Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Steve Smith]

Jon -

Reponsive to your references to Carroll, et al...

   Theories of everything 
   - Sabine Hossenfelder

and to your rant about iterated colimits of consumeables:

- Steve

On 9/17/22 1:15 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:

I am often confused by what people imagine "tech" to be, and then I
wonder what the forward-looking name for luddite is. From my twisted
perspective, the newest consumables merely add noise, produce another
roll of the dice, and leave us only able to speak about the distance we,
via this stochastic process, are "expected" to be from some origins.
Mostly when I see new consumables I am confused about the excitement,
and where some can only see their potential, I immediately envision
an unremarkable end.

For instance, I have never owned a cell phone, and the longer I watch
others explore this technology, the less impressed I am. It doesn't seem
a strain to imagine a world where they are as disregarded as oil painting
is today. This week, some coworkers asked me where I manage to find
payphones, all-the-while I am stunned that not one of them knows how
computations are performed or what a semiconductor is. As a side-effect
of my ambivalence, new niches have appeared for the likes of me, some in
the form of privacy (as telemarketers leave the domain of landlines or
friends learn that if I do not pick up the phone it is because I am not
home) and others in terms of inheriting the benefits of a distributed
network without needing to be an explicit node. My patience leaves me
wondering how best to identify a luddite.

I mention the above, in part, because entertaining the notion of hyper-
computation is to mod out by what even quantum computing adds to our
understanding of Turing machines. The "tech" in the limit may not be the
iterated colimits of the consumables we see lying around. Instead, it
seems reasonable to read technological enhancement as the quest for
programs not indexed by zahlen, but traced by the reals, and this is
something wholly different than natural selection amplifying small
differences in some initial configuration.

As some on-list may know, I am on a Sean Carroll kick at the moment. In
his paper "Reality as a Vector in Hilbert Space'', he takes on Everrett's
project of developing the classical world from the Schrodinger equation.
This "development" includes the derivation of space-time itself (light
cones and all) from arguments regarding mutual information. Additionally,
there is the assumption (and distinct possibility) that *our* Hilbert
space is finite dimensional, thanks to gravity. Further, in this work,
we see continued discussion around the importance of being able to
factor space into tensored products of (potentially open) systems.
Somewhere in all of this, I can almost see where Wolpert's questions,
Carroll's quest, and the tremendous amount of work being done by Baez
and friends on mereology are all part of a quasi-coherent project,
happening now. Is it willful ignorance to avoid engaging in this work?
At present, I don't feel like I have the tech to judge.

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p 
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
   1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] truth-preserving math

[Gillian Densmore]

Thanks franks ^_^

On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 2:13 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> 3 is {0, {0}, {0, {0}}} according to one approach to a using sets to form
> numbers that satisfy the Peano axioms.  In that approach 0 and the empty
> set are identical.
>
>
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 2:02 PM Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know nearly enough mind bending high levels abstract maths to
>> have more than tons of questions. I thought information (in the math sense)
>> 'just' meant 3 of something and you might know of what but the
>> absolute value of that 3 is the piece of info your starting with, and
>> keep from being mangled when working backwords to what that 3 is in the
>> real world .  Or is this morein the spooky physics sense where if certain
>> metals are made super duper cold you can levitetate trains kind of quantum
>> mechanics??
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM glen∉ℂ  wrote:
>>
>>> 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from
>>> nothing
>>> https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
>>>
>>> It seems like this is another example where the arrogance of the
>>> abstraction reigns. Because the math relating holes and electrons is the
>>> same (?) as that relating electrons and positrons, does it mean studying
>>> one gives us insight into the other? Does the metaphysics really translate?
>>>
>>> Arrogant or not, it's super effing cool.
>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] truth-preserving math

[Frank Wimberly]

3 is {0, {0}, {0, {0}}} according to one approach to a using sets to form
numbers that satisfy the Peano axioms.  In that approach 0 and the empty
set are identical.



