct. As far as we know the universe is ruled by probabilities. So if you reran the universe you would not get the same 'answer' (if by answer you mean arrangement of matter).

But then again you can apply the same argument for everything. Culture is the operating system of Society. Geology/meteorology is the operating system of rivers. Currents are the operating system of fish. It is not some deeply significant thing - it is just a matter of terminology and analogy.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-21, 05:23 PM
It depends how you define software. If you see it simply as a series of rules about how to order processes and so on then the laws of physics are an operating system for the universe. They have, in essence, reconfigured matter according to their rules. If you see it as deterministic, however, you are not correct. As far as we know the universe is ruled by probabilities. So if you reran the universe you would not get the same 'answer' (if by answer you mean arrangement of matter).

But then again you can apply the same argument for everything. Culture is the operating system of Society. Geology/meteorology is the operating system of rivers. Currents are the operating system of fish. It is not some deeply significant thing - it is just a matter of terminology and analogy.
May i extend your quote regarding the way the universe works: I'd like to give some momentum to Newton's theory of "Clockwork Universe Theory" if correctly attributed to him. If we consider that the universe exists for an infinitesimal(very small) time duration (let's say Planck's time interval) then this hardware(universe) could be regarded as a state which is clocked from (n-1)th state to (n)th state and then (n+1)th state. i.e. from past to present to future. So current state only exists. Before being clocked to the next state, state of everything is saved and archived . The next state obviously depends on everyone's selection and not deterministic but predefined selections that exist, to resolve "Free Will".
However i must say that i'm focussing on what "Paul Wally" is referring to mostly the role of information and the current configuration of this universe hardware. In this regard rules of physics are of secondary priority. Order as information software could be the primary priority that caused the universe to reconfigure itself. Rules(physics) appear after Order to retain the Order running. Let's say a king/queen/ orders and then rules and laws appear to retain that order in a regular manner. So is it possible to percieve that "eternal" is of software type" that configures and reconfigures hardware? It is similar to saying that primitive humans didn't have technology. But a kind of software(information) in them is really reconfiguring this hardware(universe) which leads to development and technology(in fact a reconfiguration process).

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-22, 12:32 AM
May i extend your quote regarding the way the universe works: I'd like to give some momentum to Newton's theory of "Clockwork Universe Theory" if correctly attributed to him. If we consider that the universe exists for an infinitesimal(very small) time duration (let's say Planck's time interval) then this hardware(universe) could be regarded as a state which is clocked from (n-1)th state to (n)th state and then (n+1)th state. i.e. from past to present to future. So current state only exists. Before being clocked to the next state, state of everything is saved and archived . The next state obviously depends on everyone's selection and not deterministic but predefined selections that exist, to resolve "Free Will".
However i must say that i'm focussing on what "Paul Wally" is referring to mostly the role of information and the current configuration of this universe hardware. In this regard rules of physics are of secondary priority. Order as information software could be the primary priority that caused the universe to reconfigure itself. Rules(physics) appear after Order to retain the Order running. Let's say a king/queen/ orders and then rules and laws appear to retain that order in a regular manner. So is it possible to percieve that "eternal" is of software type" that configures and reconfigures hardware? It is similar to saying that primitive humans didn't have technology. But a kind of software(information) in them is really reconfiguring this hardware(universe) which leads to development and technology(in fact a reconfiguration process).

You must be careful not to attribute causal powers to information separate from that of the physical system. The information is merely an aspect, property or interpretation of the physical state, and not something separate. It's like saying that your height is something separate from your body, when it is only an aspect of it. Similarly, if we look at a computer system then there are only physical states and processes. The software is the interpretation (meaning) we give to those states and processes.

Some related subjects: Self-organization, cybernetics, homeostasis, teleology.

