Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
>From Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday Dec. 1, 2002 0958 I agree again with Tim May. I also think that category theory and topos theory at least in its definition as a branch of category theory are too restrictive, largely because they are more abstract than concrete-oriented in their underlying formulations. In fact, perhaps this is a key problem with computers. Most human beings whom I know have enormous difficulty in finding a Golden Mean between abstraction and concreteness insofar as the concrete reality and abstract reality are concerned if you get my meanings. The problem is only slightly less prevalent in academia. Computers seem to be nowhere near solving this problem - in fact, the more similar to human beings they get, the more difficult it may be for them to solve the problem. I am not even sure that most human beings in or out of academia think that there should be a Golden Mean between abstraction and concreteness [exclamation mark - several of my keys are out including that one]. In fact, I would conjecture a PRINCIPLE OF RECURSIVE SUBSTITUTION. This says that a computer or person will replace some simple operation [addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, limits, composition, non-commutative multiplication, etc.] by another simple operation if the result of using one operation predominantly and/or other operations secondarily is too slow by some standard that might be varied. Actually, don't replace them permanently - keep older methods indefinitely because they might eventually pull ahead for example, but at least move the new operations into a prominent position. My opinion is that important subtraction or subtraction-addition results are far more rapid in pure and applied applications across different fields and disciplines than composition and functors and objects in categories for example. Osher Doctorow - Original Message - From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? > > On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 02:44 AM, Marchal Bruno wrote: > > > Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I agree completely with that aspect of Bruno's thesis. ;-) 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. > > > > But then you need to explain what "implemention" are. Computer > > scientist > > have no problem with this. There are nice mathematical formulation of > > it. > > Tim would say that an implementation is basically a functor between > > categories. > > You seen to want a material preeminent level, but this is more a source > > of difficulty than an explanation. What is that level? > > Bruno is right that I would emphasize the mathematics over the "COMP" > aspects. Computations are kinds of mathematics: mappings, iterations, > theorem provings, even topological operations of various kinds. Not all > mathematics is easily implemented on computers, but the principle is > clear. > > I suppose I am partly a Platonist, in that I believe there's more to > mathematics than merely symbol manipulation (the Formalist) school. > Computers are exciting because they give us another way to make real > (or reify) the abstractions of mathematics. I believe, for example, > that categories (e.g., HILB or VECT) are in some sense "real," that we > can send our minds and our computers as robot explorers into these > "scapes" of Platonia, into the ideosphere, into noespace, or whatever. > (Sorry for waxing poetic...) > > There is a sense in which the Platonist point of view is consistent > with the Chaitin/Wolfram notion that mathematics will become largely > explorational. Arguably, this has been what mathematics has _always_ > been, that the process of discovering truths is not about proving > theorems from postulates, at least not exclusively. Even geometry got > its start not from considering abstractions out of a pure ideosphere, > but from issues of measuring the earth (geo-metry), of building > pyramids, of dividing farmlands, of measuring grain storage, and so on.
RE: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
> (I think Egan gives us a fairly plausible, fictional timeline for > figuring this stuff out: a workable TOE by the middle of this century, > i.e., within our lifetimes. That is, a theory which unifies relativity > and QM, and which is presumably also brings in QED, QCD, etc. ... > Then perhaps several centuries of very little progress, as the energies > to get to the Planck energy are enormous (e.g., compressing a mass > about equal to a cell to a size 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a > proton). ... > Of course, breakthroughs in mathematics may provide major new clues, > which is where I put my efforts.) I think this is certainly a plausible prediction of the future, but I see it as an unlikely one. I think that intelligent software programs will be brought into existence within the next 10-50 years, and that among other effects, this will cause a physics revolution. Furthermore, it will be a revolution in a direction now wholly unanticipated. Right now we analyze data about the microworld in a very crude way. For example, we scan Fermilab data for "events" -- but what about all the other data that isn't "events" but contains meaningful patterns? Create an AI mind whose sensors and actuators are quantum level, and allow it to form its own hypotheses, ideas, concepts, ontologies Do you really think it's going to come up with anything as awkward and overcomplex as our current physics theories? I suspect our current physics theories are overcomplex because they're based on extrapolating into the microworld, mathematics and intuitive concepts that originated primarily in models of our everyday physical world. Particle theory... wave theory ... path integrals. There are no particles, waves or paths down there There is no "observation" either No strings. No membranes. Our attempts to project these concepts onto an inappropriate domain may well strike future quantum-domain-natural minds as mildly hilarious... Humans may or may not arrive at a workable TOE before the advent of AI's with quantum-level sensors and actuators. Following this advent, however, the progress of fundamental physics will be unimaginably fast, and will move in humanly-unimaginable directions. Will mathematics be central to this new physics? Maybe. But not our mathematics. Anyway, this was part of why I decided to start thinking about AI rather than fundamental physics ;-> I think Greg Egan's fiction is great, but I also think Diaspora is badly flawed futorology, because his uploaded minds never get tremendously more intelligent than humans. I don't think that's a very realistic prognostication, though it makes for easier storytelling. -- Ben Goertzel
