The confluence of cosmology and biology
So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular confluence of cosmological and biological factors. The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten strong enough to rip the whole works apart, that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other stars do) that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the only thing (Craig), But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent thing to evolve, how could it be computational? multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation Peace, -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 Sep 2013, at 08:29, freqflyer07281972 wrote: So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular confluence of cosmological and biological factors. The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten strong enough to rip the whole works apart, that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other stars do) that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the only thing (Craig), But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent thing to evolve, how could it be computational? ? I don't see your point freq. Comp has no problem with long, deep (in Bennett sense) irreductible computations. It provides non avoidable role for big numbers. On the contrary, the FPI gives a role for all numbers, and it is more the role of the little number which are an a priori threat for comp. What is your alternative, beyond assuming non-comp and mind or sense as primary, like Craig? Like Maudlin said for QM, we have only a choice between different poisonous gifts! multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation Best, Bruno -- 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. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, What does that mean? as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? Can you give a reference? Thanks, Bruno -- 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. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: > > So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, > > What does that mean? > > Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something like a game of life? > as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? > > Can you give a reference? Thanks, > > Well for Max T it would be the mathematical universe hypothesis paper but I imagine you know of that. -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: > > > > So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, > > > > What does that mean? > > > > Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but > didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something > like a game of life? I hate to say it, but probably Stephen Wolfram is the biggest proponent of this. -- 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 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 Sep 2013, at 21:53, LizR wrote: On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, What does that mean? Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something like a game of life? It is many people. It is called digital physics, and it is a priori incompatible with both comp, and QM. as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? Can you give a reference? Thanks, Well for Max T it would be the mathematical universe hypothesis paper but I imagine you know of that. Yes. Actually, I told Tegmark (notably on this list), that the mathematical universe hypothesis is too much fuzzy, and that comp provides, thanks to Church thesis a precise mathematicalist thesis (indeed arithmeticalist), which makes possible to explain the emergence of consciousness and matter from the difference between the povs, inheritated from incompleteness and its intensional (modal) nuances. It seems to take this in consideration, except for the key FPI. Bruno -- 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. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On the other hand, is there is a great plan, if this is all a great program, with biological recursion, imitating cosmological performance, then does this work well for you? Or, better stated, what benefit does being aware of this observation, benefit yourself, or the rest of humanity? I may be asking an obtuse question, such as, " What good does knowing the Earth orbits the Sun do us?" But, I am really asking, is what are you concluding from this observation, not only by yourself, but prominent, contemporary scientists? Mitch -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 2:29 am Subject: The confluence of cosmology and biology So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular confluence of cosmological and biological factors. The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten strong enough to rip the whole works apart, that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other stars do) that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the only thing (Craig), But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent thing to evolve, how could it be computational? multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation Peace, -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
"But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place," Numbers can't have a confluence though. It's not sensation that is primary, but sense. Sensation is a kind of sense and computation is a kind of sensemaking, but computation by itself can have no sensation. Sense is the primordial pre-fluence from which all confluences diverge. On Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:29:39 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular > confluence of cosmological and biological factors. > > The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten > strong enough to rip the whole works apart, > that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a > perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, > that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can > rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, > that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that > it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) > > The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating > molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), > that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't > burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other > stars do) > that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of > atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp > that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are > almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally > > And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their > inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), > And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the > only thing (Craig), > > But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors > that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, > > comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the > sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent > thing to evolve, how could it be computational? > multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their > structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why > hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation > > > Peace, > -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 30 September 2013 12:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Sensation is a kind of sense and computation is a kind of sensemaking, but > computation by itself can have no sensation. > So on this view the brain can't be an "organic computer" because it experiences sensations? -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Professor, Standish, Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that "why listen for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we need to know about Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically, when he said that, but to know avail. Perhaps it was just foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went on to suggest that if we needed designs for a starship from somewhere else, all we needed to do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of generating a description of an Alien civilization. Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from Nothing (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a whack at Wolfram's proposition? Would we need gargantuan, grapheme, quantum computer server farms, to undertake this colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a gigantic, statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else, advise. Thanks. Mitch -Original Message- From: Russell Standish To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: > > > > So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, > > > > What does that mean? > > > > Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but > didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something > like a game of life? I hate to say it, but probably Stephen Wolfram is the biggest proponent of this. -- 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 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Perhaps Wolfram was making reference to using automata, undergoing Darwinian selection as a tool to emulate different alien entities based on say environmental initial conditions. But somehow I get the sense that Wolfram was smoking crack when he said that. By the way did anybody read through his whole tome; I got about half way then life intervened and I was pulled elsewhere and never got back to it. Using automata I suppose one could study virtual aliens and begin to perhaps discover some basic principles that they may follow in terms of physiology and behavior... given the parameters of the virtual environment that has been created for them. With sufficiently large computing resources this evolution could be run over many tens of thousands of generations -- and I am making a wild ass guess (e.g. SWAG) -- but perhaps Wolfram feels that these "alien" stand-in automata would -- due to Darwinian processes driving them to common outcomes (say binocular vision for example) -- be good facsimiles of the real deal. And this is my best effort to try to divine what Wolfram may have been intending. Some great fractals in that book by the way... its nice just for the pictures LOL -Chris From: "spudboy...@aol.com" To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology Professor, Standish, Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that "why listen for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we need to know about Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically, when he said that, but to know avail. Perhaps it was just foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went on to suggest that if we needed designs for a starship from somewhere else, all we needed to do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of generating a description of an Alien civilization. Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from Nothing (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a whack at Wolfram's proposition? Would we need gargantuan, grapheme, quantum computer server farms, to undertake this colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a gigantic, statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else, advise. Thanks. Mitch -Original Message- From: Russell Standish To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: > > > > So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, > > > > What does that mean? > > > > Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but > didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something > like a game of life? I hate to say it, but probably Stephen Wolfram is the > biggest proponent of this. -- 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 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. -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:22:13PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Professor, Standish,
>
> Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that "why listen
> for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we need to know about
> Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what Dr. Wolfram meant.
> specifically, when he said that, but to know avail. Perhaps it was just
> foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went
> on to suggest that if we needed designs for a starship from somewhere else,
> all we needed to do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of
> generating a description of an Alien civilization.
>
I remember him making that comment too - possibly in an interview in
New Scientist. I have heard him speak, and he's just as outrageous in
the flesh!
The problem is that Wolfram is way too optimistic about the curse of
dimensionality. He spent most of his life studying quite simple CAs -
usually the one dimensional, local, single hop neighbourhood rules, of
which there are precisely 256 universes to catelogue and characterise.
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.
In a very real sense, Wolfram's programme has already been pursued for
25 years in the field of Artificial Life. One can get a sense of just
how hard this problem is just by looking at the successes and failures
of that field.
In light of that, pointing a few radio telescopes into the sky and
analysing the data SETI@Home style looks a lot easier. Of course, the
real problem with doing that is Fermi's paradox, which indicates that
approach will never find anything. Still it is worth doing at some
level of resource expenditure, since it is worth testing (trying to
falsify) our theories, and discovering an alien civilisation would be
a dramatic falsification of Fermi's paradox!
> Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from Nothing
> (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a whack at Wolfram's
> proposition? Would we need gargantuan, grapheme, quantum computer server
> farms, to undertake this colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a
> gigantic, statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we
> can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else, advise.
> Thanks.
>
I'm as keen as the rest of them to let at the problem with a massive
quantum computer, but given the remoteness of having a pratical Q
computer in my professional lifetime, I haven't put much energy into
working out the relevant algorithms.
--
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 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 01 Oct 2013, at 01:30, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:22:13PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Professor, Standish,
Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that
"why listen for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we
need to know about Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what
Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically, when he said that, but to know
avail. Perhaps it was just foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram
waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went on to suggest that if we
needed designs for a starship from somewhere else, all we needed to
do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of generating a
description of an Alien civilization.
I remember him making that comment too - possibly in an interview in
New Scientist. I have heard him speak, and he's just as outrageous in
the flesh!
The problem is that Wolfram is way too optimistic about the curse of
dimensionality. He spent most of his life studying quite simple CAs -
usually the one dimensional, local, single hop neighbourhood rules, of
which there are precisely 256 universes to catelogue and characterise.
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
In a very real sense, Wolfram's programme has already been pursued for
25 years in the field of Artificial Life. One can get a sense of just
how hard this problem is just by looking at the successes and failures
of that field.
In light of that, pointing a few radio telescopes into the sky and
analysing the data SETI@Home style looks a lot easier. Of course, the
real problem with doing that is Fermi's paradox, which indicates that
approach will never find anything. Still it is worth doing at some
level of resource expenditure, since it is worth testing (trying to
falsify) our theories, and discovering an alien civilisation would be
a dramatic falsification of Fermi's paradox!
Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from
Nothing (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a
whack at Wolfram's proposition? Would we need gargantuan,
grapheme, quantum computer server farms, to undertake this
colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a gigantic,
statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we
can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else,
advise. Thanks.
I'm as keen as the rest of them to let at the problem with a massive
quantum computer, but given the remoteness of having a pratical Q
computer in my professional lifetime, I haven't put much energy into
working out the relevant algorithms.
--
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 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.
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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Sorry to hear Professor Standish's experience with Wolfram. Some people can off
the deep end, or capture and idea without analyzing it enough.
<>
I wonder if the Hubble Volume turns out to be Holographic, could we then use CA
to sort information from any point in the cosmos? I guess I must be trying to
salvadge Wolfram?
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 8:54 am
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
n 01 Oct 2013, at 01:30, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:22:13PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Professor, Standish,
>
> Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that
> "why listen for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we
> need to know about Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what
> Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically, when he said that, but to know
> avail. Perhaps it was just foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram
> waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went on to suggest that if we
> needed designs for a starship from somewhere else, all we needed to
> do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of generating a
> description of an Alien civilization.
>
I remember him making that comment too - possibly in an interview in
New Scientist. I have heard him speak, and he's just as outrageous in
the flesh!
The problem is that Wolfram is way too optimistic about the curse of
dimensionality. He spent most of his life studying quite simple CAs -
usually the one dimensional, local, single hop neighbourhood rules, of
which there are precisely 256 universes to catelogue and characterise.
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
mpirical violation of Bell's inequality confirms this comp feature.
Bruno
In a very real sense, Wolfram's programme has already been pursued for
25 years in the field of Artificial Life. One can get a sense of just
how hard this problem is just by looking at the successes and failures
of that field.
In light of that, pointing a few radio telescopes into the sky and
analysing the data SETI@Home style looks a lot easier. Of course, the
real problem with doing that is Fermi's paradox, which indicates that
approach will never find anything. Still it is worth doing at some
level of resource expenditure, since it is worth testing (trying to
falsify) our theories, and discovering an alien civilisation would be
a dramatic falsification of Fermi's paradox!
> Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from
> Nothing (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a
> whack at Wolfram's proposition? Would we need gargantuan,
> grapheme, quantum computer server farms, to undertake this
> colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a gigantic,
> statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we
> can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else,
> advise. Thanks.
>
I'm as keen as the rest of them to let at the problem with a massive
quantum computer, but given the remoteness of having a pratical Q
computer in my professional lifetime, I haven't put much energy into
working out the relevant algorithms.
--
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 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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 su
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 30 Sep 2013, at 01:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: "But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place," Numbers can't have a confluence though. It's not sensation that is primary, but sense. Sensation is a kind of sense and computation is a kind of sensemaking, but computation by itself can have no sensation. Sense is the primordial pre-fluence from which all confluences diverge. I think that "sense", in that sense, might be the consciousness of the virgin universal numbers. The roots of the consciousness flux which will differentiate (and fuse). And that is indeed not Turing emulable, but again, that is a consequence of computationalism (and admitting that definition of sense). Bruno On Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:29:39 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular confluence of cosmological and biological factors. The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten strong enough to rip the whole works apart, that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other stars do) that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the only thing (Craig), But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent thing to evolve, how could it be computational? multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation Peace, -- 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. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 01 Oct 2013, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Sorry to hear Professor Standish's experience with Wolfram. Some
people can off the deep end, or capture and idea without analyzing
it enough.
<the
empirical violation of Bell's inequality confirms this comp feature.
Bruno>>
I wonder if the Hubble Volume turns out to be Holographic, could we
then use CA to sort information from any point in the cosmos? I
guess I must be trying to salvadge Wolfram?
Wolfram's book on CA is wonderful, but unfair to the CA community, in
the references.
Then the CA approach, like the "digital physics "approach, is usually
forgetful of quantum non locality, and is usually (like many others)
unaware of the mind-body problem.
Now, CA constitutes quite cute turing universal systems. CA programs
for the UD are quite nice static conic structure.
I prefer not to use them, though, because they assumed some (digital,
discrete) geometry, and computationalism makes it necessary to extract
geometry from number's dream.
Now, I do believe CA are quite useful to model many natural systems,
like diffusion process, life, percolation, etc.