Shaula
2011-Oct-22, 07:55 AM
The Clockwork universe theory is deterministic. Quantum Mechanics is not. And there are very tight constraints on the forms of any hidden variable systems that get around this fact. Radioactive decay, form example, is random. Probabilistic. It is not down to free will. Your statement that the next state depends on choices seems to imply that a universe without concious being exercising free will is deterministic.

You can make the analogy between the universe and a computer. It is not a new one. It is just not a very useful one. Computers are nothing more than reconfigurable calculating machines, a system that can evolve through a series of states based on the input values. The way we do science is to take initial conditions and then apply rules to them to iterate forwards in time through a series of state. Given that the underlying mechanisms are so similar the most this analogy tells you is that science and computers are based on the same world view.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-22, 05:21 PM
..........The software is the interpretation (meaning) we give to those states and processes.
Can we deduce that software is the predefined arrangement of hardware states when clocked? In this case software is really reconfiguring hardware up to a state that may cause a big change(a new and more advanced computer configuration is needed).

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-22, 06:31 PM
Within the context of science & tech.,i mean information. About the point you mentioned in your earlier post, referring to the link, what i understood is that a robot can shape itself depending upon the environmental conditions that it faces(I hope i'm right i mean i hope if i've understood it properly). Is it possible it could do it by visual information and by what algorithm it could visualize viability of itself?

In the context of technology in general, computers and electronics in particular, memory means devices for storing information or a portion of the storage capacity of such devices, not information itself.

One big part of the problem here is that you keep using terms in ways that nobody else uses them. Nobody can figure out what you're talking about when you do this. When you talk about "adding memory", people will think you actually mean adding memory. And when it becomes clear you're not talking about what you seem to be, we're left with trying to guess at what you actually mean. And you started off talking about computers and configuring FPGAs as memory, not helpful examples in figuring out that you were talking about self modifying robots. I'm aware English probably isn't your best language, but try to at least take more care in describing what you're talking about rather than throwing out a handful of terms and vague references.



Can we deduce that software is the predefined arrangement of hardware states when clocked? In this case software is really reconfiguring hardware up to a state that may cause a big change(a new and more advanced computer configuration is needed).

For a deterministic state machine, the subsequent state is defined by the current state (including the status of any I/O in that current state). Not all machines are deterministic, and not all machines operate in a succession of discrete global states. The universe almost certainly does not, as you can't even define an absolute time. While you might draw a weak analogy between physical systems and a conventional general-purpose computer, it is not a particularly useful one.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-23, 05:33 PM
........One big part of the problem here is that you keep using terms in ways that nobody else uses them. Nobody can figure out what you're talking about when you do this. When you talk about "adding memory", people will think you actually mean adding memory. And when it becomes clear you're not talking about what you seem to be, we're left with trying to guess at what you actually mean. And you started off talking about computers and configuring FPGAs as memory, not helpful examples in figuring out that you were talking about self modifying robots. I'm aware English probably isn't your best language, but try to at least take more care in describing what you're talking about rather than throwing out a handful of terms and vague references.
Before making metaphorical statements, just let me know which part you can't figure out. If I say adding memory(which i didn't say), I DO mean "adding memory". Sorry for my english. You made me laugh a lot.
In fact I've deduced very useful information from other's posts in an interactive manner starting from point A. Now i think i'm at point Z. I've deduced that:
1)-Any hardware configuration or reconfiguration is under the influence of a software, and by software i do mean software and not information.
2)- The reality of software can never be conceived. It is all seen as hardware change.
3)- It is all equally applicable to hardware of humans, animals,..... and the hardware of the universe.
4)- Vaccum and space and fundamental units of exsistence(sub atomic paricles known or unknown) are also changing and reconfiguring.
5)- And the last is that i think this universe hardware is going to reconfigure itself but since it may seem not a mainstream subject i'm not going to say it here.

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-23, 11:33 PM
Before making metaphorical statements, just let me know which part you can't figure out. If I say adding memory(which i didn't say), I DO mean "adding memory". Sorry for my english. You made me laugh a lot.