---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Sep 17, 2022, 2:02 PM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> I don't know nearly enough mind bending high levels abstract maths to have
> more than tons of questions. I thought information (in the math sense)
> 'just' meant 3 of something and you might know of what but the
> absolute value of that 3 is the piece of info your starting with, and
> keep from being mangled when working backwords to what that 3 is in the
> real world .  Or is this morein the spooky physics sense where if certain
> metals are made super duper cold you can levitetate trains kind of quantum
> mechanics??
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM glen∉ℂ  wrote:
>
>> 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from
>> nothing
>> https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
>>
>> It seems like this is another example where the arrogance of the
>> abstraction reigns. Because the math relating holes and electrons is the
>> same (?) as that relating electrons and positrons, does it mean studying
>> one gives us insight into the other? Does the metaphysics really translate?
>>
>> Arrogant or not, it's super effing cool.
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] truth-preserving math

[Gillian Densmore]

I don't know nearly enough mind bending high levels abstract maths to have
more than tons of questions. I thought information (in the math sense)
'just' meant 3 of something and you might know of what but the
absolute value of that 3 is the piece of info your starting with, and
keep from being mangled when working backwords to what that 3 is in the
real world .  Or is this morein the spooky physics sense where if certain
metals are made super duper cold you can levitetate trains kind of quantum
mechanics??

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM glen∉ℂ  wrote:

> 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from
> nothing
> https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
>
> It seems like this is another example where the arrogance of the
> abstraction reigns. Because the math relating holes and electrons is the
> same (?) as that relating electrons and positrons, does it mean studying
> one gives us insight into the other? Does the metaphysics really translate?
>
> Arrogant or not, it's super effing cool.
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Jon Zingale]

I am often confused by what people imagine "tech" to be, and then I
wonder what the forward-looking name for luddite is. From my twisted
perspective, the newest consumables merely add noise, produce another
roll of the dice, and leave us only able to speak about the distance we,
via this stochastic process, are "expected" to be from some origins.
Mostly when I see new consumables I am confused about the excitement,
and where some can only see their potential, I immediately envision
an unremarkable end.

For instance, I have never owned a cell phone, and the longer I watch
others explore this technology, the less impressed I am. It doesn't seem
a strain to imagine a world where they are as disregarded as oil painting
is today. This week, some coworkers asked me where I manage to find
payphones, all-the-while I am stunned that not one of them knows how
computations are performed or what a semiconductor is. As a side-effect
of my ambivalence, new niches have appeared for the likes of me, some in
the form of privacy (as telemarketers leave the domain of landlines or
friends learn that if I do not pick up the phone it is because I am not
home) and others in terms of inheriting the benefits of a distributed
network without needing to be an explicit node. My patience leaves me
wondering how best to identify a luddite.

I mention the above, in part, because entertaining the notion of hyper-
computation is to mod out by what even quantum computing adds to our
understanding of Turing machines. The "tech" in the limit may not be the
iterated colimits of the consumables we see lying around. Instead, it
seems reasonable to read technological enhancement as the quest for
programs not indexed by zahlen, but traced by the reals, and this is
something wholly different than natural selection amplifying small
differences in some initial configuration.

As some on-list may know, I am on a Sean Carroll kick at the moment. In
his paper "Reality as a Vector in Hilbert Space'', he takes on Everrett's
project of developing the classical world from the Schrodinger equation.
This "development" includes the derivation of space-time itself (light
cones and all) from arguments regarding mutual information. Additionally,
there is the assumption (and distinct possibility) that *our* Hilbert
space is finite dimensional, thanks to gravity. Further, in this work,
we see continued discussion around the importance of being able to
factor space into tensored products of (potentially open) systems.
Somewhere in all of this, I can almost see where Wolpert's questions,
Carroll's quest, and the tremendous amount of work being done by Baez
and friends on mereology are all part of a quasi-coherent project,
happening now. Is it willful ignorance to avoid engaging in this work?
At present, I don't feel like I have the tech to judge.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Steve Smith]

