I Made a 19-bit Computer with Marbles
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- I share the story of how I built a 19-bit marble computer.
Along the way we'll learn a bit about digital logic, binary numbers, reliability, and engineering.
* Buy GraviTrax on Amazon: amzn.to/3xXIZNS (paid link)
* My FREE Homeschool Digital Logic Course, where we build GraviTrax marble runs together to learn how computers and other chip-based electronics work on the inside:
• Digital Logic with Mar...
* GraviTrax binary number landing pad inserts for 3D printers to make your own GraviTrax marble computers on Thingiverse:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:492...
* GraviTrax landing pad catchers for 3D printers also used on this marble computer: www.thingiverse.com/thing:492...
Link to GraviTrax Dipper Switch trick video, which could become the basis for storing nonvolatile memory in GraviTrax digital computers.
• GRAVITRAX TRICKS: Auto...
CREDITS:
Andreas Schleifenbaum’s original full adder using 2 switches:
• GraviCalc
Water vector created by upklyak:
www.freepik.com/vextors/water
CHAPTER MARKERS:
00:00 A Computer Made of MARBLES?
01:29 History of Marble Computers
05:00 Failure upon Failure (The Engineering Process)
08:12 The Real Problem (Reliability)
09:03 The Analogy to Evolution
09:58 Drastic Action
10:49 What's Ahead
13:28 Basic Overview
17:06 Running the Computer
22:10 Q&A
#marblerun #gravitrax #ravensburger #digitallogic #computing #computer #gravicalc #kugelbahn #murmelbahn #marblecomputer #marblecomputing #binarynumbers #digitaladder - Розваги
I just want to say thank you so much for your channel. My 11 year old son, who loves Gravitrax, found you last week and I’m so glad he did! We are a homeschooling Christian family and your channel is exactly what my son needs! And the fact that you made a homeschool marble playlist?! Amazing! Have you ever considered having some kind of class on zoom? We would sign up in a heartbeat! Thanks again and God bless you!
Thanks! 🤠👍 I am not really a fan of Zoom classes, but I do have a Google-Slides-based “GraviTrax Kids Club” series of classes that homeschool parents can facilitate on their own using the speaker notes. I may make these into a series of videos in the future, but it’s hard because we have a small house, and have no dedicated studio area. Here’s the GraviTrax Kids Club curriculum: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tpxEhEZmhYEVYsDTl5gdhsldZ8v20PAx
Wow, so much dedication!
This so amazing. I can’t believe you spent 2 months figuring all this out. It’s so impressive!!!
Thanks! It took about 3 weeks to build, but I had worked out many ideas ahead of time over the past year. I figured I should get these GraviWall ideas into a track before someone else does. 😄
Really mindblowing build😮🤯🤯
You deserve that record :) we were on a Gravitrax Builder Event and tried our own record but it is very different to yours. I wish you good luck :)
I saw coogelbahn’s videos from the builder event - looked like that was a lot of fun. Is Ravensburger going to release video of the track? 🤠
Very impressive, awesome job!
Thank you very much!
Your POINDEXTER is an awesome and amazing build... very well done..!
Thanks Yorg!
wow this is amazing :-)
Very nice track/ computer 😀
Thank you sir. I look forward to your next creation as well.
Best íve seen in a long time. Thanks for the shov 🙏🙏
You're welcome! 🙂
That intervention reminds me of an idea I had last night. What if God wrote the universe so well that it can almost make sense that he never existed?
I like the quote, "God has given us too much to deny, but not enough to be sure." I think that is the only place where human free will can truly exist...in the place of balance where we are neither overwhelmed by God's presence, nor free of that nagging comprehension that God is the only explanation for what exists. It seems he hides himself just enough to test what is in our hearts.
@@MaskedMarble Now, I’m agnostic: I don’t worship any god or follow any religion, but I don’t doubt the existence of a higher power.
If I’m gonna follow a religion, I want scientific proof it’s the right one, and their sacred text isn’t exactly credible in the eyes of science… proving themselves to me personally is good enough though.