They are useless "only" for quantum entanglement, and consciousness/
matter relation.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 8:54 am
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 01 Oct 2013, at 01:30, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:22:13PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Professor, Standish,
>>
>> Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that
>> "why listen for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we
>> need to know about Alien civilizations." I tried looking after what
>> Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically, when he said that, but to know
>> avail. Perhaps it was just foot-in-mouth disease, or Dr. Wolfram
>> waxed too, eloquently, or what? H went on to suggest that if we
>> needed designs for a starship from somewhere else, all we needed to
>> do was computer generate it-once we had the trick of generating a
>> description of an Alien civilization.
>>
>
> I remember him making that comment too - possibly in an interview in
> New Scientist. I have heard him speak, and he's just as outrageous
in
> the flesh!
>
> The problem is that Wolfram is way too optimistic about the curse of
> dimensionality. He spent most of his life studying quite simple
CAs -
> usually the one dimensional, local, single hop neighbourhood
rules, of
> which there are precisely 256 universes to catelogue and
characterise.
>
> 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
>
> In a very real sense, Wolfram's programme has already been pursued
for
> 25 years in the field of Artificial Life. One can get a sense of
just
> how hard this problem is just by looking at the successes and
failures
> of that field.
>
> In light of that, pointing a few radio telescopes into the sky and
> analysing the data SETI@Home style looks a lot easier. Of course,
the
> real problem with doing that is Fermi's paradox, which indicates
that
> approach will never find anything. Still it is worth doing at some
> level of resource expenditure, since it is worth testing (trying to
> falsify) our theories, and discovering an alien civilisation would
be
> a dramatic falsification of Fermi's paradox!
>
>> Perhaps yourself, who successfully has postulated a universe from
>> Nothing (Theory of Nothing), or Professor Marchal, could have a
>> whack at Wolfram's proposition? Would we need gargantuan,
>> grapheme, quantum computer server farms, to undertake this
>> colossal, task, or uncovering ET's emanating from a gigantic,
>> statistical, program? Wolframs idea was why search, why go, when we
>> can work magic through data processing. Can you or anyone else,
>> advise. Thanks.
>>
>
> I'm as keen as the rest of them to let at the problem with a massive
> quantum computer, but given the remoteness of having a pratical Q
> computer in my professional lifetime, I haven't put much energy into
> working out the relevant algorithms.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 10/1/2013 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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. ?? But CA are Turing universal, which means they can compute any computable universe. I think there is an an ambiguity in "be". Brent -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:45:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Sep 2013, at 01:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > "But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors > that allows us to have this conversation in the first place," > > Numbers can't have a confluence though. It's not sensation that is > primary, but sense. Sensation is a kind of sense and computation is a kind > of sensemaking, but computation by itself can have no sensation. Sense is > the primordial pre-fluence from which all confluences diverge. > > > > I think that "sense", in that sense, might be the consciousness of the > virgin universal numbers. The roots of the consciousness flux which will > differentiate (and fuse). > And that is indeed not Turing emulable, but again, that is a consequence > of computationalism (and admitting that definition of sense). > There's a difference though, between the concept of differentiation/fusion as multiplicity-unity and the actual experience of participating in some kind of differentiation. I see no reason why a concept would prefigure a non-conceptual direct engagement. It seems to me fairly clear that computation can only be a consequence of a tangible occurrence, and equally clear that no tangible occurrence can be the consequence of pure computation. If it were possible to have representation without presentation, it doesn't make sense that there could be any such thing as presence or 'the present' at all. Thanks, Craig > Bruno > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:29:39 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >> >> So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular >> confluence of cosmological and biological factors. >> >> The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten >> strong enough to rip the whole works apart, >> that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a >> perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, >> that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can >> rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, >> that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that >> it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) >> >> The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating >> molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), >> that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't >> burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other >> stars do) >> that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of >> atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp >> that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are >> almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally >> >> And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their >> inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), >> And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps >> the only thing (Craig), >> >> But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors >> that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, >> >> comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the >> sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent >> thing to evolve, how could it be computational? >> multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their >> structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why >> hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation >> >> >> Peace, >> > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
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).
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.
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.
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".
--
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 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 2 October 2013 14:56, Russell Standish wrote: > 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). > > Thanks, I was looking for that analogy Wouldn't locality be *defined *by the "catchment area" of a cell? Or maybe not, I'm finding the idea of non-local CAs (CAa?) quite hard to get my head around. -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:18:34PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 14:56, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > 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).
