quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.

That's what we call a "distinction without a difference".  You could say the same thing about a digital computer.  The arrangement of electrons in it's circuits creates an environment where other electrons sort themselves.

One must be careful to apply the mathematical proof within the scope of which it was intended.

What you are talking about is what I would call a model.  You take a physical system and come up with math that represents some sufficiently large set of cases (enough to be useful).  Then you assume that this model is the true mechanism and you start doing useful work from it.  A model doesn't necessarily let you say: "Hey you can't do that" because it's based on behavior and there's an inductive problem in moving from the small subset of observable things we've observed to all observable things.

Proofs aren't (necessarily) like that .  There is no physical system you are emulating.  So there is no "scope" in the sense that you are using it.  There are assumptions but other than ones stated by the proof itself they are those which are common to all math.  Most of which you have already assumed before you even start thinking about a machine like Philips.

Perhaps this is why you think you can create a program which can solve the turing termination problem.  Because you think there is just some...mechanistic...barrier.  When the problem is that such a thing is a logical impossibility.

[lumen]

That's what we call a "distinction without a difference".  You could say the same thing about a digital computer.  The arrangement of electrons in it's circuits creates an environment where other electrons sort themselves.

There is a difference!
In your computer the electrons that control do not occur at random but are a function of some control that requires work.

In Philips device the electrons crash into each other at random gaining and losing energy until by chance one has enough energy to sort itself from the rest.
The same as water evaporates, only the most energetic can leave the surface taking it's energy with it and that's why evaporating water is cooler than a sealed bottle of water.

So both cases are self sorting and require nothing else but chance collisions to transfer energy.
In the end a Maxwell Demon cannot work because you need to do work to sort energy levels, but if you create the right environment, they will sort themselves by random collision.

[sarkeizen]

There is a difference!

Not in the distinction you raised.  That's the point.

In Philips device the electrons crash into each other at random gaining and losing energy until by chance one has enough energy to sort itself from the rest.

*sigh* I know this next question will probably set you off into some ignorant rant because somehow you think after never being educated in my field you have some right to say a word about it but here goes:

Don't you think you can simulate this random crashing and sorting on a computer?

[MarkE]

Philips device does not perform any work and does not sort anything.

Nor do his machines as he claims violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  If you dispute that fact then you can do this Gedanken experiment:  If one were to disconnect the external circuit load what would happen with his apparatus?

It simply creates an environment where electrons can sort themselves based on their energy level.

While all charged particles aspire to live in a healthy, nurturing environment Montessori for Fermions failed financially.

The same as a prism sorts photons based on their energy level.
Some environments can simply cause a reversal in entropy. Like how a magnetic field can steer an electron stream without itself doing any work.

In both examples energy is consumed and entropy of the system increases.

Sometimes theorems don't apply in a case that"s outside of it's intended scope.
Like how nothing can travel faster than light. The mathematical proof is based on applied energy and is absolutely correct, however if the energy is applied from within the moving object and not from an outside source, then something can easily travel faster than light.
One must be careful to apply the mathematical proof within the scope of which it was intended.

Intent really isn't an issue even though scope is.  Sarkeizen has shown that the complexity theorem he cites is applicable to profitis' incorrect claims.

[MarkE]

There is a difference!
In your computer the electrons that control do not occur at random but are a function of some control that requires work.

In Philips device the electrons crash into each other at random gaining and losing energy until by chance one has enough energy to sort itself from the rest.
The same as water evaporates, only the most energetic can leave the surface taking it's energy with it and that's why evaporating water is cooler than a sealed bottle of water.

So both cases are self sorting and require nothing else but chance collisions to transfer energy.
In the end a Maxwell Demon cannot work because you need to do work to sort energy levels, but if you create the right environment, they will sort themselves by random collision.

The problem with such an idea is coming up with a passive mechanism by which the excited electron segregates and remains segregated from its calmer brethren.  The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.