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 02:44 AM, Marchal Bruno wrote: Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree completely with that aspect of Bruno's thesis. ;-) 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. But then you need to explain what "implemention" are. Computer scientist have no problem with this. There are nice mathematical formulation of it. Tim would say that an implementation is basically a functor between categories. You seen to want a material preeminent level, but this is more a source of difficulty than an explanation. What is that level? Bruno is right that I would emphasize the mathematics over the "COMP" aspects. Computations are kinds of mathematics: mappings, iterations, theorem provings, even topological operations of various kinds. Not all mathematics is easily implemented on computers, but the principle is clear. I suppose I am partly a Platonist, in that I believe there's more to mathematics than merely symbol manipulation (the Formalist) school. Computers are exciting because they give us another way to make real (or reify) the abstractions of mathematics. I believe, for example, that categories (e.g., HILB or VECT) are in some sense "real," that we can send our minds and our computers as robot explorers into these "scapes" of Platonia, into the ideosphere, into noespace, or whatever. (Sorry for waxing poetic...) There is a sense in which the Platonist point of view is consistent with the Chaitin/Wolfram notion that mathematics will become largely explorational. Arguably, this has been what mathematics has _always_ been, that the process of discovering truths is not about proving theorems from postulates, at least not exclusively. Even geometry got its start not from considering abstractions out of a pure ideosphere, but from issues of measuring the earth (geo-metry), of building pyramids, of dividing farmlands, of measuring grain storage, and so on. Later mathematics was also guided at least partly by the practical, whether the study of differential equations or elliptic functions. Of all of the possibly-provable truths, laid out like stepping stones in a vast marsh of as-yet-unproved and possibly-unprovable truths, which stepping stones are followed, and are laid in the marsh as new proofs are obtained, is often shaped by engineering and physics considerations. Even in the purest areas of mathematics, such as number theory. The Chaitin argument that computers will be used increasingly to explore this landscape is, I think, certainly correct. (Personally, I am tremendously excited to think about what future versions of Mathematica, for example, will look like when running on computers 100 or 1000 times faster than my current Mac and running with immersive VR graphics systems. At Moore's Law rates of progress, I'll have this here in my home within the next 10-15 years or so. This is my main interest, more so than speculating on whether the universe runs on a computer or not. But Everything issues touch on this...) OK, so which is it, really, Platonism or Formalism? Paul Taylor makes a good case in "Practical Foundations of Mathematics" that category theory in general and topos theory in particular provide the unification of these two points of view. Mathematical objects live in a universe of categories, with certain rules for moving between categories, and that various universes exist as toposes. We as humans can manipulate these rules, learn how these objects behave, and thus explore these spaces. Now whether it makes sense (or "is really the case") to say that Reality is some kind of computer program is not all clear to me. Like many others, I have problems with the notion that reality is a program running on some kind of metacomputer. Perhaps computation is woven into the fabric of spacetime at a deep enough level, and perhaps there are alternative "state machine" rules which could be imagined in other universes (or even in different parts of our universe, e.g., changes in rules at very high energies, or near singularities, etc. I'm not--at this time--much engaged by the "universe as a computer program" idea. A useful hypothesis to have--the Zuse/Fredkin/Lloyd/Schmidhuber/Wolfram/etc. thesis, in its various forms--but a long, long way from being established as the most believable hypothesis. To me, at least. (I think Egan gives us a fairly plausible, fictional timeline for figuring this stuff out: a workable TOE by the middle of this century, i.e., within our lifetimes
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear Stepen, I did not say ">information is only information to a "recognizer" of such. <..." but can you imagine an "unrecognized" information, just floating around? it would take a special definition of information (maybe even weirder than Shannon's bit, the meaningless dot/sign if not assigned into context. ) You also missed my explanatory remark in parentheses >>..."(by no specified acknowledger)" meaning person, particle, universe whatever absorbing a "difference" (which btw I equated with existence). I included the process (not the noun) information only up to its generation. Communiaction of informational stuff is a subsequent phase. Your question (how do we define such?) is valid, maybe someone smarter than me could help out. About the "counterfactual "no information": right on, "no info" is*a* counterfactual (or 'is counterfactual') but to detect (establish) that a system is "no-informational" is a factual process, a characteristic established about the system. Lack of something assumable can be a positive addition to a description. I would love to read Hal's supposed opinion on the counterfactual. John M - Original Message - From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:11 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? > Dear John, > > It seems that you are saying that information is only information to a > "recognizer" of such. If this is so, how do we define such? As to the notion > of "no information" as information, this seems to fall under the definition > of "counterfactuals". (Hal Ruhl might have a thought to add to this.) > I remember reading somewhere that the fact that no detection event > occurring in a QM situation is still an informative event. I believe that > the so-called "non-demolition" measurements are related. Any thoughts? > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric Hawthorne" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and > 1's? > > > > Dear Stephen, please see my note after the copy of your post > > snip > > > I defined information as "difference acknowledged" (by no specified > > acknowledger) because not all information DO make a difference, yet an > > unrecognized difference is no information. > > With the Plenitude (a version as the basis for my narrative leading to our > > universe) I have a question: Is "no information" not an information? > > (Or: is "no difference" an information about identicity?) > > JM > > > > > > >
