Re: Quantum Interference and the Plentitude
If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you simply don't get wavelike interference patterns. To my knowledge, you don't get interference patterns for *positive* real-valued Hilbert space, but for real-valued Hilbert space you do. Check http://mina4-49.mc2.chalmers.se/~dobsicek/PhDThesis.pdf on page 39 for a quick review and references. Sincerely, Mirek --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: coffee-bar machine excerices
The Shepherdson Sturgis coffee-bar formal definition of computability. (A variant by Cutland). Here is a job offer in an (infinite) coffee bar in Platonia. (Infinite, just for making things a bit simpler.) The basic instructions are the following 3 types + 1. a. - Please add a coffee cup on table 17 (say) b.- Please put on table 24 as many coffee cups than there are coffee cups on table 42 (say) c. - Please make sure there is no more coffee cups on table 56 The last instruction is a bit more difficult. To do the job you need minimal ability to read a language in which the preceding instructions can be described. Also, to economize paper (yes in Platonia Forest are protected too!), the instruction a. - Please add a coffee cup on table 17 (say) is written S(17) b.- Please put on table 24 as many coffee cups than there are coffee cups on table 42 (say) is written T(42, 24) c. - Please make sure there is no more coffee cups on table 56 is written Z(56) (Z is for zero cup of coffee) For the last instruction you have to know that a job is the given of an ordered, even numbered instructions. For example, a typical Job is 1) Z(1) 2) S(1) 3) S(2) Here the job consists in making sure there are no more coffee cups on table one. Then to add a cup of coffe on table one, and then add a cup of coffee on table 2. Now here is the last instruction: d. - if the number of coffee cups on table 14 (say) is equal to the number of coffee cups on table 45 (say) then proceed from the instruction 5 (say) described in your job. In case there are no instruction numbered 5, stop (the job will be said to be completed); in case the number of coffee cups on table 14 is not equal to the number of coffee cups on table 45, then proceed from the next instruction. It is written: J(14, 45, 5). DEFINITION: A function f from N to N is said to be Shepherdson Sturgis coffee bar computable, if there is a job (a list of numbered instructions) such that when putting n cups of coffee on table one, then, after the job is completed there is f(n) cups of coffee on table one. Similarly, a function h from NXN to N is said to be Shepherdson Sturgis coffee bar computable if there is a job such that, after having put n cups of coffee on table one and m cups of coffee on table two, then, after the job is completed there is h(n,m) cups of coffee on table one. I have to go, so I give some Exercise for the week-end (I provide solution monday) 1) find a short job crashing the coffee bar computer. Such a job will never be completed. BEGIN 1: Z(1) 2: Z(2) 3: J(1,2,3) # true condition, loop END 2) find a job which computes addition (which is of course a function from NXN to N) BEGIN 1: Z(3) # clean temp tables 2: Z(4) 3: J(2,3,8) # are we done? get out of the loop 4: S(1) 5: S(3) 6: S(4) 7: J(3,4,3) # always true condition, continue with adding 8: END 3) using the preceding job, find a job which computes multiplication. BEGIN 1: Z(5) # clean temp tables 2: Z(6) 3: T(1,5)# copy 1 - 5 4: J(5,6,14) # are we done? get out of the multipl. loop 5: S(6) 6: Z(3) # adding loop start 7: Z(4) 8: J(2,3,13) 9: S(7) 10: S(3) 11: S(4) 12: J(3,4,8) # adding loop end 13: J(3,4,4) # always true condition, continue with multipl. loop 14: Z(1) 15: T(7,1)# copy 7 - 1, table one contains the final result END 4) is the following proposition plausible: a function from N to N is intuitively computable if and only if it can be computed by some coffee bar job. yes 1) instructions of the coffee-bar language coincide with important instructions of nowadays central processing units in computers 2) coffee-bar instructions are sufficient for constructing logical AND, OR, NOT operations 3) I should be able to find a better reason, damn... 5) describe informally the coffee-bar language, and, choosing an order on its alphabet, write the first 7 jobs in the lexicographical order. The alphabet contains all symbols needed in the jobs, including commas, parentheses, etc. + some grammatical rules making clear that Z(23) is a good instruction, but 23(Z) is not, ... Program ::= BEGIN commands END commands::= line-no instruction comment next line-no ::= num: instruction ::= Z(num) | S(num) | T(num,num) | J(num,num,num) comment ::= # text `new-line` | `new-line` next::= commands | END num ::= [0,1,2,3,...] text::= [ascii text without the `new-line` character] First 7 jobs 1) BEGIN 0: J(0,0,0) END 2) BEGIN 0: J(0,0,1) END 3) BEGIN 0: J(0,1,0) END 4) BEGIN 0: J(0,1,1) END 5) BEGIN 0: J(1,0,0) END 6) BEGIN 0: J(1,0,1) END 7) BEGIN 0: J(1,1,0) END Assuming empty tables, programs 1,3,5,7 never reach END. Sincerely, Mirek --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this
Re: Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.