Personal beliefs aside, I agree with that statement, if that even makes sense…
I understand the desire to have scientific proof, but in a sense it's a non sequitur. God being the one who created the cosmos means that his substance is not contained within the cosmos. And scientific proofs can only deal with observations made of the cosmos' workings itself. It would be kinda like a sentient video game character demanding that any proof of its human creator must exist within the video game itself. That being said, I think that what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christian church in Rome is very insightful. He said that God's invisible nature and qualities are clearly seen from the things God has made (including the one staring at us in the mirror), so that people are without excuse. We all know that we are not self-existent, so when we each reach the time where we must give account to our maker of our stewardship over our God-given lives, none of us will be able to claim that we couldn't figure out that God existed. I think God's existence is not what we actually stuggle with, though. For me, and I think it's the same for us all, what we struggle with the most is the difference of opinion that exists between ourselves and God. We want life ordered according to our own understanding of things, and chafe against trusting God and his wisdom and understanding. Basically we all want our own way, and so we unwittingly rationalize ways to discount what God has revealed through his prophets and his son Jesus. If I'm honest, I don't follow God because I like him, but because I know he is the truth, and I need to get over myself enough to yield my desires to become subservient to what he wants. That's life's geatest struggle.
This is AMAZING!!! 🥳🥳🥳 You deserve 1,000,000 subscribers, I used to be obsessed with knex. Were you funded the money to buy all these sets?
Thanks for your comments. I bought all my sets myself, but most at a steep discount!
Das ist so Phantastisch, eine wahnsinns arbeit.
Thank you!
Yyyyyhaaaaa🤩 Great Job👍 Really amazing 🤩👍 Congrats 🎈🎉
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. 🤠
I'd really like to see one work with base 10 input/output so it's easier to use.
I might look into that in the future, but the circuits are not trivial to convert the inputs from base 10 to binary, or the outputs from binary back to base 10. It would definitely be an interesting thing to try, however.
Super impressed with this build-out. Curious how you found out about Gravitrax? This is great. Came over from VRA FB group
I found out about GraviTrax when Target clearanced the $130 GraviTrax Obstacle Starter Sets for under $40 in January after Christmas season. TIP: They are now selling the Speed Starter Set for $130 for the 2021 Christmas season, so I hope the same thing happens this coming January.
Love it.
this is the perfect system to build a computer with
Yes, if you have the room! 🤠 💻 thanks
Its very Nice🤩🤩Great Work👌👌👌👌
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it! 🤠
@@MaskedMarble 👌🤩👍
This is one of the most special video I have ever seen!
Thanks! I hope to have part 2 completed this month! 🤠🎄
@@MaskedMarble 👍
Incredibly impressive! Always love how you can tie god into your videos!
I was waiting ages for this
👍😎 Unfortunately this is just the first video of 2. The video would be an hour long if I did not split it into 2 parts. 😳 I will show your numbers being added in the second video. But I did answer your Q&A in this video! 🤠
@@MaskedMarble thank you, I really like the video and we (with my wife) are looking forward the second part :)
@@erikpavlusik6214 Yes, and congratulations you two! 💒
Holy :D What a Video :D I am impressed :D
Thank you! I’m glad you liked it.
Very cool thing and good job!
Even if I have to translate the video on a long, cold winter evening ;-)
Thank you! I type in the captions for almost all of my videos, so try using UA-cam’s capability to auto-translate captions into German. It won’t be a 100% accurate translation, but hopefully it will be close. 🤠 I can also send you a copy of the English script if that would be helpful for translating the document using a translator program.
@@MaskedMarble Ok, of course I haven't tried autmoatic translation.... thanks
HUGE like!
This guy makes better videos than people with tens of millions of subs 🔥
Thanks so much for the kind words! I am in the process of filming part 2 this week, so your comment was especially timely and inspiring! 👍🤠
It is truly remarkable what he has done. I would like to propose the world to build a real marble computer with screen that displays image. I asked chat GPT and it said that in theory its possible to do it!
You may be interested in my upcoming video, which is a step in that direction.
u deserve amillion views im (langstonreese) on a different account.
Thanks Langston!
What a great work Chris! Very satisfying to watch ;)
Hey, you want to have a competition? I can offer a 3 bit Gravicalc :) … can be extended, but is fairly unreliable (at least on lopsided old wooden floors) … now take the competition (eat THAT Guiness people :D)
Thanks Andreas! Hey, I added a link to your video in the description! Between us we have 22 bits and can add up to over 8 million!
That'll definetly in this month's my fav clip on the official german gravitrax youtube channel!
That would be fun! 🕺While taking breaks from video editing last week, I finished another track that I think will definitely catch Ravensburger’s attention. It fits right in with the German values of punctuality and order.
