Hi Hal,
Welcome back.
Unfortunately I have been very ill for the last 15 months or so.
I am working on this project again and hope to post soon.
Note that when something is not computable, it rarely makes a machine
stop. It makes it not stopping.
When a machine stop, its non computability is accidental, and the non
computable function can be extended into a computable function. When a
function is essentially not computable, it will not stop, without
anyone being sure of this.
It is related to the difference between undecidability and essential
undecidability (a notion introduced by Tarski). The first can lead to
complete-able incomplete theories, like the theory of abelian groups,
and the second one lead to incomplete-able incomplete theories (like
elementary arithmetic).
Basically, all theories in which you can define a universal machine,
like elementary arithmetic, is essentially undecidable, i.e. not
complete-able. I recommend the little cheap Dover book by Tarski,
Mostowski and Robinson (Raphael). It shows, at page 62, theorem 11,
that if you take RA and drop any axiom you get a complete-abe
incomplete theory, but RA itself is incomplete and incomplete-able
(essentially undecidable), and indeed Turing-universal.
Best wishes,
Bruno
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of auxon
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 3:08 PM
To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: My model, comp, and the Second Law
I can't wait to dig into this.
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Its been a while since I posted.
I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of
Thermodynamics
and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my
model, or comp, or their combination.
As references I will start with use are:
"Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" ,
1992 by Micheal Mackey
"Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
2001 by Michael Mackey.
my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014.
My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to
be computable and this
causes computational termination and/or computational precision
issues.
This should make the operable phase space grainy. This ambiguity
causes
entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the
same
at each evolutionary [trajectory] step.
The system should also not be reversible for the same reason.
If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified?
Hal
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
