# The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the "best possible" solution.

```Hi Stephen P. King

The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the "best possible" solution.
And contain absolute as well as contingent truths. Thus there must be
some sort of mereology involved in the modalities. Maybe a new type of copula
insuring this situation to hold ?```
```
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Time: 2012-08-20, 01:02:41
Subject: Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

On 8/19/2012 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.

Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I understand that
2+2=4" follows, at least, from the requirement that many entities capable of
making such statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about
such statements with each other however far away in space and time they are
from each other. We can ignore the fact that there is a collection of entities
to whom the statement "I understand that 2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get
a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has tried to do this with his
Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the concept. :_(

Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands p".  :-)

Brent
--

Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK, understanding is contingent on
demonstrability, e.g. I understand p if and only if I can demonstrate that p
implies q and q is not trivial and q is true in the same context as p. I think
that Bruno's idea of "interviewing a machine" is a form of demonstration as I
am trying to define it here. In my thesis, demonstrability requires that the
model to be demonstrated is actually implemented in at least one possible
physical world (i.e. satisfies thermodynamic laws and Shannon information
theory) otherwise it could be used to implement a Maxwell Demon.

BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me to my current
ideas, that abstract computation requires that at least one physical system
actually can implement it. This is not ultrafinitism since I am allowing for an
uncountable infinity of physical worlds, but almost none of them are accessible
to each other (there exist event horizons, etc.).
Consider the case where a computation X is generating an exact simulation
of the behavior of molecules in a two compartment tank with a valve and there
exists a computer Y that can use the output of X to control the valve. We can
easily see that X could be a subroutine of Y. If the control of Y leads to an
exact partition of the fast (hot) and slow (cold) molecules and this difference
can be used to run Y then some might argue that we would have a computation for
free situation. The problem is that for the hot/cold difference to be exploited
to do work the entire apparatus would have to be coupled to a heat reservoir
that would absorb the waste energy generated by the work.  Heat Reservoirs are
interesting beasts....

If your computer simulation is acting as Maxwell's demon then you don't need a
heat reservoir.

Hi Brent,

Good point. I stand corrected! But did my remark about understanding make
any sense to you? I am trying to work out the implication of the idea of
Boolean algebras as entities capable of evolving and interacting as it is a key
postulate of the idea that I am researching. The Maxwell Demon is just a nice
and handy toy model of this idea, IMHO. Could the Maxwell Computational Demon
"understand" what it is doing? We could add the capacity to have a self-model
as a subroutine and thus a way to gauge its actual efficiency against a
theoretical standard as a way to implement a "choice" mechanism... See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehno85yI-sA for a discussion of this
self-modeling idea.

The demon makes one tank hot an the other cold so a heat engine runs on the
difference.

Yes, the demon would act in a cycle: Compute the simulation to operate the
valve to segregate the hot from cold and then use the heat engine to charge a
battery, discharging the difference in temperatures. Can this run forever? No,
given real world things like friction and the wearing out of parts, but in the
idea case it might seem to be able to run for ever.

Unfortunately this is impossible because such a simulation would require
defining the initial state of the particle's position and momentum in the two
tanks.  This is not available for free.  To determine it by measurement takes
at least as much free energy as can be recovered after implementing Maxwell's
demon.

The idea case would shift the initial position/momentum question into a
synchronization question: how is a measurement different from the "inverse" of
a simulation? I do not have any good words to express my thought here... Let's
see where the discussion takes us.

See
http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186
for more on this.

But if you're doing a calculation once on a given machine it's not necessary to
erase the result.  In Feynman's paper on quantum computing he note this gets
around Landauer's limit.  So long as the evolution of the computation is
unitary no energy need be dissipated.  So I don't see how the result is
relevant to Bruno's UD.

The reversibility argument only works if there is sufficient black memory
to work with such that erasure never is necessary. This is just trading off the
recource of energy for the resource of a read/write medium. Given the wearing
out of parts situation, could this be dealt with so that it is not a problem
for the idea case aka no friction, no loss of heat to an external world...

discussion...

I am trying to met Bruno half-way in his COMP idea... I just can't let go
of the apparent necessity of actual physical implementation, even given that I
really like his immaterialist hypothesis. It is too much like Leibniz' PEH and
its reliance on the logically impossible. How is Bruno's idea not a proverbial
floating castle in the sky?

Brent

--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to