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

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.


*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

Attachment: pgpm4RSSpm7Rx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to