Le 17-juin-06, à 20:10, James N Rose a écrit :

> 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.

I argue that the contrary is true. I have no evidence that you did 
follow the argument. You are not enough clear that I can counter-argue 

> 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.

Which universe?

> 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) ???? ....

We have proved that such question cannot be answer in any systematic 

> 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.

What do you mean exactly by "physical reality"?. In this list such an 
expression is ambiguous. Are you talking about the observables which 
are emerging from the relation between numbers (if comp is true 
together with the reasoning I am trying to convey) or about some (non 
comp) materialist theory?



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 

Reply via email to