On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
> > computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of
> > propositions is as follows:
> > Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an eternal
> > objective truth.
> Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure.
Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth, any
fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If
mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must
exist outside sets of axioms altogether.
> But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems are
> > Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X.
> > Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's say
> > N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition
> > the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior states, and
> > therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, then
> in a
> > sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one might
> > say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth.
> > chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all
> > must occur.
> > Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, consider
> > universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n+1)=
> > + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures
> > such as our universe or the computation of your mind.
The fractal is just an example of a simple formula leading to very complex
output. The same is true for the UDA:
for i = 0 to inf:
for each j in set of programs:
execute single instruction of program j
add i to set of programs
That simple formula executes all programs.
> Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"?
> If so, why?
I don't know what lower bound of information or complexity is required for
> Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just
> a way of thinking about our experience?
> Is it:
> Recursive relations cause thought.
> Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational
> The latter seems more plausible to me.
Through recursion one can implement any form of computation. Recursion is
common and easy to show in different mathematical formulas, while showing a
Turing machine is more difficult. Many programs which can be easily defined
through recursion can also be implemented without recursion, so I was not
implying recursion is necessary for minds. For example, implementing
the Fibonacci formula iteratively would look like:
X = 1
Y = 1
for int i = 2 to N:
i = X + Y
X = Y
Y = i
This program iteratively computes successive Fibonacci numbers, and will
output the Nth Fibbonaci number.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at