On 9/16/22 12:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Given the how normal extreme inequality is, probably the they/us 
distinction is already happening.  Technology could accelerate it, 
though.
I think we are in agreement.   Technology *has* increased it... 
technology *IS* the basis of the increase.  It is not that homo sapiens 
is evolving, but rather our extended phenotype is. Whatever evolutionary 
event(s) equipped us to significantly extend our phenotype... (all 
toolmaking/using) and then to do it *collectively* (readin', 'ritin, 
'rithmatik) started this.
Some people will have direct and indirect cognitive assists, some will 
have designer babies and some won’t, etc.
And of course, the relatively new ability to modify the genome 
*directly* is yet another significant qualitative change in this. 
Selective breeding is probably at least as old in humans as it is in 
domestic animals.  I believe Sarbajit has spoken to this from his own 
personal heritage.

 Over a few generations we might not really recognize one another.
We already have a hard time "recognizing one another" *without* any more 
technological enhancement than shared language, basic literacy, advanced 
education, access to advanced materials and tooling, economics as our 
"differences".    A great deal of our inability to "recognize one 
another", however seems to be a form of willful ignorance/ignorant 
willfulness...  and that I believe is something of a choice... not a 
simple one...   but a choice... a personal one and a (sub)cultural 
one.   In principle, I think this is the fundamental feature that 
distinguishes the "conservative" from the "liberal" in the US... maybe 
throughout the West (or across all "advanced civilizations")?

 Whether that is utopian or dystopian or neither is subjective.


To "nationalists" and other stylizations of "chauvanists" it (inability 
to recognize one another) is likely utopian, to those 
seeking/celebrating diversity and inclusion it seems more complex.   The 
Nazis seemed to believe that the only way for humanity to move forward 
was to dominate and then exterminate everyone who didn't fit their 
narrow definition of "the ubermenchen".


In the spirit of "might makes right",  I am highly mistrustful of the 
"might" of technological leverage.   While I often present as a full-on 
luddite, those of you who know me well, also recognize that I've got a 
strong substrate of techno-utopian as the backdrop for that.  I can 
hardly hear of a new technology without getting excited at "all the ways 
this could make lives more better, or at least undermine the arbitrarily 
large suite of insults that we currently endure.   Unfortunately many of 
these are the unintended consequence of a previous turn of this very 
same crank and to turn the crank another time is to risk the Red Queen 
paradox, turning the crank faster and faster, just to keep ahead of the 
unintended consequences nipping at our heels (dragging us down and 
eating us).


So the (a) question is if it is "inevitable", how do we exercise our own 
agency to find our way through this rapidly changing landscape?  Do I 
defer to the Kurzweils/Diamandis/Musks to "lead me" into that landscape 
(and more to the point, push my grand/children forward into it)?  Who 
might I seek out who has a better vantage than I in such navigations?


My latest candidates for hints in this direction include Dietrich 
Bonhoeffer (anti-nazi theologian) and James Bridle 
 (contemporary 
artist/writer)


- Steve

PS.   Or is the landscape metaphor flawed?  I only see a "hellride" in 
the Zelazny-Amber sense...  riding across a multiverse manifold 
stretched roughly between the poles of Logos and Chaos?   probably an 
image only DaveW and Glen have references for?





On Sep 16, 2022, at 10:31 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:



Responding first to Marcus point:

"I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form
of life, but I don’t think there will be a clear connection
between how they think and how humans think.  Human culture won’t
be important to how they scale, but may be relevant to a bootstrap."

I believe we are "in transition" toward a more advanced form of life, 
though it is hard to demarcate any particular beginning of that 
transition.  The post/trans-humanists among us often seem to have a 
utopian/dystopian urge about all this that I am resistant to. 
Kotler's  
works (Abundance, Rise of the Superman, Tomorrowland, Art of the 
impossible, etc.) are representative of this genre, but since I know 
him also to be a grounded, thoughtful, compassionate person, I try 
hard to listen between the lines of what normally reads to me as 
egoist utopian fantasy.   His works are always well researched and 
he's fairly good at being clear what is speculation and what is fact 
in his writing/reporting, even though his bias is still a very 
te