Joined: Aug. 2009
|Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 25 2010,06:10)|
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 24 2010,12:11)|
I never quite understood this whole reductionist "chemistry explains biology, and physics explains chemistry" routine. Does he think that these are higher-level languages that "compile" into physics? Even so, machine language doesn't really "explain" assembly, C or higher-level languages, does it? Why in heaven's name are they blatting on and on about computer programs when they still have not mastered Dawkins' program written in BASIC?
Gran, this is for you - I wrote it myself:
? ? ?>
But I'll bet they don't know PHP either.
ETA - I don't know why I keep calling him "Grant."
Anyone care to put an estimate on the number of atoms required to create a bank of computer memory capable of storing the state and position of every atom on the planet?
Lets say (and I'm being very generous here) we need 1000 atoms for each bit of data storage (assuming Granville doesn't have a laptorp with atomic storage) and the state of each atom requires one million bits of memory (Assuming the co-ordinates that describe its XYZ position in space are reasonably fine grained)
So thats approximatly 1,000,000,000 atoms of memory substrate for every atom on earth?
Boy that laptop must be heavy!