You did say it, in your very first post:

If under external conditions a computer can gain memory and then convert it to useful hardware, what ways exist for it to do it?

You also do it (in other threads) with words related to evolutionary theory, like your many posts about "selections" which you apparently think have something to do with natural selection, something I've asked you to clarify without any result.



In fact I've deduced very useful information from other's posts in an interactive manner starting from point A. Now i think i'm at point Z. I've deduced that:
1)-Any hardware configuration or reconfiguration is under the influence of a software, and by software i do mean software and not information.

It's unclear what you're trying to say here, particularly since the lines can be blurred with programmable hardware, but hardware designed to do so can reconfigure itself without any software involved.



2)- The reality of software can never be conceived. It is all seen as hardware change.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What "reality of software" can't be conceived?



3)- It is all equally applicable to hardware of humans, animals,..... and the hardware of the universe.

What is equally applicable?



4)- Vaccum and space and fundamental units of exsistence(sub atomic paricles known or unknown) are also changing and reconfiguring.

How do you get from anything that's been said in the thread to this conclusion? (Which, depending on what exactly you mean, is pretty obviously wrong...all electrons are identical, for example.)



5)- And the last is that i think this universe hardware is going to reconfigure itself but since it may seem not a mainstream subject i'm not going to say it here.

Then why mention it?
In any case, given how the rest of your ideas have fared, you might want to do some re-thinking.

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-23, 11:37 PM
1)-Any hardware configuration or reconfiguration is under the influence of a software, and by software i do mean software and not information.


What do you mean by "under the influence of a software"? What I was trying to say in post #23 is that software is not something separate causing changes in hardware. It's not as if we have the software on the one side and the hardware on the other side, and the software somehow mysteriously causes changes in the hardware. The changes occurring in the hardware can be completely explained by physical processes occurring in the hardware, and if the hardware is reconfiguring then that can also be explained as a form of dynamic self-organization of the hardware itself. There's no need to bring in software as some additional cause of what is happening to the hardware. It is just that relative to us, i.e. relative to our minds what is happening to the hardware has a meaning that we ourselves have attached to it, and the way in which that meaning is processed, that is software.


5)- And the last is that i think this universe hardware is going to reconfigure itself but since it may seem not a mainstream subject i'm not going to say it here.

What do you mean by "reconfigure itself"? The universe is continuously changing over time, so I see nothing unorthodox about this idea.

Strange
2011-Oct-24, 08:15 AM
If I say adding memory(which i didn't say), I DO mean "adding memory".

You did say adding memory but then it turned out you meant something else.


1)-Any hardware configuration or reconfiguration is under the influence of a software, and by software i do mean software and not information.

Some hardware configuration is under the control of software.


2)- The reality of software can never be conceived. It is all seen as hardware change.

Having developed, tested, sold and done formal proofs on software I have to say it seems pretty real to me. And much of this was done independently of (and in some cases, with no access to) the hardware in question. So software obviously has an existence independent of hardware.


3)- It is all equally applicable to hardware of humans, animals,..... and the hardware of the universe.

That sounds like nonsense.


4)- Vaccum and space and fundamental units of exsistence(sub atomic paricles known or unknown) are also changing and reconfiguring.

That sounds like nonsense, too.


5)- And the last is that i think this universe hardware is going to reconfigure itself but since it may seem not a mainstream subject i'm not going to say it here.

And that sounds like complete nonsense.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-24, 04:07 PM
1)You did say it, in your very first post:

2)You also do it (in other threads) with words related to evolutionary theory, like your many posts about "selections" which you apparently think have something to do with natural selection, something I've asked you to clarify without any result.

3)It's unclear what you're trying to say here, particularly since the lines can be blurred with programmable hardware, but hardware designed to do so can reconfigure itself without any software involved.

4)I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What "reality of software" can't be conceived?

5)What is equally applicable?