I would have used magnets to hold it, to make sure it can’t go out as easy
mega cool. but can you count on it? As I understand it no. So it's not a computer after all
I hope you enjoyed it! This is not a counter, but a dedicated addition computer. A marble run that is merely a counter, which simply tabulates a marble count, would not technically be a computer because it would not be performing any algorithm on the input data. This marble computer performs a binary addition algorithm on the input data. The next video will show whether this algorithm works on any combination of input numbers.
@@MaskedMarble ok nice
Weird question... Couldn't you use the magnetic cannon to store information? It would obviously have its limits. Instead of just 2 marbles on the one side, you could use 3 which would allow you to use mag cannon twice, then have an obscenely long series of switches and more cannons... It's painful to think about...
That's actually a very interesting idea. The gears are turning in the mad scientist's head! 💡💡
@@MaskedMarble Or use the tiptube.
@@unclemarble659 That could work for a temporary register or buffer. It would require sending 2 marbles to read it, and the process of reading it would erase the memory. But still a possibility to use as a digital logic element. 🤔
I fought you CAN'T use canons twice, only with magnetic marbels?
@@mirkohahn I think you are correct; there is a video somewhere where I saw it done…will see if I can find it.
No Alu? ro cpu?
If I can get some grant funding to fully flesh out a digital logic course using GraviTrax, a simple ALU with 2 to 3 mathematical operations is definitely in the plans!
Amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Thanks! 🤠
Chaining more full adders together doesn't suddenly make the whole system more impressive. I could copy and paste this thing a thousand times over and turn it into a 1900 bit adder and it wouldn't be any more of a feat; in fact it would just make me look like I'm trying too hard to look smart.
Add some simple functionality to the system by allowing for inverted input lines and outputs then some control logic to make it into an ALU. But even at that point it isn't a computer. Using the historical definition of computer is just a deceptive ploy to get more views and you know it.
Thanks for watching and thanks for your opinion. Perhaps you missed that these mechanical marble-based circuits are not 100% reliable, and therefore the more bits that are added, the less of a chance the full calculation would run to completion? I discussed the computer's reliability in the video...it was rare that a full calculation would complete. Therefore, 19 bits tied together in series is a much greater feat than a single full adder. (Take a non-100% reliability to the 19th power...)
I am using a more historical definition of the word "computer", which has nothing to do with integrated circuits, and instead focuses on the machine's ability to perform an algorithmic calculation on a variety of input values. We could go down the rabbit hole of semantics, but instead I will refer you to the Wikipedia article on "mechanical computer" which states, "A mechanical computer is a COMPUTER built from mechanical components such as levers and gears rather than electronic components. The most common examples are ADDING MACHINES and mechanical counters..." (emphasis added). So I assure you...no, this is not a ploy to get more views. But that's an interesting strawman. This actually is a mechanical computer that took a lot of time and effort to develop. But you're right, we can't run the UA-cam app on it. Maybe someday... Thanks again for watching. 🤠
@MaskedMarble it would still be interesting if you added the other functionality necessary to turn this into an ALU. A 4-bit ALU would be more than enough due to the space it takes up. Add in some shift registers and additional control logic and you can do mult/div. Anything beyond that would probably be unreasonable given the reliability issues you mentioned. However, seeing add/sub/mult/div implimented in marbles would be pretty cool.
@NeogreenPeaches I may try that. It would be necessary to develop some sort of shortcut like I used for the full adder, rather than building the ALU's logic unit and decoder by combining logic gates. Perhaps using GraviTrax POWER components to propagate the input signals. Will have to think about it...
Sir I think you can get more clock speed if your marbles fell at 45 degrees.
Probably so. I was trying to limit the downward travel because it would have taken more action tiles to lift the marbles back up
@@MaskedMarble Well Gravitrax should make marble computer as a kit and perfect the speed and minimize size.
@@gotsm9959 Interesting idea! I found that adding additional action tiles decreased the reliability of the computer. So increasing the speed might be fine for a two bit computer “kit”. But daisy-chaining kits together would be fairly frustrating, as the calculation repeatedly fails. If you check out my automatic 2-bit adder video, that timer circuit runs much faster.
@@MaskedMarble Well I seen a marble computer on a peg board that can count to 32. Clocks are are also a type of marble computer. If someone was shipwrecked on a island they can't charge a smartphone or buy batteries.
