Intuitively, I would agree that the proposition that a natural occurrence is "computing" the effects it has seems like a stretch of the term. However, the idea is interesting. And I can use reason about to find some interesting validations of the conjecture. First of all, any model is imperfect. So imperfection is not in itself a good reason to reject a model. And models are based on abstractions and simplifications of the event being modelled so the idea that there are limitations on the application of a event of the universe does not show that the event cannot be likened to a computation. Next, while someone may set up a computation, that does not mean that he controls every aspect of it. And we can observe computations that other people have started. So the recognition that an observer of a natural event is not necessarily controlling the event is not, in itself, a substantial reason to reject the conjecture that the event can be likened to a computation. Furthermore, we can interact with natural events and so we can make conclusions like that which states that the orbit of a satellite is "computing" the orbit of an object. Why not? Some natural events have not been reduced to pure systems of regularity, but we can use mathematics to model systems that exhibit some kinds of regularity without requiring that the totality of the system be regular.
So while the conjecture is based on a stretch of the term computation, it can still be enlightening to consider it. We might learn something and we may sharpen our thoughts about such things. However, there is no way to establish that all things and events in the universe are governed only by regular and computable methods. It is just an interesting idea which is really useful when it is done well. Jim Bromer On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Perhaps this is a useful insight into where people may be going wrong. > > The “laws of physics” are computable – IOW it is true that humans can use > computers to express and explore mathematically defined regularities of > behaviour in matter. > > But it doesn’t follow that matter itself is doing the computing, or that > some deus ex machina behind the scenes is doing the computing. > > Just because planets follow regular, mathematically definable orbits, > doesn’t mean that they are computing their orbits – or that there’s a > mathematical God/divine principle who/which use mathematics to calculate > and arrange their orbits. > > This looks like another example of the logicomathematician’s extreme > solipsism – “if I’m doing it, everyone and everything must be doing it - > the world is just an expression of my mind.” > > Er no it isn’t. > > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 9:13 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Fw: Pre-pub Offer: A Computable Universe > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It seems like the goal posts keep getting moved around as far as what > does > > and doesn't constitute computing, now seemingly becoming so broad that > just > > about any interaction is "computing" complete with a $99 book on sale. > It > > looks interesting anyway... > > > The (so called) laws of physics are based on computable functions. That is > an old idea. So, the argument goes, perhaps all the laws of physics may be > expressed using computable relations. Even non-mathematical relations > might be expressed as a kind of logical relation and a logical relation may > be expressed as a mathematical relation. The thing that makes this argument > interesting is that the laws of physics have played such an important role > in modern science. > > There is a difference between the concept of computation and an effect of > a pysical reaction because a computation can be used to model a wider range > of computational systems than some particular reaction. > > However, there is a chance that the computable laws of physics have acted > as a powerhouse not because nature is just a system of computable effects > but because the arithemtic of the modernn positional notation system has an > effective power that is still a bit hazy. Indeed, you can even see that > lack of clarity in this group. > > The modern numbering system represents an impressive method of > "compression" where a value may be represented in a highly efficient > manner. (Imagine if you had to use ten million sticks to represent > 10,000,000. It is not as efficient as using ten -or eleven or eight- > characters of the alphabet. Ten million things vs a selection of eight > marks drawn from a selecton of twelve variations or characters. That alone > is one of the most amazing things that human beings have ever > accomplished. But another, even more unexpected feat has been accomplished > using the modern numbering system. By using addition or multiplication we > are able to "compress" the number of steps that we need to take to > calculate a transformation of a method on two such numbers. We don't have > to add ten million representations of 10,000,000 in order to calculate what > 10,000,000 X 10,000,000 equals, instead we can do it in around 64 > representation-steps. (I am not going to check that but it is in the ball > park. Of course we don't have to do all of the steps for a multiplication > where the two decimal numbers has long strings of zeros in them. I knew > that.) > > Saying that the underlying reality is a computable universe is taking a > major leap. Saying that the underlying reality of the major advances that > have emanated out of physics and computer programming is the power to > "compress" representations and "compress" transformations of such > representations is not that much of a step. > > By expressing this I am starting to see that particular kinds of > relationships might be expressed in order to compress certain kinds of > transformations of representations of ideological objects. However, I > don't see anything that would come anywhere near the compressed > transformations of arithmetic. Party like it's 30 BC. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform > > Jim Bromer > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
