Bruno: thanks for the TITLE of your post including the *" N O "* . John Mikes (*Subject:* Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.) ) On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2012, at 12:16, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > 1) Your concept of relative bits probably deflates > my proposed idea, but I don't understand what they are. > Maybe you can give a brief explanation. > > > The UDA in sane04 should be the explanation. Have you progress in it? Feel > free to ask question. > > > > > 2) Also, I am aware that due to networks, > a brain can process an almost infinite > amount of information. But presumably > that estimate would not include a noise > or entropy limitation. I imagine that > this has been estimated, but not sure. > > > Below our subst level there is a priori infinite noise/energy. yes we have > to take that into account. The "winner physics" is probably the one which > couple genuinely the computable and the non computable. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]> > 12/22/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-12-21, 13:25:36 > *Subject:* Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No. > > > On 20 Dec 2012, at 19:01, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi > > A simpler way to make my point is the axiom > that no information can be stand alone, it must > have context to give it meaning. > > > The information needs a universal machine to interpret it. > > Universal machines needs also a universal machine to be themselves > interpreted. > > That is why we have to assume at least one universal machine. > > Then if you accept Church thesis, it is a long, tedious, and not so easy > task to prove that the elementary arithmetic taught in school is Turing > universal, so we can start from this well know one. > > > > But that context can not be > stored alone, it in turn must have context. > And so forth. Thus one bit of information > cannot simply be physically stored, it > would extend to take up the entire physical > universe. > > > I don't follow you here. Your argument above only shows that we cannot > store the one bit of information + some interpreter of that bit, + the > universal environment supporting that bit, etc. > > But we don't need bits, we need only relative bits, and this store easily > in any universal machine's memory. > > > > > But our brains do apparently store enormous amounts > of information. The above argument suggests that > the bulk of this must be stored Platonically (mentally). > > > OK. Because our states makes sense only relatively to many other states, > and all that fit in arithmetic. > > > BTW, I conjecture that this fits also on the border of the Mandelbrot set, > making it a nice picture of a compact universal dovetailing. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6uO7ZHtK8&list=PL70D5F39E3EFE6136&index=1 > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]> > 12/20/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-12-20, 12:40:21 > *Subject:* Jason and the Dragon's Teeth > > Hi meekerdb > > How can you store info on a particle ? > > Let's make this as simple as possible and say that you decide to write > some "information" on a piece of paper in the form of 1's and 0's. > Is that really information ? No. Not unless you provide additional > information such as > > a) a definition of what information is > b) where the information is (address) > c) could this just be junk ? > d) how to read the 1's and 0's apart from the blank spaces > e) what spurious info from the blank spaces means > j) how to tell that spurious information from 1's and 0's. > e) how to..... > > For every step I add, hoping to clear up the > issue once and for all, other problems come to life, > as in the Greek myth of Jason and the Dragon's teeth: > > http://www.mythweb.com/heroes/jason/jason14.html > > "The Dragon's Teeth > > Aeetes, it turns out, had got his hands on some dragon's teeth with unique > agricultural properties. > As soon as these hit the soil they began to sprout, which was good from > the point of view of > Jason accomplishing his task by nightfall, but bad in terms of the > harvest. For each seed germinated > into a fully-armed warrior, who popped up from the ground and joined the > throng now menacing poor Jason. " > > You need info to store and read info, and > info on what that means, etc. > > > > > about the warrior killling > enemy, and for each enemy that n > > > gtell info > > have an decoding aparatus. > > > Suppose you decide to store information on a computer disk. > You say 'all I have to do is put a + charge here and nothing there." > > I don't think it's that simple. > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net <+rclo...@verizon.net>] > 12/20/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-19, 17:10:58 > Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object > > > On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> > >> On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> > >> Hi meekerdb and Stephen, > >> > >> If information is stored in quantum form, > >> I can't see why the number of particles > >> in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. > >> > >> > >> Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist > like > >> Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes -> no information. > >> > >> Also there are ways of storing information > >> holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. > >> > >> > >> The holographic principle says that the information that can be > instantiated > >> in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in > Planck > >> units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average > information > >> density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from > the > >> CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density > >> equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area > we > >> find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which > >> things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of > the > >> universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. > >> > >> Brent > > Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. > > > > I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age > > of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the > > Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but > > that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, > > which is rather close. > > They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not been > constant (it has been > slightly increasing). > > > > > Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic > > Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that > > 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also > > disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger > > than 13.7 billion light-years? > > I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't going to > disappear, ever. > It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion of the > universe. There's > an excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm > > > > > And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, > > shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I > > think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the > > Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. > > I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get for the > holographic limit. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.com.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ > unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
