Hi Bruno Marchal I have to confess that I have been of two minds on the subject of creation of structure and life:

## Advertising

a) creation of structure by an intelligent (meaning living) body or self (which requires subjectivity) b) the act of structure creation without a self (and hence is objective) or life which would apply to comp and it looks like Peirce's categories and also self-organizing systems. This would be sumulated life. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-17, 13:19:09 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:07, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 14 Oct 2012, at 23:27, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> "Computational Autopoetics" is a term I just coined to denote >>>> applying basic concepts >>>> of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free >>>> to do it more justice >>>> than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been >>>> exploited, but I have >>>> seen no indication of that. >>>> >>>> The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of >>>> autopoetics, namely that life is >>>> essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that >>>> we define >>>> life as the creative act of generating structure from some input >>>> data. By this >>>> pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is >>>> produced that is alive, but >>>> life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly >>>> structureless input data. >>>> Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. >>> >>> So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand >>> dunes, >>> huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! >> >> I am not sure a galaxy, or a sand dune has a "self", unlike a cell, >> or a person. >> > > You are, of course, correct that the self/other distinction is crucial > to life (and also of evolution - there has to be a unit of selection - > the replicator). > > I was responding initially to Roger's claim that life is the act of > creating structure. Any self-organised system can do that. Yes. > >> The self is directly related to the Dx = "xx" trick, for me. > > The Dx=xx trick is about self-replication. Of course entities with a > sense > of the self/other distinction needn't replicate (eg certain robots). Self-replication and self-reference. And many self-transformation (in fact self-phi_i, for all i). Self-reference and self-replication, are basically the same processes, except that in replication you reproduce yourself relatively to some universal numbers "grossly" different than you, (the most probable physical world), and with self-reference you reproduce yourself mentally, that is with respect to the universal number you are. > >> >> >> >>> >>> Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley >>> Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). >>> >>> >>>> >>>> If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it >>>> seems to fit what >>>> I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of >>>> life: intelligence >>>> and free will. >>> >>> I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological >>> evolution is undeniably creative. >> >> Is life more creative than the Mandelbrot set?, or than any >> "creative set" in the sense of Post (proved equivalent with Turing >> universality)? >> > > I would say yes. The Mandelbrot set is self-similar, isn't it, so the > coarse-grained information content must be bounded, no matter how far > you zoom in. The M set is not just similar, the little M sets are surrounded by more and more complex infiltration of their filaments. So the closer you zoom, the more complex the set appears, and is, locally. It is most plausibly a compact, bounded, version of a universal dovetailer. > > Life, on the other hand, exhibits unbounded information through > evolution, in contrast to all ALife simulations to date. To be fair you must look at some artificial evolution as long as life evolution. And both the M set and all creative set, or subcreative, (UD, UMs, LUMs, but also you and me, even without assuming comp) are like that in their extensions. Unbounded complexity. The M set is not only self-similar, but all its parts are similarly self-similar, making all zoom repeated 2, 4, 8, 16, ... times when you decide to focus on a minibrot. > > I had a look at the Wikipedia entry on creative sets, and it didn't > make much sense, alas. OK. On the FOAR list, I will do soon, or a bit later, Church thesis, the phi_i and the W_i, and that will give the material to get the creative sets. Roughly speaking, a creative set is a machine (a recursively enumerable set of numbers) who complementary is constructively NOT recursively enumerable. It is a machine defining a natural sort of no- machine, capable to refute all attempt done by the machine to make it into a machine. john Myhill will prove that such set are equivalent (in some strong sense) to the universal Turing set (machine). If you remember the recursively enumerable set W_i,, and noting ~W_i for ( N minus W_i), N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} W_u is creative iff there is a computable function F producing, from y and u, for all W_y contained in ~W_u, a number c in ~W_u minus W_y. The attempt W_y of making ~W_u into a machine y, has failed, has now we are given a counterexample, the number c, which is in ~W_u, and yet not capture by W_y. ~W_u is called a productive set. It is a NON recursively enumerable set (a non machine), but constructively so, as you can build a transfinite approximation of it, in a communicable way, up to omega_1^CK, (Church Kleene first non constructive ordinal), and beyond (but at the machine risk and peril). Truth, Arithmetical Truth, the set V of the G?el numbers of the true propositions, in (N, +, *) is a typical produce set. G?el first theorem is constructive: for all theories (recursively enumerbale sets) attempting to get V, the G?el diagonalization will provide a Godel number of a proposition true but not in the theory (the set of theorems of the theory). N minus Truth is also productive, Truth cannot be isomorphic to the complementary of a creative machine. Creative machine, or universal machine are sigma_1 complete, Truth is sigma_i complete for all i! Note that I identify here a number or a machine, and its set of behaviors (input-output) or beliefs/theorems. More on this on FOAR asap :) 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-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. -- 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.