6)How do you get from anything that's been said in the thread to this conclusion? (Which, depending on what exactly you mean, is pretty obviously wrong...all electrons are identical, for example.)

7)Then why mention it?
In any case, given how the rest of your ideas have fared, you might want to do some re-thinking.

R1)My apology. I shouldn't trust my memory.
R2)Sorry. What i meant by "natural selection" was actually any natural reasonable selection. I gave an example to clarify.
R3)Reconfiguration of hardware,at first, may look natural and by hardware itself. But i think hardware itself can not do anything by itself. Obviously such hardware don't exist.
R4)See R6.
R5)Any hardware is integrated with a software.
R6)One of the cases:Paul Wally said:The information is merely an aspect, property or interpretation of the physical state, and not something separate. It's like saying that your height is something separate from your body, when it is only an aspect of it.
In fact no two objects or particles seem to be identical,even electrons may not be identical, macroscopic view made me think to have microscopic view on all objects. Can we find two identical objects?
R7)I meant what this universe hardware is going to be next after final reconfiguration from software crash which is an indication of imperfection of universe.
You are absolutly right. It is only deduction by perception in a reconfigurable universe. In this way whichever way it goes i can go the right way.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-24, 04:32 PM
What do you mean by "under the influence of a software"? What I was trying to say in post #23 is that software is not something separate causing changes in hardware. It's not as if we have the software on the one side and the hardware on the other side, and the software somehow mysteriously causes changes in the hardware. The changes occurring in the hardware can be completely explained by physical processes occurring in the hardware, and if the hardware is reconfiguring then that can also be explained as a form of dynamic self-organization of the hardware itself. There's no need to bring in software as some additional cause of what is happening to the hardware. It is just that relative to us, i.e. relative to our minds what is happening to the hardware has a meaning that we ourselves have attached to it, and the way in which that meaning is processed, that is software.


What do you mean by "reconfigure itself"? The universe is continuously changing over time, so I see nothing unorthodox about this idea.

I think hardware and software are mates. But my studies of natural cloning among many animals(I think one case happened recently in London zoo), I generally think that hardware could be an outcome of software(this example may be controversial). I mean on the first place it seems to me hardware appeared from some sort of software.
Anyway if software, as you say, is relative to our minds, it now exists. Where did it come from? In fact it was there and then we defined it like maths.
If universe is reconfiguring itself it is because it is in love with software. You know what I mean.

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-24, 04:47 PM
R2)Sorry. What i meant by "natural selection" was actually any natural reasonable selection. I gave an example to clarify.

And it was not clear what your example was supposed to demonstrate.



R3)Reconfiguration of hardware,at first, may look natural and by hardware itself. But i think hardware itself can not do anything by itself. Obviously such hardware don't exist.

No, this is not obvious, and in fact there's an enormous variety of machines that automatically adjust themselves and more that perform their intended function without anything resembling any sort of "software".



R5)Any hardware is integrated with a software.

This is so obviously wrong that I wonder if you actually mean what you're saying here.



R4)See R6.
R6)One of the cases:Paul Wally said:The information is merely an aspect, property or interpretation of the physical state, and not something separate. It's like saying that your height is something separate from your body, when it is only an aspect of it.
In fact no two objects or particles seem to be identical,even electrons may not be identical, macroscopic view made me think to have microscopic view on all objects. Can we find two identical objects?

Electrons in fact do appear to be completely identical, to the point that one possible interpretation is that there is only one electron in the universe. And you have completely failed to explain your line of reasoning leading to your conclusion, or even what exactly your conclusion is.



R7)I meant what this universe hardware is going to be next after final reconfiguration from software crash which is an indication of imperfection of universe.
You are absolutly right. It is only deduction by perception in a reconfigurable universe. In this way whichever way it goes i can go the right way.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

Strange
2011-Oct-24, 05:12 PM
R5)Any hardware is integrated with a software.

Nope. My car (well, one of them) has no software at all. It still works perfectly well.


