Bruno,
Sometimes gedankenexperiments - or even theoretical contemplations - include unvoiced/unconsidered presumptions and biases that a system may not be self-aware of. Benj Whorf brought this aspect of systemic nature into consideration, in the 1930's, when he applied Einstein/Reichenbach notions of 'relativity' to the "subjective" field of language and linguistics. {Reichenbach called his analysis of it (1927) vis a vis gravity, Theorem Theta.} Several years ago, I proposed that attention should not be paid to the Halting Problem, but instead be paid to what comes after. Meaning, not to the effective information production of the computation run, nor to any activity resulting from the computation run .. but rather to this: future re-activation of 'the' or any computation process. We exist in a universe that is always 'in process'. Even if some operations 'halt', the essential nature of co-present simultaneous systems is that dynamics are so 'on-going' that the main priority is on re-enacted/re-established/re-initiated actions. No systems are 'pure isolates' .. there are always and importantly: relationships of context, continuity, and recursion. Placing the Turing or Church or any other devised 'closed conditioned system' on the table of evaluation, is to miss THE critical group of parameters, that no 'idealized' parameters group includes. Current closed-set evaluations are fundamentally: utilitarian, task-oriented, single assignments/missions. But the statespace of the universe is open, relative, re-accessible, and re-instantiable .. WITH .. all systems being vulnerable to correlary/additional instructions. It makes no nevermind if a system or computation 'halts' or not. The crucial things is whether 1) if a computation halts .. what are the conditions for re-instantiation?, and 2) if it never self-halts .. then what parameters are present to induce halting? (a) sufficient utility of incomplete data, (b) eradication due to untimely utility, (c) exhaustion of operational resources, (d) ???? .... You see Bruno, mathematics carries a self-blinding presumption: Perfect universal information distribution/access. "Sequential operations" functions are an attempt to evaluate non-instantaneous information processing. And physical reality includes both AND contraints unique to both - but interactive with the other domain. James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---