> >
> > Thanks, I was looking for that analogy
>
> Wouldn't locality be *defined *by the "catchment area" of a cell? Or maybe
> not, I'm finding the idea of non-local CAs (CAa?) quite hard to get my head
> around.
>
In principle, there is nothing to prevent the update rule to be unique
for each cell. And if the distance between between the updated cell
and the source cell was not bounded (or bounded only by the size of
the lattice), then the update rulle is not local.
Another example is each cell has the same update rule, but the update
rule depends on all cells in the lattice. An example might be
something like a 1/r^2 totalistic force rule -
s_i' = f(\sum_{i\ne j} s_j / (d(i,j))^2)
where f is perhaps a threshold function.
But Bruno is right in that it does seem to be convention for the term CA to
not include such systems :).
Cheers
--
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 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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. ?? But CA are Turing universal, which means they can compute any computable universe. But with comp the universe is not computable. In fact, its apperant computability is a problem for comp. But then it is not so much computable, as we cannot compute what we will see in some Stern Gerlach experience. Everett universal wave is computable, and that is something which have to be explained in comp. I think there is an an ambiguity in "be". I mean the physical universe cannot be neither a CA, nor the effect of running a CA, unless the trivial UD written in CA-language, but that is already contained in a tiny part of arithmetic. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 02 Oct 2013, at 04:18, LizR wrote: On 2 October 2013 14:56, Russell Standish wrote: 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). Thanks, I was looking for that analogy Wouldn't locality be defined by the "catchment area" of a cell? Or maybe not, I'm finding the idea of non-local CAs (CAa?) quite hard to get my head around. This should not be difficult. You can conceive a "game-of-life" but where a square can be put in superposition "present and not present", then you will get non local CA behavior (in your branch of the universe) by the usual quantum entanglement. Of course, in Everett, the whole picture remains local, and non- locality is only an appearance, but that apparent non-locality can be exploited, and in particular, such quantum CA can emulate in polynomial time a quantum computer (in fact a quantum CA is just another implementation of a quantum computer). Bruno -- 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. 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.
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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
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
To: everything-list
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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 4 October 2013 10:38, 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? > I think some chemical reactions are similar? (By the way I love the "orbis" - immediately made me think of Borges - but I'm guessing it was just a typo :) -- 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.
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
> To: everything-list
> 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
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
the behavior of Cellular Automata?
I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal
Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated to
wavelet analysis).
So clouds, lightnings, rivers, geography, cells, tissue, percolation,
diffusion of anything.
But the quantum reality cannot be described by any of those, as they
don't violate the Bell's inequality, so reality, below our
substitution level is more a mean on infinitely many classical
computations.
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?
Especially diffusion and percolation, although there are competing
theories. There are also many variant of CA, so that the term, as
Russell said, can have larger meaning that what computer scientist
defines.
The game of life looks already like life, fire, or sequences of more
and more complex little machines, according to the pattern.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
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.
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
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It was funny how philosophers like Borges (a novelist), David Lewis, and Hugh Everett the 3rd got to the same conclusion. All about the same time. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology On 4 October 2013 10:38, 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? I think some chemical reactions are similar? (By the way I love the "orbis" - immediately made me think of Borges - but I'm guessing it was just a typo :) -- 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Very well, Professor Standish, given that, could the Hubble Volume itself, then
be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years across, and thus, that
old? Is this CA, or all CA's something that emerges from thermo and fluid
dynamics, or does it require (sigh!) a programmer, in the Jurgen Schmidhuber,
sense of the word? Apologies for my obtuseness, but hey, this what all good
primates do, connect dots, make assumptions.
Thanks,
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list
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
> To: everything-list
> 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...@googl
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Professor Marchal, hello.
What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best describes quantum
reality, the home where virtual photons emerge. Thus, down in Planck Land, is
the place where CA produces a program, that may cause all other CA's to emerge,
unravel, unfold? In essence, a trigger effect?
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:23 am
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
> the behavior of Cellular Automata?
I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal
Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated to
wavelet analysis).
So clouds, lightnings, rivers, geography, cells, tissue, percolation,
diffusion of anything.
But the quantum reality cannot be described by any of those, as they
don't violate the Bell's inequality, so reality, below our
substitution level is more a mean on infinitely many classical
computations.
> 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?