In fact no two objects or particles seem to be identical,even electrons may not be identical, macroscopic view made me think to have microscopic view on all objects. Can we find two identical objects?

Electrons are identical. Unless you can explain how to tell them apart.

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-24, 08:10 PM
I think hardware and software are mates.
This dualism can cause confusion. Look at a memory chip, compact disk, flash memory, CPU, hard disk. These are all hardware, but we say they can "contain" software, but it's not like a glass contains water, two separate substances. It's like a book "contains" a novel. The hardware is the covers, paper and ink, the software is the meaning contained in there. You cannot really place the two next to each other in a causal relation. Hardware is physical and software is abstract.


I generally think that hardware could be an outcome of software(this example may be controversial). I mean on the first place it seems to me hardware appeared from some sort of software.

What do you mean by hardware being an outcome of software? Software is abstract information processing but it needs hardware to actually function. When new information is written on a hard disk the magnetic domains are reconfigured, that's a change in hardware.



Anyway if software, as you say, is relative to our minds, it now exists. Where did it come from?

A mind programmed it, but it's meaning is only in our minds. The computer doesn't "know" what it means.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-25, 03:07 PM
Nope. My car (well, one of them) has no software at all. It still works perfectly well.

The arrangement of parts and components of a car, i.e. the arrangement of its hardware is a kind of software implimentation. It means a car already has software inherited in it. It actually gives the definition to its hardware.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-25, 03:27 PM
This dualism can cause confusion. Look at a memory chip, compact disk, flash memory, CPU, hard disk. These are all hardware, but we say they can "contain" software, but it's not like a glass contains water, two separate substances. It's like a book "contains" a novel. The hardware is the covers, paper and ink, the software is the meaning contained in there. You cannot really place the two next to each other in a causal relation. Hardware is physical and software is abstract.

What do you mean by hardware being an outcome of software? Software is abstract information processing but it needs hardware to actually function. When new information is written on a hard disk the magnetic domains are reconfigured, that's a change in hardware.

A mind programmed it, but it's meaning is only in our minds. The computer doesn't "know" what it means.

In general a hard disk and better to say a CPU have already been reconfigured hardware by a kind of software to give them different definition. I think the hardware of them could be similar substances but software gave them different definitions.
The best answer i can give to your question may be to say that a hardware by itself could not reconfigure hardware unless at the beginning of the advent of computers or technology a kind of software defined the first component. The hardware of the human that did it also had a kind of software to start reconfiguration of hardware as technology. We may say soil was the first hardware with some software to define it as soil. Then we may say elements were the first hardware but those were defined to be elements by a kind of software. We can continue to the start of a kind of big bang. I think a kind of software gave it a definition that led to our current configuration of universe. So there seems to be software and then hardware appears. I can't imagine that hardware by itself gave a definition to itself. Without software, probably everything would be similar and of one kind.

Shaula
2011-Oct-25, 03:49 PM
You see you are taking an impossibly broad definition of software. In your definition software is just rules - and since as far as we know everything boils down to physics I fail to see what your definition of software adds to the debate. If all you are saying is that stuff in the universe obeys certain rules as to how it interacts - we know. Phrasing this in computational analogies adds what to this?

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-25, 04:14 PM
You see you are taking an impossibly broad definition of software. In your definition software is just rules - and since as far as we know everything boils down to physics I fail to see what your definition of software adds to the debate. If all you are saying is that stuff in the universe obeys certain rules as to how it interacts - we know. Phrasing this in computational analogies adds what to this?
Yes my definition of software is broad. In fact now i have come to the conclusion that the software is highly similar to hardware but of different essence that we are missing its existence. 400 years ago existence of gravity was not noted, but then it became sensible, now it is going to be discovered what it is. Rules may be physics, a kind of perception which is probably sensed as restrictions of limit of reconfiguration. It is a kind of rule that differenciates the amount of work or energy that is going to be used to define a hardware. Finally computer software in fact seems to me as the outcome of the actual software that i point to.

