On 14 Aug 2012, at 13:36, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
BRUNO: This "musical score", does it require work of some kind to
be created itself?
? I did not write this.
ROGER: A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be
able to see the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that. So it could not
create itself.
A Turing machine is not a tape with holes in them.
When you say "cannot create itself", I am not sure if anything can
create itself. But amoeba and Turing machine can reproduce itself.
BRUNO: I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires
solving an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite
number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or
optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we
are going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical facts,
which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis
rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal
computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd!
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires
an an infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,
Here you are quoting Stephen, not me.
That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources,
as put in this way, people might think you mean "primitively
physical resource".
Yes, that's from me.
and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim
access to the information that would be in the solution that the
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the "truth" of the
solution gives it existence, but the fact that some mathematical
statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does not
allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things.
For example, we could make valid claims about the content of a
meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty
about those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and
physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as "moving harmoniously together" was not
exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of
the simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the
percepts that make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic
percept of living in a world that you also live in is synchronized
with your monadic view of living in a world that I also live in
such that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads
(as defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be
considered to either "exchange" substances nor are embedded in a
common medium that can exchange excitations. The entire "common
world of appearances" emerges from and could be said to supervene
upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.
I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP-
Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is
the computer that is finding the solution. <snip>
Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.
ROGER: Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not
sure.
If comp is true, nothing is created. All there is comes from the
consequence of addition and multiplication of numbers, and what is
psychological, physical, theological are numbers dreams. But such
dreams obeys laws constrained by computer science.
But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a
physics
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that
overlooks
intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.
With comp even matter is not "physical". This is still mainly ignore,
so you might be interested in reading my papers on my URL.
To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa.
Miracle might exist, from inside arithmetic, at the epistemological
level, but to invoke them when searching an explanation is not
convincing if you don't explain them too.
Bruno
Roger , [email protected]
8/14/2012
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony
On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Roger,
I will interleave some remarks.
On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous
to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.
Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go
too far. This "musical score", does it require work of some kind to
be created itself?
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that
intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving
an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of
variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize
more than one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we are
going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical facts,
which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis
rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal
computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd!
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires
an an infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,
That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources,
as put in this way, people might think you mean "primitively
physical resource".
and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim
access to the information that would be in the solution that the
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the "truth" of the
solution gives it existence, but the fact that some mathematical
statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does not
allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things.
For example, we could make valid claims about the content of a
meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty
about those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and
physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as "moving harmoniously together" was
not exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the
synchronization of the simple actions of the Monads. It was a
coordination of the percepts that make up the monads such that, for
example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also live
in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a world that
I also live in such that we can be said to have this email chat.
Remember, Monads (as defined in the Monadology) have no windows and
cannot be considered to either "exchange" substances nor are
embedded in a common medium that can exchange excitations. The
entire "common world of appearances" emerges from and could be said
to supervene upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective)
Monadic actions.
I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the
NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is
the computer that is finding the solution. <snip>
Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
