I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread.

I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness
of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive
(heuristic, "circumstantial") evidence that reality is more than what
can be computed.  (My belief in the intuition's base outside of
computation is an example of where I'm coming from.)  There are
undecidable properties of fractals (iterative function systems, IFS),
and it has been conjectured that all non-trivial properties of IFS's
are undecidable.  With the Mandelbrot set it is so geometrically
complex (the pun here is appropriate since this set involves the
complex numbers) that it is easy to believe that you could find your
mother-in-law of even a super-model in there somewhere.  But take
another fractal like the Koch Snowflake, which also has undecidable
properties.  Yet is it entirely made of line segments which are at
only three angles.  I can't believe that reality could be restricted
to this kind of complexity.

Have you heard of fractal Turing machines, which incorporate real
numbers?  Perhaps this is something to be explored in the Everything


On Aug 13, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> > Nice.  I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set.  However, there seems to be
> > a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme.
> Right. But full of subtle variations.
> It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey
> across a multiverse ...
> >  I have never been
> > able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl,
> You are not looking close enough, and also, the zoom movie remains a
> pure third person description. Consciousness is more related to a
> internal flux or to some stroboscopic inside views in the Mandelbrot
> Set (assuming the conjecture).
> It is a bit like looking to a picture of a galaxy. You will not see
> beautiful girls, unless you look close enough, and from the right
> perspective.
> > or even a mother-in-
> > law, or a white rabbit.  This seems to go against your conjecture.
> (remember also that "not seeing something" is not an argument of
> not-existence, like seeing something is not an argument for existence).
> If you want to see a white rabbit (*the* white rabbit),  the best
> consists in looking at
> http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5XfQWKgf4M&feature=related
> As for the mother-in-law, I am not sure about your motivations ...
> (Holiday jokes :)
> Bruno
> > Tom
> > On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
> >>> I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
> >>> beautiful.
> >>> And this from a theist?  Yes!  This is actually to the core point of
> >>> why I am a theist.  I don't blame people for not believing in God if
> >>> they think God is about functionality.
> >> If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its  
> >> complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is  
> >> equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in
> >>  
> >> it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal
> >>  
> >> deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is
> >>  
> >> my favorite on youtube:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ
> >> Is that not wonderful? Awesome ?
> >> Bruno
> >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to