@@gotsm9959 Yes, I saw that marble counter that could count to 32. You are right, without our smartphones we'd be scratching our heads for sure. Merry Christmas to you! 😃
So you can count to 524,287?
Edit: nvm my math sux
As for your comment on evolution:
Your model is not a proper analog because you are attempting to Leap Directly from initiation to a Fully Realized and multilayered result.
You are pointing out the necessity for reliability on a grand scale without acknowledging that such reliability would Have To be Established LONG Before such a multifaceted version of the machine Could ever exist.
Each component would have to Independently develop FIRST the Most BASIC and Simple Mechanics - Effectively, Predictably, and Reliably - Before ANY System involving More than One, Basic, Simple process could exist.
Then a Two step process could develop…
The sorts of Time and Endless Failures Required to reach the level of complexity you are actually Making are Not easily derived.
You are trying to SKIP MILLIONS of steps.
It is undeniable Proof of the Miracle of the Reality of the universe that we are capable of doing so.
Bravo!
You are actually making my point for me. The function of almost everything in biology requires the simultaneous existence and coordination of many mature and reliable parts before the subsystem becomes operational. And until it is operational, natural selection cannot select that subsystem. Add to that knowledge that multi-part systems are only as reliable as the product of the reliability of each of their mission-critical components, and you have a stong barrier against the formation of the myriad multi-part subsystems seen in biology. In my experience as a systems engineer for several decades, such systems can only result from parallel decision-making pathways where all the pieces are simultaneously designed and emplacement before the system or subsystem goes live. For example, you can't release an iPhone without a screen even if all the other parts are fully formed. And those other parts won't sit around for millions of years with foreknowledge, anticipating an iphone screen. Darwin described not a parallel decision-making pathway, but a sequential process; a sequence of slight, successive steps strung together. No such sequential process can coordinate, for example, the creation and emplacement of the 10 enzymes of glycolysis. All 10 must be present before enough ATP is generated to give the cycle any survival advantage. If the first few steps are in place but not the last step, the subsystem of enzymes actually consumes the cell's energy currency of ATP, so that is a barrier to all of the supposed intermediate changes to get from a theoretical simpler system to the final glycolysis enzyme pathway. No stepwise process can produce these things, nor can it improve their reliability. Reliability is not additive, but multiplicative, demanding that each enzyme work reliably from day one, in order to have any hope of contributing itself as a cog in the multi-component machine known as glycolysis. All steps have to be present AND reliable from the get-go, or the subsystem is completely nonfunctional from a survivability perspective.
@@MaskedMarble again, you appear to be referencing a complex system, an iPhone, for example, stating how the complex form could Never exist without a plan from day one, yet the iPhone WAS created by the slow collection of smaller component systems being developed Without 'the iPhone’ in mind.
A microprocessor WAS created as the result of a multitude of tiny, seemingly disconnected breakthroughs, each Vital to the functioning of the end result - each made at different points through time as a result of trial and error.
You might just as well point to a touchscreen and describe how it simply MUST have been the Ultimate Goal from the very Beginning, because the circuits would not function without a crucial component - then argue that there is No Way those components could have happened before they were used in the touchscreen.
If anything, I think your prior experience in systems engineering is a hindrance in this situation because you are failing to recognize the imposition and creation of the unified system's Language, Framework, and established Methodology as an external construct.
Which is to say, you can only conceptualize system creation from an external organizing structure - because all of your system conceptions and manipulations are Described and Defined using An External Organizing Paradigm.
(PS, notice my use of Paragraphs… it really helps to organize things I hope! 😁🤓)
@jclark2752 Thanks for the paragraphs. I feel that you are intentionally missing the point. Living systems must be functional from the get-go. We cannot have a discussion in an imaginary land where incompletely formed organisms exist despite missing any piece of the full hardware required for them to survive. It is the same with iphones. No end consumer buys an iphone screen by itself to make a phone call or to watch a UA-cam video, because the screen alone is not a fully functional system that can perform those functions. It is only a subsystem. That's the analogy.
