Hi Stephen,

A state with more than one governor is perhaps best described
as a civil war. And you can only have one pilot on a boat.
In short, any living entity can only have one pilot or decision maker.

Even a representational govt such as we have here in the USA
ultimately has a single man (the president) to provide  a legislative
vision and to sign or not sign a bill.

Leibniz's system seems to act "as if" each monad is free to do as it wishes,
but that is only apparent. Above or among the monads must be
just one supreme monad that does all of the actual perceiving and acting.


Roger

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-02, 06:19:12
Subject: Re: Big Bang is the simplest possible state?







On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 1/27/2013 6:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:






On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 1/27/2013 6:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Dear Bruno and Stephen,




On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and deep 
computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big bang is 
not the beginning. 



Dear Bruno,

? ? I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang per 
observer.



Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state? 

Hi Telmo,

?? Yes, if I can add "...that a collection of observers can agree upon" but 
that this simplest possible state is uniquely in the past for all observers 
(that can communicate with each other) should not be just postulated to be the 
case. It demands an explanation.



It's uniquely in the past for all complex observers
Hi Telmo,

? I would partition up "all possible observers" into mutually communicating 
sets. Not all observers can communicate with each other and it is mutual 
communication that, I believe, contains the complexity of one's universe.


That makes sense to me.
?
Basically my reasoning forllows Wheeler's It from Bit idea. 




because:


- It cannot contain a complex observer


?? How do we know this? We are, after all, speculating about what we can only 
infer about given what we observe now.


Isn't it just a tautology? I don't know how to justify it any further. It's 
like saying that an empty glass does not contain water.
?



- It is so simple that it is coherent with any history


?? Simplicity alone does not induce consistency, AFAIK...


I'm thinking in the following terms: imagine a CA which has an initial state 
where a single cell is on. For any super-complex state that you find down the 
line, the initial simple step is always a consistent predecessor.
?



?

That doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely predecessor to 
any other state. 

?? > The word "predecessor' worries me, it assumes some way to determine 
causality even when measurements are impossible. Sure, we can just stipulate 
monotonicity of states, but what 


> would be the gain?



I mean predecessor in the sense that there are plausible sequences of 
transformations that it's at the root of. These transformations include world 
branching, of course.


?? I am playing around with the possibility that monotonicity should not be 
assumed. After all, observables in QM are complex valued and the real numbers 
that QM predicts (as probabilities of outcomes) only obtain when a basis is 
chosen and a squaring operation is performed. Basically, that *is* is not 
something that has any particular ordering to it. Here I am going against the 
arguments of many people, including Julian Barbour.


Ok, this also makes sense to me. But can you accept that there is quantifiable 
similarity between states? In this case we can still build a state graph from 
which we can extract timelines without requiring ordering.
?



?


The more complex a state is, the smaller the number of states that it is likely 
to be a predecessor of.

?? Sure, what measure of complexity do you like? There are many and if we allow 
physical laws to vary, infinitely so... I like the Blum and Kolmogorov 
measures, but they are still weak...


I had Kolmogorv in mind and it's the best I can offer. I agree, it's still week 
and that's a bummer.


?? Maybe we should drop the desiderata of a measure and focus on the locality 
of observers and its requirements.


I don't think I understand what you mean here.
?




-- 
Onward!

Stephen
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to