----- Original Message ----- From: "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "echo-CI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
> Stephen, > > Eric is taking the quest to its logical conclusion. > Even Steve Wolfram hints that pure space is the source > of all instantiation. So the only question that needs > resolution is specifying the natural of the architecture > of that space - and - identifying how it brings entities > forces, particles into being. And that requires identifying > the characteristics of that realm of 'could be' .. the one > I've labeled in discussions as "Potentia". > > Jamie > > > > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > I like your idea! But how do we reconsile your notion with the notion > > expressed by Russell: > > > > > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:12 PM > > > Subject: Re: not-sets, not-gates, and the universe > > > > > > > There is no problem is saying that all computations exist in > > > > "platonia" (or the plenitude). This is a zero information set, and > > > > requires no further explanation. > > > > > > > > One definition of "information" is a "difference that makes a > > difference". If we take the "substrate" to be the "capacity for there to be > > difference" as you propose we obviously can not consider Platonia or the > > "Plenitude" do be it. If we take these two ideas seriously, is there any way > > that we can have both? > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Stephen > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:36 PM > > Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and > > 1's? > > > > > As I mentioned in an earlier post, titled "quantum computational > > cosmology" > > > why don't we assume/guess that the substrate (the fundamental concept of > > > the > > > universe or multiverse) is simply a capacity for there to be difference, > > > but also, > > > a capacity for all possible differences (and thus necessarily all > > possible > > > configurations of differences) to "potentially exist". > > > > > > If we assume that all possible configurations of differences can > > > "potentially exist" > > > and that that unexplained property (i.e. the capacity to manifest any > > > configuration of > > > differences) is THE nature of the substrate, then > > > a computation can just be defined as a sequence of states selected from > > all > > > of the potential difference-configurations inherent in the substrate. > > > > > > I don't even think that this notion of a computation requires energy to > > > do the > > > information processing. > > > > > > My main notion in the earlier post was that some selections of a sequence > > > of the substrate's "potential states" will corresponds to order-producing > > > computations (computations which produce emergent structure, systems, > > > behaviour etc). > > > > > > Such an order-producing sequence of substrate potential-states might be > > > considered to be "the observable universe" (because the order generation > > > in that sequence was adequate to produce complex systems good enough > > > to be sentient observers of the other parts of that state-sequence). > > > > > > If we number the states in that selected order-producing sequence of > > > substrate > > > states from the first-selected state to the last-selected state, we have > > > a numbering > > > which corresponds to the direction of the time arrow in that observable > > > universe. > > > > > > My intuition is that the "potential-states" (i.e. potentially existing > > > configurations of > > > differences) of the substrate may correspond to quantum states and > > > configurations > > > of quantum entanglement, and that "selection" of meaningful or > > > observable sequences > > > of potential states corresponds to decoherence of quantum states into > > > classical > > > states. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > > > >It is the assumption that the 0's and 1's can exist without some > > substrate that bothers me. If we insist on making such an assuption, how can > > we even have a notion of distinguishability between a 0 and a 1?. > > > > To me, its analogous to claiming that Mody Dick "exists" but there > > does not exists any copies of it. If we are going to claim that "all > > possible computations" exists, then why is it problematic to imagine > > > > > > > >that "all > > > >possible implementations of computations" exists as well. Hardware is not > > an > > > >"epiphenomena" of software nor software an "epiphenomena" of hardware, > > they > > > >are very different and yet interdependent entities. > > > > > > > > > > > >