Hal, I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something like: ...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add: observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside Differentiation and Integration). A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word 'bifurcation' - indicating that only 2 chances in the impredicative unlimited totality. As a second (even more minor) remark: All possible states sounds to me as being restricted to the level WE find possible. Since cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine considers anything 'iompossible'? Have a good 2008 John M On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Russell: I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your book. Thanks for the cite. My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire information and become a Something. Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something. Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of compatible states for a Something each containing more information than the last - that is the imposition of time. Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one. The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed over and over forever. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.
Hal, me again (John): Do you seriously mean How many Nothings? John On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hal, I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something like: ...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add: observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside Differentiation and Integration). A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word 'bifurcation' - indicating that only 2 chances in the impredicative unlimited totality. As a second (even more minor) remark: All possible states sounds to me as being restricted to the level WE find possible. Since cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine considers anything 'iompossible'? Have a good 2008 John M On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Russell: I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your book. Thanks for the cite. My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire information and become a Something. Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something. Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of compatible states for a Something each containing more information than the last - that is the imposition of time. Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one. The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed over and over forever. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
What has Schmidhuber been up to
Moviomium, a new element, has been recently created at the CERN digital physics lab deep in the heart of the alps in Switzerland. Rumours suggest that renegade Theorist of Everything J. Schmidhuber has applied one of his Goedel machines to the creation of new types of matter. Obviously some of this matter escaped an infected the new version of OSX. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: movieatom.tiff (Apologies for the German error message)
Re: Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.
Hi John: At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote: Hal, I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something like: ...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add: observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside Differentiation and Integration). A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word 'bifurcation' - indicating that only 2 chances in the impredicative unlimited totality. I agree that there can be a multiplicity of simultaneous splits. This was a mistake I realized later. As a second (even more minor) remark: All possible states sounds to me as being restricted to the level WE find possible. Since cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine considers anything 'iompossible'? What I indicated was all paths to completion. I suspect that there may be sequences within the Everything that would not be on such paths. Yes I did mean an unlimited number of Nothings in the Everything. For the Everything to contain just one copy of the information in it would be a selection. Rather it needs to contain an unlimited number of copies. Have a good 2008 Thanks, you too. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
White Rabbits
Using my approach White Rabbits can be dealt with as follows [I think]: The dynamic starts with and continues a pattern - a path to completeness. The path is not deterministic because most states would be multiply incomplete so any two successive states will differ by some fractional reduction in this incompleteness and that fraction can not be selected prior to the transition [minimal selection]. However, this fraction is nevertheless composed of information that reduces an incompleteness that started in a logic observation - responses to meaningful questions - and should remain in this venue. There would be only one possible maximum size transitions and many possible small ones. In this approach large transitions that resemble White Rabbits would be uncommon and patternless White Rabbit events should not exist. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