You realize that every analogy breaks down at some point, correct? But this analogy is valid when you consider the functions of a living system which must be present to survive, such as producing ATP, copying its DNA, interpreting its DNA into working machines, and a host of other minimally required functions that every living thing must perform in order to be a living thing: a survivable, self-replicating system. The analogy is valid because iphones are not fully completed products, just as a single ATP synthase machine floating in space is not a fully living organism. Yet you are essentially claiming the analogy is invalid because iphone subcomponents are independently produced....yes, but not as a fully complete independent functional product. Can a microchip function without a battery or other power source? Can you watch UA-cam on an iPhone screen whose ribbon cable is not connected to a driver chip? We humans are essentially making a host of parallel design decisions with intentional purpose in mind to form these subcomponents so that they will work together when assembled into an iphone to provide a function that they do not have on their own. That's intentional design with foresight towards a future unrealized goal. Natural selection has no foresight or planning capabilities. If we consider evolution to be a process with some foresight directed by the mind of God, then it is no longer Darwin's concept of evolution, which is by definition an undetected process.
The analogy is clear: You can't produce a living system that survives with any of its critical subcomponents missing. Even though there are an unlimited number of potential designs of living organisms, each one must possess components that work in concert with one another to form a functionally operable system, with interface specifications between components to ensure they work together to produce a discernable function when assembled. You can't just pretend that you can take a pre-designed microchip and throw it into an iphone design without considering the interface...it's pinouts, where power is supplied and what the tolerance limits are for that power so the chip doesn't get fried, or conversely have too little current for the chip to operate.
What we are evaluating here is one of Darwin's two theoretical tenets, that small changes to the organism can create the organism itself (his tenet of natural selection). I am claiming from the empirical evidence that we observe, that reliability of multi-part systems poses an insurmountable barrier to that, because an organism can't survive without even a single one of its multiple critical components. It can't wait another 5 million years for a few random base changes in DNA to search the space of possible combinations to hit upon one that works, and then spend another 15 million years optimizing that barely working assembly into a fully reliable assembly that can reliably support life in every subsequent generation. Because the organism must be survivable for every second of those 25 million years, the entire time that it is developing those mission-critical subcomponents and subassemblies.
Central to this understanding is the realization that there is no such thing as a simple lifeform that one can start from. Pick what you consider to be the most primitive living thing that can independently exist and self-replicate without dependence on another living thing. Then perform a functional analysis of that living thing, reducing it to its critical components. All of those components are required for the living organism to function. Remove or slightly change one to where it no longer fits or cooperates with the other parts, and the entire system is dead. Tell me how does that organism get formed in the first place (the very thing Darwin claimed to explain...the ORIGIN of the living organism)? How does any organism, as Darwin claimed, self-originate via a chain of slight successive steps, when a host of simultaneously appearing design decisions are required to be present in EVERY living organism in order to be living, and not dead?
Or if you wish, go back to the vastly simpler example I already posed: the 10-enzyme glycolysis cycle. Explain how a sequential decision-making process can build this multi-part subsystem (which has no living function on its own) one step at a time,, even within the context of an already living system? How will 9 of the 10 steps know to wait around for the last 3 million years for the 10th step to be stumbled upon, all the while the 9 steps providing no beneficisl functional purpose to the organism and therefore no survival advantage? The curious thing about glycolysis, too, is that it cannot be reduced to fewer steps, because each enzyme takes the output of the previous step and modifies it into a new form to be further modified by the subsequent step. If the function of any one step is not performed on the target molecules, the molecules will not be in a conformation that can be acted upon by the subsequent enzyme.
@jclark2752 One more note regarding my "externally organizing paradigm": Manipulation of matter or conceptual design by an external agent is the only cause that has ever been empirically observed to produce organized multi-part systems of like complexity. That includes programmed systems which may create and manipulate multi-component designs, yet themselves originate from the mind of a programmer. So in my paradigm I'm sticking to empirical science. It's not an invalid paradigm that you can successfully object to, unless we can empirically observe (in the present) that there is another cause capable of demonstrating the production of systems of like sophistication.
i wanna play minecraft on it XD (no i dont think that will work)
🤣 That would be the slowest game of Minecraft in the 🌎!!
*just gets another and connects it yours* BOOM! 38 bit
That would be cool. 274 billion!
@@MaskedMarble make an alu pls
🤯 I was just trying to figure out how I could do subtraction without resorting to the 2’s complement trick, or maybe an encoder and decoder to do addition in base 10 numbers. If I get GraviTrax power switch I can make a Turing complete computer and do multiplication and division.
@@MaskedMarble less go. marble CPU
Apple has the M1 chip. I’ll have the ME1 (Marble Edition 1).
What's the RAM and the CPU? 😂
😄👍 I think maybe I should call it an MPU …marble processing unit.
