RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram and Bruno: My goal some time ago was to find an origin to a dynamic in the Everything. It seemed that many on the list were pointing to such a dynamic - the UD for example. I came up with the Nothing to Something incompleteness dynamic initiator maybe 10 or more years ago. Since then I have been trying to make the resulting model as simple as I could. I have looked at Abram's idea of adding inconsistency derived traces in the dynamic: I have in recent changes stopped using information to avoid the complications this term seemed to bring with it. This lead to a compact model with just two definitions, one assumption, and the stability trigger question resulting in the dynamic. To maintain this simplicity I note that when a Nothing in a particular All containing just one copy of the Nothing converts to a Something this also converts the particular All into a Something. The All is inconsistent by reason of its absolute completeness. The absence of its Nothing which was consistent but incomplete is not likely to make the Something the All became consistent Something. So this Something may be a source of inconsistency driven traces. As far as learning how to communicate this model in a more mathematical language [logic, set theory, etc.] to aid understanding by others, I have consumed what little time I had available over the years just getting to the current state of the model. It has been said that it takes 10,000 hours of practice in some endeavor to become an expert in it. Since I understand less than half the mathematical logic based comments in this tread regarding my model I am far from expert in such a language. My engineering career gives me some formal exposure and practical understanding of it, and I have studied small additional pieces of it in the course of developing this model. However, the current realities of life have made adding new time intensive endeavors such as becoming sufficiently fluent in such a communication method an overcome by events effort. I might find maybe an hour a week for my total participation on the list. This seems extremely insufficient. Thus I suspect that despite my real interest in developing an alternative means of communication for my ideas in this area, my primary reliance for communicating the model will unfortunately have to remain using as small a set of words as I can muster. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:25 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? On 03 Jan 2009, at 02:04, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, Interesting point, but if we are starting at nothing rather than PA, we don't have provability logic so we can't do that! How can we tell if an *arbitrary* set of axioms is incomplete? nothing is ambiguous and depends on the theory or its intended domain. Incompleteness means usually arithmetically incomplete. The theory with no axioms at all? Not even logical axioms? Well, you can obtain anything from that. The theory with nothing ontological? You will need a complex epistemology, using reflexion and comprehension axioms, that is a bit of set theory, to proceed. Nothing physical? You will need at least the numbers, or a physics: the quantum emptiness is known to be a very rich and complex entity. It needs quantum mechanics, and thus classical or intuitionistic logic, + Hilbert spaces or von Neumann algebra. I would say that nothing means nothing in absence of some logic, at least. No axioms, but a semantic. Right, the empty theory is satisfied by all structure (none can contradict absent axioms). But here you will have a metatheory which presupposes ... every mathematical structure. The metatheory will be naïve set theory, at least. I suspect since some time that Hal Ruhl is searching for a generative set theory, but unfortunately he seems unable to study at least one conventional language to make his work understandable by those who could be interested. This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions studied in the literature, like: PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc. The etc here bears on the constructive ordinals. conPA is for PA does not derive P~P. I have been wondering recently, if we follow the ... to its end, do we arrive at an infinite set of axioms that contains all of arithmetical truth, or is it gappy? The ... is (necessarily) ambiguous. If it is constructive, it will define a constructive ordinal. In that case the theory obtained is axiomatizable but still incomplete. If the ... is not constructive, and go through all constructive ordinals at least, then Turing showed we can get a complete (with respect to arithmetical truth) theory, but, as can be expected from incompleteness, the theory obtained will not be axiomatizable
Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hal, I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected! I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined. Enumeration by inconsistency seems more intuitive to me: inconsistency can be readily detected (derive P~P), whereas incompleteness cannot. --Abram On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote: Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition. They each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
On 02 Jan 2009, at 16:01, Abram Demski wrote: Hal, I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected! I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined. Enumeration by inconsistency seems more intuitive to me: inconsistency can be readily detected (derive P~P), whereas incompleteness cannot. I don't think so. You cannot derive that you cannot derive P~P, but you can derive that your are incomplete, assuming you will not derive P~P. Indeed you can derive that: IF you cannot derive P~P, THEN you cannot derive that you cannot derive P~P (Godel incompleteness). This gives extension by self-consistency bets. But I think I see what you mean. In artificial and pragmatic intelligent procedure, with non monotonic logic, you could have local inconsistencies, and build from that (with revision procedure). In the realm of the ideal machine which derives the ideal correct physics, it is better to extend by consistencies, I think. This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions studied in the literature, like: PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc. The etc here bears on the constructive ordinals. conPA is for PA does not derive P~P. You can extend this in the transfinite, because you can describe in arithmetic transfinite ordinal sequences like PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), ... PA + con(PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA)...), ... Bruno --Abram On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote: Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition. They each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Bruno, Interesting point, but if we are starting at nothing rather than PA, we don't have provability logic so we can't do that! How can we tell if an *arbitrary* set of axioms is