Dear Mindaugas. you wrote: "Analogically, if we find that our world is some cellular automata ..." I PRESUME THIS IS your STARTING POINT: "if..." if not, if we find that our world is more(?) than a cellular automaton - which is in my word-use 'reductionist' - then the world is NOT governed by some simple rules. We don't set rules, we select models, count/identify in them the occurrences and deduct what happened most which then is called "law". And the world is not GOVERNED. it is a process of them all. Nothing can be excluded from the interefficiency, because that would lead to separate worlds - which may well be, but we do not know about them. So your 'origination point' is causally connected (your word) to the rest of the totality and its process. A 'next step' segmentually observed. Initial state? I don't believe the narrative of the physical cosmology, because it has logical flaws even in human logic. I made another narrative, which may not be more 'true', but eliminates SOME flaws. You can make another one. We "know" nothing about that 'origin', it was before the 'time' of Loebian machines (even before my time). We can speculate, it is cheap.
John ----- Original Message ----- From: 明迪 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:45 AM Subject: Re: JOINING post Dear John, I feel I understand your view and distinction of "origination point" and "origination". "Origination" is entailment of "origination point". "Origination point" is part of our world ("the item to be originated"). Is that correct? Now, my opinion is that there is no "origination" of the "origination point", because whatever it may be, it is connected to the item to be originated through causality. What I mean is, if we were to find some relatively simple rule generating our world, then we could actually try to reduce it to some even simpler rule. It is now thought of that some rules governing cellular automata are irreducible, since there seem to be no simpler rule to produce the patterns they some cellular automata produce, however, suppose that our world is governed by some relatively simple rule. In this case, there is a rule to reduce most if not all of the cellular automata rules, since it actually produces all the cellular automata that we know :-).with the initial state that we do not know, we could try to find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually produces the initial state of our world. Mindaugas Indriunas On 3/8/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I feel a misunderstanding here: > > "origination point" IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent > 'point' (within and for) the evolving total to grow out from. > As I used 'origination" refers to the entailment producing such "point" - if > we use a 'point' to start with. > Such 'point' is the limit we can go back to, not further to 'its' entailing > circumstgances we have no access to. > I tried to adjust to a vocabulary I responded to, not my own and preferred > one. Hence the misunderstandability. Sorry. > > John Mikes > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: 明迪 > To: email@example.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 AM > Subject: Re: JOINING post > > Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the > same as the word 'origination-point'. > > You said: (1) > > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. > > > > And you also said: (2) > > > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it > may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely). > > > > From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items later > or equal to origination-point." > > I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement. > > > Mindaugas Indriunas > > > On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mindaugas Indriunas, > > what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use > > > > in our speculations only our present cognitive > > inventory of our existing mind. > > No information from super(extra)natural sources > > included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier > > items than the origination-point (whatever it may be) > > of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite > > precisely). > > Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg > > cannot 'generate' information about ' no information' > > topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence > > items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion. > > What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the > > conventionally outlined "scientific method". > > > > John M > > > > > > > > --- 明迪 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Dear John Mikes. > > > > > > I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only > > > to 1 part of your > > > letter: > > > > > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. > > > > > > > > > If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does > > > produce the data that > > > we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to > > > (with some certainty) > > > know it. Even the cellular automaton that is > > > equivalent to universal turing > > > machine, has its beginning. > > > > > > Mindaugas Indriunas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date: 3/12/2007 7:19 PM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---