This computer is amazing but no, in fact creatures can have parts removed and still function. My grandfather has one of his lungs removed, while he was a chronic smoker with emphysema and bronchitis and he died of old age so...
And also scientists have spliced the genes of tiny organisms, removing features and then they still lived, and also evolved those features back over many generations
You gave an example of a redundantly designed system (2 lungs), but failed to address the assertion that biological systems contain multiple parts that all have to be present to exist. My point was not that every feature of living organisms is necessary for survival, but that there is a discernible minimum subset of parts that is necessary for survival. That subset is irreducibly complex, and cannot be simplified any further. You can live without one lung due to redundancy, but you cannot live without any lungs. Our circulatory system is useless without lungs, and our lungs are useless without the circulatory system. So how could these have evolved piecemeal in a series process (one slight successive change after another) as Darwin theorized? Both lungs and circulatory system must be present for humans to be functional, and that’s a parallel decision process, which is evidence of foresight and design.
Look at the glycolosis cycle. It’s 10 steps, and each step requires a different protein/enzyme micro-machine. The entire process does not produce more ATP energy storage than it consumes until the final 10th step, which means that all 10 steps are required before the cycle produces a function (energy conversion and storage into ATP) that natural selection can then select as functionally advantageous. Take away any of the 10 steps, and you don’t get more ATP out of the cycle than you put in, or the cycle grinds to a halt. Evolution is speechless regarding how such a system could come into being by a stepwise process that is blind, without foresight and planning. Even 9 of the micro-machines existing without the 10th gives no functional advantage. How and why would they evolve into place on their own? How would they have the foresight to see if they just stick around and preserve themselves another 28 million years or so, a final 10th step that dovetails perfectly into the missing gap will make the entire cycle functional?
You are going to have to give a specific example of what you claim about removing a feature and observing it evolving back over many generations. There is a lot of presumption out there, such as the with the 30-year e coli experiment. They claimed that a strain of the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, but overlooked the fact that all e coli possess the genes necessary to do so. It’s just that normally those genes are deactivated (not expressed). What the experiment observed was that either the regulatory pathway caused the citrate-metabolizing genes to become activated, or possibly the regulatory pathway was damaged. But that would be an example of de-volution, not evolution. Evolutionary theory requires that every system design in biology must form itself from a common ancestor without any intelligent oversight.
We can do a systems functional analysis on almost every biological system and determine that it could not have survived the process of its own creation, for it would not have the survival-critical features it needed to make it through the eons of its creation without those systems in a state of mature formation that is functional. And Darwin himself gave this as a falsification criteria for his own theory: if it can be demonstrated that any complex system could not have been formed by slight, successive steps, he said his theory would break down. But guess what happens when adherents to the Darwinian faith hear of such systems as the 10-step glycolysis cycle? They claim it’s an argument from ignorance: “Just because you can’t think of a way that it could have evolved stepwise doesn’t mean it couldn’t.” But they don’t realize that it’s not an argument from ignorance. It’s an argument from knowledge and experience; systems engineers such as myself have expertise to understand what it takes to make complex systems work…systems composed of multiple pieces which must be present and properly assembled before the system becomes functional. We understand how to perform functional analyses to define the simplest design of coordinated pieces that can accomplish a discernible function, such that removing or altering a single piece breaks the entire system, rendering it nonfunctional. And that was my point in the video, which obviously requires more explanation than I could give within this video in passing.
This falls under the calculator category, not a full computer.
That would be correct if we use the modern cultural definition of a computer. I’m using a more historical definition, which includes any device that automatically performs an operation (which includes an arithmetic operation) on binary data. There are some other interesting marble computers on UA-cam whose operation is limited to addition. Thanks for watching. Have a wonderful Christmas! 🤠🎄
Man, I sure was enjoying this until the unprompted creationism proselytizing segment. It's fine if you failed biology in middle school, I just don't want to hear about it.
This computer and your dedication in building it is very impressive and inspiring, but you didn't need to bring religion into this let alone creationism of all things. It's honestly embarrassing.
I’m game for dialectic if you have an intelligent response about the subject of biology rather than resorting to ad hominem. Please present your arguments using empirical data and sound reason. What is your response to my assertion (and Darwin’s own falsification test) that complex coordinated systems could not have survived over supposed millions of years of their own development before those systems were formed.
There is 0 evidence for abiogenesis.
@@iupetre clearly you believe that
Not a computer but a calculator