You may be absolutely correct, Professor, Standish, and likely are. But you
know, what I can say in response is "that the programmer just is," which, of
course, bumps, what we know of causality. Or, more, precisely, a programmer
designs a program that creates a single hubble volume, or many, many. And, yes,
I am just moving the problem backwards, endlessly. I have of late become
curious about Boltzmann Brains resolving-confusing this issue of CA emerging
accidentally, versus a programmer. BB's may do this, as I have read that
Boltzmann and some contemporary physicists and mathematicians, consider this
BB(s) to arise out of the thermal disequalibrium, between the false vacuum, and
absolute vacuum in which the Hubble Volume began with. Allegedly, these BB's or
perhaps, just one BB, is said to have emerged from nothing (vacuum-->false
vacuum) with false memories and a personality.
This is an absolutely, insane, notion, but the problem is-I sort of like it.
Maybe the programmer came from nothing, or get big CA? Or the Big CA percolated
up and created the big programer, or program, even? It is definitely, insane,
but also maybe insanely, great? To quote US skeptic, and Atheist, Michael
Shermer, "Any sufficiently, advanced, ET is indistinguishable from God."
Shermer was rifting on Arthur C. Clarke's famous, quote, regarding technology,
as you already know. But rather then being repelled by the idea, I, personally,
feel good about it. I suppose there's no accounting for taste. or whom one may
encounter on a mailing list.
I am semi-serious in this proposal, that if this thinking turns out to at least
be conceivable, theoretically, then perhaps international SETI searches could
also include BB's as well as carbon-water beings such as ourselves? It might be
interesting to interview this big BB. I wouldn't even mind genuflecting,
because, hey, that's what us, primates, do when encountering a 'superior
being.'
Thanks for viewing this post (if you do?)
Mitch
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 8:56 pm
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:54:34AM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Very well, Professor Standish, given that, could the Hubble Volume
tself, then be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years
cross, and thus, that old?
That sounds like what Wolfram proposes.
Is this CA, or all CA's something that emerges from thermo and fluid
ynamics, or does it require (sigh!) a programmer, in the Jurgen
chmidhuber, sense of the word?
I don't see why a programmer is required. Presumably, if is some sort
f CA, it just is.
Apologies for my obtuseness, but hey, this what all good primates do, connect
ots, make assumptions.
Thanks,
Mitch
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
There are plenty of examples, but it will take too long to extract the
literature. For example, the Navier-Stokes equations describing fluid
flow can be simulated via an appropriate hex tiling (close packed
spheres) CA (or generalised CA). I've seen people give examples of CAs
simulating the reaction-diffusion equations that Turing used for his
famous morphogenesis study.
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:38:45PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
> the behavior of Cellular Automata? Does cell biology do the tasks
> of CA, orbis this merely, a mathematical abstraction? Does anything
> in physics come to mind, when refering to CA?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:18 am
> Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
>
>
> On 02 Oct 2013, at 03:56, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>On 01 Oct 2013, at 01:30, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The real universe is likely to be 11 dimensional, nonlocal with
> >>>around
> >>>10^{122} states, or 2^{10^{122}} possible universes, if indeed it
> >>>is a
> >>>CA at all. Needles in haystacks is a walk in the park by comparison.
> >>
> >>CA are local. The universe cannot be a CA if comp is correct, and
> >>the empirical violation of Bell's inequality confirms this comp
> >>feature.
> >>
> >>Bruno
> >>
> >
> >There is no particular requirement for CAs to be local, although local
> >CAs are by far easier to study than nonlocal ones, so in practice they
> >usually are (cue obligatory lamp post analogy).
>
> We can easily conceive quantum CA.
> But those are not what is named simply CA (which locality is quite
> typical).
> You will not find quantum CA in Wolfram (well, in my edition).
>
>
> >
> >Unless you mean something else by locality. I mean that there is some
> >neighbourhood radius such that the update function for a given cell
> >only access the states of cells within the given radius.
> >
> >Having said that - I notice that Wikipedia, Wolfram.com and also Andy
> >Wuensche's article on Discrete Dynamical Networks
> >(http://www.complexity.org.au/ci/vol06/wuensche/) all state that the
> >update function must be local in the manner described above in their
> >definitions of "cellular automata". In which case, you are correct.
>
> OK.
>
> >
> >I am clearly taking about a more general subset of discrete dynamical
> >networks in which the cells are still tiling an n-dimensional space,
> >but that the update function does not depend on a local neighbourhood
> >of the cell to be updated.
>
> Better not to call them CA, but quantum CA, or why not comp-CA, as
> comp entails non locality, non cloning, indeterminacy, etc.
>
>
> >
> >I don't know what Wolfram was talking about though - I just assumed he
> >wouldn't be thinking in terms of local update functions for his "CA of
> >the universe".
>
> Alas, that is what he does, or did.
> At the time he wrote his books, he put all the QM weirdness under the
> rug. He said that if non-locality is a real consequence of QM, it
> means that QM is false.
>
> There are just very few people who grasp those three things at once:
>
> - the mind-body problem
> - the conceptual QM astonishing features (non locality, non cloning,
> indeterminacy, etc)
> - Church thesis and the non triviality of the discovery of the
> universal machine and its fundamental "creative limitations".
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
mail
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
mail to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
rof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
rincipal, High Performance Coders
isiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
niversity of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List" group.
o unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
o everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
o post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
isit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
or more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
