On 05 Jan 2010, at 15:09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/6 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>:
It seems to me that it depends if the computation is iterative or
not... in
other words, to compute step N you must have computed step N-1
before that.
If you can directly compute step N without computing prior step,
S2/S1/S3 is
possible. If not you had necessarily computed step S1 before S2,
only by
doing a replay of a previously done computation you could do it :
- first generate S1/S2/S3 in order and save each intermediate
result, then
you can do
- S2 (taking the previously intermediate result of S1), S1 then
S3 (taking
S2 result).
But running the same thing more times add a priori nothing. If
the process
is iterative then "in order" computation win the measure battle
(because any
out of order one require a genuine in order computation before).
Another way to compute S2 without using S1 would be to run the UD.
Yes but the UD will generate infinitely more often the in order S1/
S2/S3
than out of order... with what you are saying I don't even understand
what is a computation if not a rules ordered sequential state order.
A UD running on an actual computer for a finite time *could* generate
S2 before S1.
The UD will generate all the computations going through S1 and S2.
From the first point of view, if S1 correspond to a possible comp
state of mind, the next probable states depends on the infinitely many
computations going through S1.
There is nothing in the experience of S to indicate
which was generated first, even though if he had to guess with no
other information he is more likely to be right if he guesses he is
being generated sequentially.
Note that universal computation can be made reversible. Quantum
computer are reversible, up to the measurement, which is an internal
event (in the MWI) happening. A priori, the average UD will be non
reversible, and most computations evolves in more and more complex
type of events (like a zoom on the Mandelbrot set: it is not just self-
similar, it is more and more locally complex).
If the sequence S1 S2 S3 belongs to a computation, it means there is a
universal number U such that U compute S1 into S2 and then S3.
Automatically the UD will generate "later" (in the UD "time") another
universal number W which will compute U: (U S1) => (U S2) => (U S3),
(this is a different, probably longer computation, generating again
the computation S1, S2, S3) and then another universal J, etc.
So if the order S1, S2, S3 has some logic, it will reoccurs an
infinite of times in deeper and deeper computations, some leading to
rare object (object having a necessary long computations), that may
explain some "cosmic aspect".
The UD will also generate infinitely many description of S1, S2, and
S3, in many order, but without relating them to "logical histories
(computations). This is due to the fact that the UD dovetails also on
the bigger and bigger inputs, using bigger and bigger part of oracles
(real numbers), which may describe computations. But such description
of computations are NOT computations. They are not linked through a
universal machine.
If you take arbitrary sequence of state S1, S2, S3, S4, ..., you will
have 2^aleph_zero sequences. The computations are (third person)
enumerable, because defined by universal number, which are enumerable.
So, of course, we have to choose an initial universal machine. It
defines the base of the phi_i. The UDA shows that ANY choice will do.
In particular we can chose elementary arithmetic, or the combinators,
or the universal wave function.
But choosing "the universal wave function" is a bad choice if we want
to progress on the mind-body (consciousness/reality) problem, given
that comp makes the physics defined by a measure on all computations,
it is preferable to verify this from elementary arithmetic, or the
combinators, than the universal wave function (where this is trivial),
so that we can test the comp physics and better understand the comp
hypothesis.
The logic of self-reference makes then possible to distinguish the
quanta (physical communication) and the qualia (physical sensations).
It does not give explicitly the "measure" on the computational
histories, but it gives the logics obeyed by the measure one, from
each "person" points of view (hypostases). (That's auda).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
