On 8/21/2012 6:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz did not have an overall theory of the universe such
as seems to be wanted here. The monadology is not an overall
theory of the universe, instead it is moreorless like a living
ecology, where the parts (monads) compete and collaborate with each
other through the supremem monad (the CPU) which in effect carries
out all of the needs, states, desires, abilities, expectations, etc.
So Leibniz's ToE is a sociology.

HI Roger,

    A plurality that is actually singular to God, the supremum.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/21/2012
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 <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:51:24
    *Subject:* Re: The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward
    the"best possible" solution.

    On 8/20/2012 6:54 AM, Roger wrote:
    Hi Stephen P. King
    The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the "best
    possible" solution.

    Hi Roger,

        But the "best possible" can only be defined infinitely (and
    thus impossible to know) or finitely in a error-prone or
    approximate way.

    And contain absolute as well as contingent truths.

        I agree.

    Thus there must be some sort of mereology involved in the modalities.

        Yes. The actuals are mutually consistent aspects or modes of
    the possibilities. The key is the frame of reference of the
    observer. There is no finitely knowable 3p, there is is only
    finitely approximative 1p. Thus we choose a point of view tat
    allows for measurement/observation that can be converted into
    communicable representations. This is the canonical form!

    Maybe a new type of copula insuring this situation to hold ?

        Copula? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula ? Please elaborate...

    Roger , rclo...@verizon.net <mailto: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 <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
        *Receiver:* everything-list
        <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
        *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...

        See also http://www.csupomona.edu/~hsleff/MD-power-time.pdf
        <http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Ehsleff/MD-power-time.pdf> for a
        nice 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to