On Dec 13, 1:25 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 10:47 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:> 4. Computation is not
> primitive. It is a higher order sensorimotive
> > experience which intellectually abstracts lower order sensorimotive
> > qualities of repetition, novelty, symmetry, and sequence. When we
> > project arithmetic on the cosmos, we tokenize functional aspects of it
> > and arbitrarily privilege specific human perception channels.
> Hi Craig,
> No. A computation is by definition not abstracting novelty. Novelty
> is the essence of not-computable. The Halting theorem is an illustration
> of this. Computations are about repetition and sequence and perhaps
> symmetry, yes, but repetition and sequencing of physical states is what
> memory is all about, without the invariance over time there is nothing
> to define a repetition on.
I was thinking of novelty in the sense of the experience of counting,
that it's not just rhythm, but actually progresses with a sense of
unveiling the next integer. Even though you know what it's going to
be, there is a sense of realizing that knowledge in expression - the
next digit of Pi, the solution of a problem, etc. All arithmetic is
fueled by a desire not merely to repeat but to make an unknown
quantity known or verify a known quantity. The motive of solving or
verifying I think requires the preexistence of a novelty concept.
Also, couldn't arithmetic be based on names instead of numbers though
and have no repetition? It could be all novelty. Meaningless novelty,
but novelty. I don't think humans would like it very much but a
computer should be able to function that way I would think. One giant
byte, addressable by name search algorithms.
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
For more options, visit this group at