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear John, It seems that you are saying that information is only information to a "recognizer" of such. If this is so, how do we define such? As to the notion of "no information" as information, this seems to fall under the definition of "counterfactuals". (Hal Ruhl might have a thought to add to this.) I remember reading somewhere that the fact that no detection event occurring in a QM situation is still an informative event. I believe that the so-called "non-demolition" measurements are related. Any thoughts? Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:40 AM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? > Dear Stephen, please see my note after the copy of your post snip > I defined information as "difference acknowledged" (by no specified > acknowledger) because not all information DO make a difference, yet an > unrecognized difference is no information. > With the Plenitude (a version as the basis for my narrative leading to our > universe) I have a question: Is "no information" not an information? > (Or: is "no difference" an information about identicity?) > JM > > >
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear Stephen, please see my note after the copy of your post John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? > 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 > I defined information as "difference acknowledged" (by no specified acknowledger) because not all information DO make a difference, yet an unrecognized difference is no information. With the Plenitude (a version as the basis for my narrative leading to our universe) I have a question: Is "no information" not an information? (Or: is "no difference" an information about identicity?) JM
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Russell, Neat! I have been thinking of this idea in terms of a "very weak anthropic principle" and a "communication principle". Roughtly these are: "All observations by an observer are only those that do not contradict the existence of the observer" and "any communication is only that which mutually consistent with the existence of the communicators". I will read you paper again. ;-) Yes! That's exactly it. Now how about this. Observers are not constrained to observe a single path through "potential-state" space, but rather, are constrained to only observe )and communicate via) one of the paths (or all of the paths) that remain consistent with existence. So there is room for (a limited form of) free will and limited observation of quantum uncertainty in these theories, if necessary. Eric
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear Russell,
Neat! I have been thinking of this idea in terms of a "very weak
anthropic principle" and a "communication principle". Roughtly these are:
"All observations by an observer are only those that do not contradict the
existence of the observer" and "any communication is only that which
mutually consistent with the existence of the communicators". I will read
you paper again. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric Hawthorne"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and
1's?
> In my paper "Why Occam's Razor", I identify a postulate called the
> "projection postulate", which in words is something like "An observer
> necessarily projects out an actual from the space of possibilities"
> Mathematically, this corresponds to choosing a subset from the set of
> all descriptions.
>
> My paper shows in essence P+T+K => QM (projection postulate + time
> postulate + Kolmogorov probability axioms implies quantum mechanics).
>
> Apparently (not that I'm any expert on these matters) Kant tried to
> derive Classical dynamics by introducing this as a "necessary prior",
> so its quite possible that this idea is not at all new.
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >
> > Dear Russell,
> >
> > Bingo! But can a method of definig the "subsethood" be defined? What
> > distinguishes one subset from another?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Stephen
> >
>
>
>
> --
--
> A/Prof Russell StandishDirector
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119
(mobile)
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --
--
>
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: >
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
In my paper "Why Occam's Razor", I identify a postulate called the
"projection postulate", which in words is something like "An observer
necessarily projects out an actual from the space of possibilities"
Mathematically, this corresponds to choosing a subset from the set of
all descriptions.
My paper shows in essence P+T+K => QM (projection postulate + time
postulate + Kolmogorov probability axioms implies quantum mechanics).
Apparently (not that I'm any expert on these matters) Kant tried to
derive Classical dynamics by introducing this as a "necessary prior",
so its quite possible that this idea is not at all new.
Cheers
Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Russell,
>
> Bingo! But can a method of definig the "subsethood" be defined? What
> distinguishes one subset from another?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear Russell, Bingo! But can a method of definig the "subsethood" be defined? What distinguishes one subset from another? Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:21 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? > It works because no observer can possibly see the whole of the > Plenitude, only subsets. The subsets do contain information. > > Of course, people who believe in an omniscient God will have trouble > with this :). > > Cheers
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
It works because no observer can possibly see the whole of the
Plenitude, only subsets. The subsets do contain information.
Of course, people who believe in an omniscient God will have trouble
with this :).
Cheers
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.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
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. > > > >
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.
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
Dear Ben, I agree completely with that aspect of Bruno's thesis. ;-) 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. Additionally, the 1-uncertainty notion seems to require a neglect of the no-cloning theorem of QM or, equivalently, that its ok for TMs to construct (via UDA) QM theories of themselves and yet not be subject to the rules of the theory. Could we not recover 1-uncertainty from the Kochen-Specker theorem of QM itself? Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:50 PM Subject: RE: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines? > > Among other things, Bruno is pointing out that if we assume everything in > the universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's, the > distinction btw subjective and objective reality is lost, and there's no way > to distinguish "simulated physics in a virtual reality" from "real physics." > > I accept this -- there is no way to make such a distinction. Tough luck for > those who want to make one!! ;-) > > -- Ben G
