On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporal
setting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...
Study a good book in theoretical computer science. You told me that
you have the book by Matiyazevich. he does explicitly emulate Turing
machine, which have a quite physical look, with a moving head, and
obeying instruction is a temporal manner, and yet they can be shown to
be emulated by a the existence or non existence of solution of
Diophantine equations.
Dear Bruno,
That book, full of wonderful words and equations, is a physical
object. That physical object is, in my thinking, an example of an
implementation of the "emulation of a Turing Machine..." just as the
image on my TV of Rainbow Dash and her friends is a physical
implementation of magical Ponies. You seem to ignore the obvious...
But this is already no more an enigma for many physicists which agree
that temporality is just an illusion resulting from projection from
higher dimension.
Those physicists are wrong in their belief. This is argued well in
this paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9708055 and in any other
places. I recall a long chat that I had with Julian Barbor. In it I
tried to ask him about the computational complexity of implementing his
'time capsule' and 'best matching' ideas, he seemed to not understand
what the heck I was talking about and yet bemoaned the very problem at
length in one of his papers on the idea!
From pg 52 of http://www.platonia.com/barbour_hrp2003.pdf
"About ten years ago, I did some computer calculations to find such
configurations with the Macintosh computer I then possessed. I was able to
do exhaustive calculations up to N = 27, which took the computer about three
days. Because the number of combinations that must be checked out grows
exponentially with N, even with a modern supercomputer I doubt that
calculations much beyond N = 50 would be feasible."
BTW, it was reading this paper that opened my eyes to the NP-Hard
problem of Leibniz' Pre-Established Harmony.
I thought you agree that physics (and thus time) is not primitive.
I agree, physics (and all that it such as particles, forces,
matter, energy) impels cannot be ontologically primitive. But it must
exist nonetheless. My challenge is showing how. I start with a notion of
a property neutral "totality of all that exists" and consider how from
that ground two aspects emerge simultaneously, the physical and the
mental as mutually distinct dual aspects that when added together yield
back the neutrality. This idea is very similar to Russell Standish's
Theory of Nothing.
This means that they can and need to be explain from non temporal notion.
Arithmetic is the bloc mindspace.
Is it a Singleton? Can it be exactly represented by a Boolean
Algebra? I see 'mindspace" as one half of the dual aspects.
There is nothing more dynamical than the notion of computations, yet,
they have been discovered in statical math structure.
Mathematical objects are the epitome of static objects. I think
that this view of math is blinkered. A description of a dynamic process
may be static, but the evolutionaly Becoming aspect is still there, just
hidden. Just as a photograph acts to freeze a moment in time...
This is made possible as the statical sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
reintroduces a lot of quasi-time notion, and it is explained how some
of them will play the role of the "observable timing of events"
locally, by relative numbers.
This is where you make the mistake. You are assuming that the
ordering of numbers *is* the dynamic. I claim that the ordering of
numbers *is a representation* of the dynamic. We should be very careful
when we identify the map with the territory! I agree that there are
situations when there is an exact isomorphism between map and territory,
but that is only in the case of automorphisms and fixed points.
We can use sequences of relative numbers, surely, but only when the
conditions to define them occur. We cannot assume that the properties of
relative numbers exist in the absence of the means to define the
"timing", "locality" and "relations" required.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
