On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 06:09:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On that note I'm not sure Wheeler's description is the same. In my idea of > the calculus all there is is the sheets of paper. There are no symbols (no > intrinsic representation). There are intrinsic rules of formation and > transformation that relate and associate the bits of paper. If the bits of > paper were jigsaw pieces with implicit connective rules then it is more like > my idea. > > If you try an build a universe as a monism from an enormous quantity of only > one thing (a primitive sign - piles of little bits of paper :) ) then you can > construct space and the leftovers become the stuff we call matter. Deep down > it's all the one thing, however. It's been a fascinating mental exercise for > me. > > The problem is to let go of all the maths in a symbolic sense. We have this > huge and very historically justified tendency to think the linear maths is > the 'real stuff' of the natural world. I have been able to think of ways in > which that is not the case, but that look 'as if' it was. It doesn't > invalidate our maths, it just makes it look like it's not justified to > ascribe anything more to the existence of our maths than that of a useful > limited description. > > The main thing is to get used to the idea of ridding your preconceptions of > symbolic 'aboutness'. There is no intrinsically meaningful sign. However an > intrinsic event: the expression of the sign (any sign), can literally be a > truth in itself. The fact of the utterance of the sign itself is a truth. > From that all other truths can be expressed through meaningless signs > combining through intrinsic properties (affinities) for other signs. > > It's more like a reified mega-dimensional cellular automata, actually. Not a > traditional computational one. It took me a long time to be able to let go of > my symbolic mathematical tendencies when I needed to. > > You can make our universe out of hierarchically structured noise starting > from nothing. The 'sign' in the calculus is basically the elemental noise > event of the entropy calculus I have played with. Stuff that looks like the > rules of quantum mechanics appears well up the hirearchy. Waaaaaay up the > hierarchy it looks ontological but with structure all the way down to the > elemental signs. The one that makes us is somewhere between 15? and 40? > organisational layers deep. Very busy, these Leibniz's !! > > Lots of fun! Don't know what to make of it but at least it has enabled me to > post to this thread with a little bit of novelty! > > cheers > > colin >

## Advertising

Hi Colin, Have you written up your "entropy calculus" in a paper, so we could have a more detailed look at it? I know you sent me a paper of yours recently (and apologies - I haven't read your latest draft yet either :( ), but it doesn't seem to connect with what you are saying here. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
pgpm4RSSpm7Rx.pgp**

*Description:* PGP signature