Rewinding a Computer

Here's a thought experiment, based on a simple computer a la Turing. Start with three parts:

• Read-Only Memory (populated with code)
• Processor (interprets code, a la Turing)
• RAM Memory (empty)

Consider the ROM as the input, the RAM as the output, and the processor as the functional engine. Add to this, a clock to sequence the processor's interpretation of the ROM, and a known start point to run the code. There are no external inputs, so everything that happens in the RAM is purely the result of the code in the ROM - thus dependent on the nature of the processor, and contents of ROM.

Consider the system as a pair of 3D cubes, with the following axes:

• X axis, data in memory cells
• Y axis, address of memory cells
• Z axis, states at successive clock pulses

As such, the ROM (input) would be the same 2D X x Y array repeated for all clock pulses along the Z axis, whereas the RAM would start off as undefined (or zero, if we assume empty cells to hold that value) until completely or partially painted in by code activity.

The simple case is where code interpretation is limited to the ROM; the larger case is where code within writable RAM can also be interpreted.  The overall code will either:

1. Continue running indefinitely (open system, e.g. the irrational number Pi)
2. Fall into a repeating loop (closed, e.g. 1/3 expressed in decimal)
3. Stop (closed. e.g. 1/100 expressed in decimal)

We'll avoid the Halting Problem by assuming case (3) for starters, which may also require us to consider only the simple case, where only the code in the ROM is interpreted.  Now, the questions...

• If we gather only the full 3D X-Y-Z array of the RAM, can we deduce the ROM?
• If we know both 3D RAM and 2D ROM arrays, can we deduce the processor?
• Do these answers change, if pre-used ("empty") RAM values are known?
• Do these answers change, if pre-used RAM values remain flagged?

The elephant in the room

The processor can be considered a complicated operator that takes an input value, and produces an output value - but if each output value may arise from different inputs, then the processor is not a function - it is "blurry", in the same sense that quantum particles are blurred as waves.

We manufacture our processors, i.e. they arise from a template of arbitrary pattern, as opposed to "crafted" (one-off creation with no template retained for re-use).  In contrast, "naturally-arising" processors may grow from a recursive self-similarity basis, which we may expect to be easier to derive from the output.

Examples

One example would be the ZX Spectrum running a program that ignores external inputs. This 1982 home computer had a 16k ROM, either 16k or 48k or RAM, and a Zilog Z80 processor clocked at 3.5MHz, 16-bit addressing, 8-bit data bus.  So, the "size" of the system would be 0-65535 on the Y axis, 0-255 on the X axis, and 3.5 million x seconds to end of runtime on the Z axis.

That's a far larger computational mass than the initial program "seed", so needs a larger computer to fully model it; so far, so in keeping with our info-theory, and probably doable on today's hardware.

Another example is how the genotype is converted to the phenotype, where the nature of the processor is largely unknown.  Ironically, the way "ROM" DNA is read to run-time mRNA, for ribosomes to "knit" mRNA into protein threads, is closer to Turing's endless-tape model than our Z80 processor!

Reverse computing is hard

It always seems harder to reverse computing, as seen through a series of problems successively conquered as our computational power grows.  OCR is harder than printing fonts, speech recognition is harder than text-to-speech, etc.  In each of these models of the external "real world", the generated output is easier to read than the "real thing", as it's quantized into a narrower set of possibilities.

This applies to attempts to understand the universe, via models that need the "It's as if..." disclaimer, rather than the unwarranted arrogance of "It is...".  We can only model the universe in our heads (including peer-to-peer and computational extensions thereof); the universe itself can only be passed by value (the part we experience, as local copy), not by reference (complete, writable).

Disable ALL WiFi Auto-Connect!

Windows 10 and 11 both duhfault to auto-connecting every "secure" WiFi network they can detect, relying on the absence of "remembered" key to block unintended connections. This logic is often expressed in forum threads, when folks post that they want to stop all WiFi Auto-Connect, rather than stepping on ants one at a time, or disabling the WiFi adapter.  

Even when command-line methods are offered, they all involve naming the specific WiFi network you want to "fix"; useless for control over all networks that may be discovered, other than the few you may want to actually use.

As it is, you can't access Properties for a WiFi network until it's connected, so you can't even attempt to UNcheck "yes, let's stick our fingers in the electricity socket without asking first".  Not having they key to connect may prevent unwanted connections, but also places that network beyond Settings control.  Entering a key to connect to an unwanted network may let you in to its Properties and thus ability to UNcheck "Auto-connect when in range", but now you have the risk of a "remembered" key.  Either way, you're forced to take more risk than should be the case.

Cannot connect to this network

I suspect this behavior may be a cause of the "Cannot connect to this network" problem.  In my case, I have a distant main router and a closer slave router; the slave hosts two WiFi networks, one of which is limited to Internet access only, for safer guest use.  All three WiFi networks use WPA2, but the "full access" slave router WiFi network has never had a key entered.  None of these networks are to "Auto-connect", but without the key, this setting cannot be applied to the full-access slave router network.

Sometimes (no predictable pattern) when starting a laptop close to the slave router, manually connecting the guest network will fail with a "Cannot connect..." message.  All other "secure" networks within range are found defaulted to [x] Connect Automatically, and clearing these checkboxes does not "stick".

Sometimes temporarily checking Auto-connect for the intended connection will work; other times, nothing works short of "just" restarting Windows.  The same intermittent failure pattern affects two different Win10 laptops, set up in the same way.  When connected via (unwanted) Auto-connect, clearing the Auto-connect checkbox sometimes drops the connection and the whole mess starts again.

Meta-bug

Lacking a way to set behavior of newly-spawned entities, before they are spawned, is a common meta-bug that often creates exploit opportunities.  This WiFi issue is just another instance of this meta-level bug.

Windows has become hell-bent on connecting to the Internet, from OOBE's lure of "a little WiFi here...", the constant pressure to "just" auto-sign in to an online Microsoft Account, and the duhfault behavior of all "secure" WiFi networks to auto-connect on the basis that a missing key is safety enough.

I wish Microsoft would respect the "My" in "My Computer", and at least offer solid settings to stay off networks and the Internet until this is initiated by the user!