Especially diffusion and percolation, although there are competing
theories. There are also many variant of CA, so that the term, as
Russell said, can have larger meaning that what computer scientist
defines.
The game of life looks already like life, fire, or sequences of more
and more complex little machines, according to the pattern.
Bruno
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list
> 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".
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 04 Oct 2013, at 17:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It is a very good one, quoted by Everett, if I remember well. I think Liz thought on "Tlon Uqbar Orbid Tertius. The first novel in "Fiction", which contains the Forking Path novel. I like most novels in Fiction. Borgess is great. Bruno It was funny how philosophers like Borges (a novelist), David Lewis, and Hugh Everett the 3rd got to the same conclusion. All about the same time. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology On 4 October 2013 10:38, 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? I think some chemical reactions are similar? (By the way I love the "orbis" - immediately made me think of Borges - but I'm guessing it was just a typo :) -- 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. 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.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 04 Oct 2013, at 18:01, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Professor Marchal, hello.
What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best
describes quantum reality, the home where virtual photons emerge.
I really have no idea. I have only evidences that the winner universal
machine, for the core bare physics are most plausibly universal
groups, universal symmetries which seems to break from internal
relative points of view. I don't believe in the notion of matter made
of matter (strictly speaking I don't believe this make sense when
assuming computationalism).
Thus, down in Planck Land, is the place where CA produces a program,
that may cause all other CA's to emerge, unravel, unfold? In
essence, a trigger effect?
If the Planck length defines our first person plural substitution
level, it has to be the appearance on all continuations, a complex sum
on all possibilities, and can't be described in local boolean terms.
It might be a quantum CA. This can be studies at many level, but if we
want NOT eliminate consciousness, we have to recover it from
arithmetic, where we can exploit the gap between proof and truth about
ourselves, in a large sense of "our".
Bruno
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:23 am
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
> the behavior of Cellular Automata?
I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal
Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated to
wavelet analysis).
So clouds, lightnings, rivers, geography, cells, tissue, percolation,
diffusion of anything.
But the quantum reality cannot be described by any of those, as they
don't violate the Bell's inequality, so reality, below our
substitution level is more a mean on infinitely many classical
computations.
> 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?
Especially diffusion and percolation, although there are competing
theories. There are also many variant of CA, so that the term, as
Russell said, can have larger meaning that what computer scientist
defines.
The game of life looks already like life, fire, or sequences of more
and more complex little machines, according to the pattern.
Bruno
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list
> 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
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
itself, then be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years
across, and thus, that old?
That sounds like what Wolfram proposes.
Is this CA, or all CA's something that emerges from thermo and fluid
dynamics, or does it require (sigh!) a programmer, in the Jurgen
Schmidhuber, sense of the word?
I don't see why a programmer is required. Presumably, if is some sort
of CA, it just is.
Apologies for my obtuseness, but hey, this what all good primates do, connect
dots, make assumptions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mitch
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish
> To: everything-list
> 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
> > To: everything-list
> > 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.
>
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
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
To: everything-list
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
To: everything-list
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
> To: everything-list
> 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
&
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
Sure, but a naked CA is far more probable than a Boltzmann brain that in turn creates such a CA, ie more numerous in the Everything. So much more so, that the BB idea would be negligible. An BBs creating BBs would be even more exponentially suppressed. Cheers On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:41:27AM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: > > 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 > To: everything-list > 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 > To: everything-list > 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 > > To: everything-list > > 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: > >
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology (errata)
On 04 Oct 2013, at 21:10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2013, at 17:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It is a very good one, quoted by Everett, if I remember well. I think Liz thought on "Tlon Uqbar Orbid Tertius. The first novel in "Fiction", which contains the Forking Path novel. I like most novels in Fiction. Borgess is great. I meant of course "Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertius". Orbid is a typo. Orbis was the term which started this litlle sub-thread. Sorry. Bruno PS There might be "¨" on the "o" of Tlon (Tlön). Not entirely sure of the spelling. All that from personal memory, directly accessible from my organic memories, as the book itself seems to be in some box zmong boxes, I hope! Bruno It was funny how philosophers like Borges (a novelist), David Lewis, and Hugh Everett the 3rd got to the same conclusion. All about the same time. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology On 4 October 2013 10:38, 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? I think some chemical reactions are similar? (By the way I love the "orbis" - immediately made me think of Borges - but I'm guessing it was just a typo :) -- 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- l...@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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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. 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.