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-25, 04:22 PM
"Software" is ultimately only an abstraction that humans find useful. It is not some kind of fundamental attribute of material objects or the universe as a whole that we have learned to manipulate, and examples abound of machines that lack anything that abstraction could usefully be applied to...essentially every machine that's not a state machine, for starters, and state machines that don't process stored instructions. The concept just isn't applicable in the way you apparently keep trying to apply it, and as a result, it's completely unclear what your goal is in attempting to do so.

Shaula
2011-Oct-25, 04:30 PM
You also seem to be overestimating what physics does. Physics models. It predicts. It does not explain or give meaning. We are not about to discover what gravity is 'really' made of - but we might create a better, more powerful model of it.

Strange
2011-Oct-25, 04:46 PM
The arrangement of parts and components of a car, i.e. the arrangement of its hardware is a kind of software implimentation. It means a car already has software inherited in it. It actually gives the definition to its hardware.

If you are going to count any sort of idea or concept as "software" then you have rendered the term useless. It has a specific meaning and I would prefer to stick with that.

It is like taking the term "food processor" and extending from the the kitchen appliance to include your knife and fork. And the plate. And the shop you buy the food from, and the field where the corn grows and the rivers where the fish are. And earth, wind, and fire. Words lose all meaning.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-25, 05:06 PM
......Electrons are identical. Unless you can explain how to tell them apart.
Is it rational to conceive that if two objects are going to be identical then they must be at the same position? In this case a kind of unity must exist between them.

KhashayarShatti
2011-Oct-25, 05:10 PM
If you are going to count any sort of idea or concept as "software" then you have rendered the term useless. It has a specific meaning and I would prefer to stick with that.
I think the advent of computer software could be the start of a more realizable actual software, a step closer.

Shaula
2011-Oct-25, 05:18 PM
Is it rational to conceive that if two objects are going to be identical then they must be at the same position? In this case a kind of unity must exist between them.
Nope. Two instances of the same class of object can be identical in all their internal properties, be in essence totally indistinguishable, without being the same object or related by anything more profound than being instances of the same class of objects. Have a read of Bose Einstein versus Fermi Dirac statistics to get a feel for the grades of identical we see.

iquestor
2011-Oct-25, 05:43 PM
I have read through this thread and, as a software engineer and developer, I can say with certainty thatI have absolutely no clue what the OP is attempting to ask or define. None whatsoever.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-25, 07:42 PM
I have read through this thread and, as a software engineer and developer, I can say with certainty thatI have absolutely no clue what the OP is attempting to ask or define. None whatsoever.
Same here.
Based on post 44, we are not "actual" software engineers.
I've chalked up this discussion up to part philisophical, part misuse of "software", and part language barrier.

Paul Wally
2011-Oct-25, 07:51 PM
Is it rational to conceive that if two objects are going to be identical then they must be at the same position? In this case a kind of unity must exist between them.

According to Leibniz's principle of identity of indiscernibles, if two things are indiscernible in every possible way (including measurables like position, momentum, and spin) then they are identical. The Pauli exclusion principle prevents e.g. two electrons to be in the same state, by making their spin opposite, I don't know about bosons however, I think they really are indistinguishable, but Shaula should know more about this, based on what she said.

Anyway, it is the distinguishability of physical states that allows us to store information (in principle). For example spin up could mean 1 and spin down 0, but it's entirely up to us what we want it to represent.

There is also the interesting subject of the quantum qubit in quantum computation, which works on a completely different principle than conventional bit computation. Others may know more about this.

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-26, 03:14 AM
I have read through this thread and, as a software engineer and developer, I can say with certainty thatI have absolutely no clue what the OP is attempting to ask or define. None whatsoever.

Embedded software engineer here...which heavily involves the hardware side as well, including both programmable and non-programmable sorts, and devices that blur the lines. I'm just as baffled as you are.