Strange

Then why did you bring it up? I was simply correcting your misinformation. You either need to try writing an emulator OR learn how to do it better. Is it? Did the OP ask about performance? Perhaps becaise it is smaller. perhaps because it is more maintainable or portable. Yes. I have worked for companies that make them and been involved in the development of programming models and compilers for them. But that is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread. If you want to start a thread on processor architecture, assembler programming and GPUs, then do it. Otherwise stop taking this one off topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by radiation; but I assume that, whatever it is, it heats the water and converts it to steam. I suppose the main one is the heat required to convert 1g of water to steam, which is about 2 kJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization You might also need to calculate the energy needed to raise the water to boiling point, which is about 4 J per degree (per gram). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

Actually, if there are very few conditions then the if-else structure is likely to be more efficient. I am fairly sure the OP was interested in the principle, rather than this specific example. (If there are a very large number of conditions, then it may be better to do a computed jump.) Many 16 and 32 bit microprocessors use a microcoded instruction set where there is typically a jump table to go from opcode to microcode entry point. (And, of course, a 16 bit processor doesn't have 64K instructions.) Which is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it is implemented. I have programmed dozens of different processors. I can only think of one that didn't support subroutine calls. However, there were several that support conditional subroutine calls. But you can still implement any of these techniques on any of them. What! What on earth do GPUs have to do with it? The question was about programming models and computability. I think you should stop digging that hole.

If you only illuminate one slit, then there will be no interference pattern because the pattern is caused by the interference of the light that has passed through the two slits (and therefore have different path lengths and hence phase relationships at each point on the screen).

Electrons do not behave like little balls orbiting the centre, so the question doesn't have an answer (the question doesn't really have meaning).

Yes, for well over 30 years. And I have worked on compilers and the design of microprocessors.

The energy for the radiation comes from the field (or whatever) that accelerates the particle, not from the particle itself (otherwise the particle would lose mass).

It is used in quite a few cases. It may be referred to as a vector table or a jump table. It is just a bit less "obvious" than an if-else type structure so you don't often see it in source code. It can be more efficient though (but the overheads of setting it up may not always be worth it) so you do come across it occasionally, especially where size or performance are critical (e.g. operating system code). It is one of the ways a case statement can be compiled. Depending on the number and types of the cases, the compiler might turn it into the equivalent if-else-if-else statements or the sort of structure you describe. It is also used a lot by C++ compilers to handle the fact that there can be multiple functions with the same name and which one gets called depends on the types of the arguments, for example. It is often used in hardware as well, for example for interrupt vectors.

That is what makes that sort of article so dangerous! There appears to be no science behind what he claims. But if you enjoy it, do it. (I won't be joining you.)

I thought it was a very intelligent question. Working out that you can code a jump table like that, instead of using explicit conditional code, is pretty smart. The rest of your answer appears to be irrelevant to the question asked. (It wasn't me who gave you a negative vote ... but it was tempting!)

Evolution is, inherently, unpredictable (apart from some general principles). But I'm not even sure why you ask the question. I don't really know what you are talking about now. I thought you were trying to compare the scientific method to evolution. But maybe I was mistaken. I'm not sure what "intellectual evolution" is (other than changes in the brain as a consequence of evolution, I suppose).

Catching a dolphin would falsify the model if it predicts that there should be no dolphins. If the model said nothing about dolphins, then you may need to modify or extend the model. (See also: dark matter.)

Oh well. You tried.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You are replacing an explicit "if" statement with a function call which is determined by the program state; i.e. the function that is called is conditional. So, yes, conditional execution is required for a turing-complete language.

Is that the case? I find that slightly surprising. And it appears to be contradicted by this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

That is what "proof" means in science.

How is that even relevant?

Given the only current model we have, yes. With, of course, the usual caveats on the use of the word "proof" in science; in other words, the existence of the CMB with the predicted temperature, spectrum, isotropy, and other properties confirms the predictions of the model.

If it derives from a model then it isn't an assumption, by definition.

And a higher proportion of them will die from heat related deaths because of that; for example, roughly twice as many people died in Italy and Spain than in the UK in 2003 (despite those countries having a lower population). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths.html

The difference is that life consists of a set of chemical reactions that are self-supporting and "discrete"; i.e. self-contained and isolated from the environment to some extent. These discrete cells or organisms are also able to metabolise and reproduce. For example, if you shake your flask containing a mixture of chemicals then any amount of any chemical can move to a different locations and mixed with any other chemicals. One the other hand, if it contains some living organisms then they will remain whole and not be randomly(!) mixed up with other stuff. Your turn: what do you claim the difference is?

And that is why it was the death blow to the steady state theory. There is no other model that can produce the observed CMB (and that also fits all the other evidence).

What is easily testable? And how do you suggest it is tested? I still don't really understand what you are trying to say, nor how "the observer" is relevant. Although life is quite hard to define, there are a number of objective criteria. Are you saying anything other than: "life is the result of chemical reactions"? And how does "our special viewpoint as inside the system observers deceive us"?

I wouldn't really describe the scientific method as trial and error. That suggests a kind of random, stumbling around in the dark approach. The scientific method, to me, seems far more directed than that: based on theories and data gathered so far, where do we go next. Sometimes theories have to be discarded and sometimes there are chance discoveries, but most of the time it is a steady plod accumulating more evidence and making incremental changes to theories.