incomplete? This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions studied in the literature, like: PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc. The etc here bears on the constructive ordinals. conPA is for PA does not derive P~P. I have been wondering recently, if we follow the ... to its end, do we arrive at an infinite set of axioms that contains all of arithmetical truth, or is it gappy? In other words, is the hole that Godel pointed out flexible enough to fill in any hole eventually if we keep adding con(x), or are there non-godelian holes? --Abram On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2009, at 16:01, Abram Demski wrote: Hal, I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected! I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined. Enumeration by inconsistency seems more intuitive to me: inconsistency can be readily detected (derive P~P), whereas incompleteness cannot. I don't think so. You cannot derive that you cannot derive P~P, but you can derive that your are incomplete, assuming you will not derive P~P. Indeed you can derive that: IF you cannot derive P~P, THEN you cannot derive that you cannot derive P~P (Godel incompleteness). This gives extension by self-consistency bets. But I think I see what you mean. In artificial and pragmatic intelligent procedure, with non monotonic logic, you could have local inconsistencies, and build from that (with revision procedure). In the realm of the ideal machine which derives the ideal correct physics, it is better to extend by consistencies, I think. This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions studied in the literature, like: PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc. The etc here bears on the constructive ordinals. conPA is for PA does not derive P~P. You can extend this in the transfinite, because you can describe in arithmetic transfinite ordinal sequences like PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), ... PA + con(PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA)...), ... Bruno --Abram On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote: Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition. They each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition. They each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hal, Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but what do you mean by that? It sounds to me like what you are describing is some version of an inconsistent set theory that is somehow trying to repair itself. (Except rather then sets, which are 2-fold distinctions because a thing can either be a member or not, you are admitting arbitrary N-fold distinctions, including 1-fold distinctions that fail to distinguish anything... conceptually interesting, I must admit.) So the question is, what is the process by which the system attempts to repair itself? Here is one option: The system starts with all its axioms (a possibly infinite set). It starts making inferences (possibly with infinitistic methods), splitting when it runs into an inconsistency; the (possibly infinite) split rejects facts that could have led to the inconsistency. So, the process makes increasingly consistent versions of the set theory. Some will end up consistent eventually, and so will stop splitting. These may be boring (having rejected most of the axioms) or interesting. Some of the interesting ones will be UDs. The entire process may or may not amount to more than a UD, depending on whether we use infinities in the basic setup. You did in your post, and it seems likely, since set theory is not finitely axiomizable and your system is an extension of set theory. On the other hand, there would be some fairly satisfying axiomizations, in particular those based on naive set theory. This does have an infinite number of axioms, but in the form of an axiom schema, which can be characterized easily by finite deduction rules. So, your system could easily be crafted to be either a UD or more-than-UD, depending on personal preference. (That is, if my interpretation has not strayed too far from your intention.) --Abram On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote: Hi Bruno: Since I have not programmed computers beyond the use of simple spread sheet data organizing displays for many years, about the best I can offer these days is a kind of flow chart: Start with an input space that contains all possible collections of distinctions. I call these collections Divisors. [I wish to avoid the use of the word information.] It is then noted that this collection contains itself. Next it is noted that at least one of these Divisors is incomplete in a way that must be resolved. This boot straps a dynamic within the input space. To avoid adding additional types of components to the input space such as labels on divisors it is simplest to describe the dynamic as creating a succession of additional copies of divisors and adding them to the input space. Since any divisor is already present an infinite number of times, this dynamic is not changing the nature of the content of the input space. So far the simulating program is self booting and makes copies of portions of its input space and outputs the copies to that space. Each of the identified incomplete divisors is a seed for an additional such program including any new copies of that divisor. A particular succession of copies is a trace of a simulation particular program. The copy process has no restrictions. Some traces would be computationally correct while others would be random and others a blend. Traces can split. The output process generates observer moments based on the outputted divisors. The output of new copies of the incomplete Divisor and splitting traces dovetails the dynamic. I think this contains a UD but the unrestricted nature of the traces seems to makes it more than that. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a computer would help you (and us) to interpret the words that you are using in the description of your system. Best, Bruno On 27 Dec 2008, at 03:27, Hal Ruhl wrote: -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram: I have interlaced responses with - symbols. Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:10 PM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but what do you mean by that? --- That is not what I actually said. I indicated that there were no restrictions on the copy process. There would be a pattern to some of the traces. The incompleteness of the Nothings causes them individually to eventually become a more distinction encompassing Something. This is a little like cold booting a computer that has a large [infinite] hard drive containing the All. [a Nothing - a Something] - The BIOS chip loads the startup program and some data into the dynamic memory and the computer boots. The program/data would be the first Something in a trace. From this point on there is no fixed nature to traces. The program could at one extreme generate the entire remaining trace [a series of Somethings] from just the data already present in the computer - without reading in more from the All - outputting each resulting computer state to the All on the hard drive. The All already contains these states many times over so this is just a copy process. At the other extreme the program could just generate random output which states are also in the All - another copy process. There would be all nature of traces between these two extremes. The incompleteness I cite is just the instability question. There may be others. [A trace would end if the output went into a continuous repeat of a particular state.] Other incompleteness issues of a particular Something seem like they should also prevent a trace from stopping. - It sounds to me like what you are describing is some version of an inconsistent set theory that is somehow trying to repair itself. - In other postings I have said that the All, being absolutely complete, is therefore inconsistent since it contains all answers to all questions [all possible distinctions and therefore no distinction]. (Except rather then sets, which are 2-fold distinctions because a thing can either be a member or not, you are admitting arbitrary N-fold distinctions, including 1-fold distinctions that fail to distinguish anything... conceptually interesting, I must admit.) I am not well versed in set theory or logic but I believe I understand what you are saying. I see this as the All contains an N-fold distinction - itself. --- So the question is, what is the process by which the system attempts to repair itself? --- The individual traces so far are attempts by a Nothing to repair its incompleteness. The terminus of some traces would be the All - an absolutely complete, and thus inconsistent divisor. You seem to be adding traces based on inconsistency which seems reasonable - see my responses below. --- Here is one option: The system starts with all its axioms (a possibly infinite set). It starts making inferences (possibly with infinitistic methods), splitting when it runs into an inconsistency; the (possibly infinite) split rejects facts that could have led to the inconsistency. So, the process makes increasingly consistent versions of the set theory. Some will end up consistent eventually, and so will stop splitting. These may be boring (having rejected most of the axioms) or interesting. Some of the interesting ones will be UDs. So far I have not tried to identify a second source of the dynamic. I see the Nothings as consistent because they can produce no answers but therefore incomplete since they need to answer at least one. Some traces starting here evolve towards completeness. The All contains at least one inconsistent divisor - itself. It is interesting to consider if traces could originate at inconsistent divisors and evolve towards consistency. The entire process may or may not amount to more than a UD, depending on whether we use infinities in the basic setup. You did in your post, and it seems likely, since set theory is not finitely axiomizable and your system is an extension of set theory. On the other hand, there would be some fairly satisfying axiomizations, in particular those based on naive set theory. This does have an infinite number of axioms, but in the form of an axiom schema, which can be characterized easily by finite deduction rules. So, your system could easily be crafted to be either a UD or more-than-UD, depending on personal preference. (That is, if my interpretation has not strayed too far from your intention.) --Abram - So far I think the inconsistency driven traces you
Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a computer would help you (and us) to interpret the words that you are using in the description of your system. Best, Bruno On 27 Dec 2008, at 03:27, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi everyone: I have revised my model somewhat and think it might now be a form of UD. DEFINITIONS: Distinction: That which enables separation [such as red from other colors]. Devisor: That which encloses a quantity of distinction. Some divisors are collections of divisors. A devisor may be information but I will not use that term here. MODEL: 1) Assumption: There is a complete set of all possible divisors [call it the All]. The All encompasses all distinction. The All is thus a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times - the All(j). 2) Define N(k) as divisors that encompass zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). 3) Define S(i) as divisors that encompass non zero distinction but not all distinction. Call them Something(s). 4) An issue that arises is whether or not divisors are static or dynamic. They cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition. They each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. 6) The result is a flow of eS(i) that are encompassing more and more distinction. 7) The flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from temporary copy to temporary copy [copies] of members of the All. Our universe's [our eS(i)'s] path would be one such where the temporary copies are universe states. As indicated the paths may split into multiple paths. I think this model could be characterized as a UD. Hal Ruhl http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Bruno: Since I have not programmed computers beyond the use of simple spread sheet data organizing displays for many years, about the best I can offer these days is a kind of flow chart: Start with an input space that contains all possible collections of distinctions. I call these collections Divisors. [I wish to avoid the use of the word information.] It is then noted that this collection contains itself. Next it is noted that at least one of these Divisors is incomplete in a way that must be resolved. This boot straps a dynamic within the input space. To avoid adding additional types of components to the input space such as labels on divisors it is simplest to describe the dynamic as creating a succession of additional copies of divisors and adding them to the input space. Since any divisor is already present an infinite number of times, this dynamic is not changing the nature of the content of the input space. So far the simulating program is self booting and makes copies of portions of its input space and outputs the copies to that space. Each of the identified incomplete divisors is a seed for an additional such program including any new copies of that divisor. A particular succession of copies is a trace of a simulation particular program. The copy process has no restrictions. Some traces would be computationally correct while others would be random and others a blend. Traces can split. The output process generates observer moments based on the outputted divisors. The output of new copies of the incomplete Divisor and splitting traces dovetails the dynamic. I think this contains a UD but the unrestricted nature of the traces seems to makes it more than that. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a computer would help you (and us) to interpret the words that you are using in the description of your system. Best, Bruno On 27 Dec 2008, at 03:27, Hal Ruhl wrote: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
