-----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 05:01:48PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: > >> I don't see what the sense of self has to do with it... > > Hi Russell ~ In the sense, that by having a "sense of self" we have > inescapably already separated our "self" from any possibility of > seeing from the perspective of a universal point of view... the all that is and can be. > >>Ahh - that's the source of the misunderstanding. A "universal point of view" (if such a thing can actually exist) is not the same thing at all as a "universal machine". A universal machine is defined as a machine capable of emulating any other machine, given an appropriate program. Hehe, my bad. I was throwing around a term that is well understood by many to signify a Universal Turing Machine (or automata/device capable of performing like the theoretical UTM machine) from an entirely different semantic vector... My apologies... and a good example of how important a shared understanding of terms is for good communication. On the single point of view thing... personally I confess I am agnostic on whether or not a single point of view can exist; though I cannot fathom how it could exist.... and unlike most people I have tried lol.... though one could argue that this inability of mine is the inevitable result of my being shackled to existing from within a point of view :) The reason for my introducing it into this thread in the first place, was to argue that everything that happens, is happening within some local and limited context... within a frame of reference in which it occurs and with which it interacts. That any system we can define -- except perhaps abstract mathematical/logical conceptual systems such as the infinite set perhaps (but that can only exist because it remains -- by definition -- undefined.... and around in a circle it goes) -- must in some ways be influenced by actors and events, which are external to it. All systems have externalities. And that because of this influence from outside that characterizes all systems -- except perhaps those in superposition -- as systems become increasingly complex -- by orders of magnitude -- and become comprised of systems of systems linked by extended networks determinism breaks down. At some stochastic point in the degree of complexity and evolution of systems it becomes impossible to work back to some hypothetical original cause based on the measured knowledge of some end outcome. i.e. determinism is in practice impossible. For example would it be possible by measuring precisely the surface of a pond and taking a snap shot of that surface to wind all the surface waves that are dynamically always racing across that pond and bouncing about as they rapidly decay in energy to some distant previous ripple causing event... the pebble that was tossed into the pond a month ago, for example. I would argue that even with a perfect picture of the ponds surface and of each single micrometer of its boundaries... knowing all of its system parameters... that at some point an event can no longer be distinguished from noise, but not for that can it be said to have ultimately had no effect either... in a pseudo-random chaotic system that butterfly wing flapping event can be the cause of the hurricane six months later. But it is also true that it can never be determined to have been the cause either... the signal of that causal butterfly wing flap has long been effectively erased by the vast seething chaos of the countless jiggling atoms in the atmosphere. Basically it boils down to my questioning and doubting the theoretical possibility of determinism. Every non-trivial system -- I would argue -- becomes so inter-connected and loosely coupled that processes that may have perhaps started out in some deterministic manner rapidly begin to become effected by events and inter-actions with other external actors so that a degree of indeterminacy becomes creeps in. This is a real bind that information science is facing. Computer architecture relies on deterministic outcomes -- a logic gate must either be open or it must be closed without ambiguity. But increasingly it is hard to guarantee and at higher levels (clearly much higher than the individual logic gate) systems need to handle indeterminacy to some degree. In fact consensus based algorithms are starting to become more widely adopted -- adopted in an attempt to solve this dilemma by going with a wisdom of the crowds approach and building consensus. The much more interesting things in life are found right on the edge where chaos and order meet. Determinism seeks to impose its need for order on chaos, and is unable to accept that in reality chaos is at least as vital an ingredient in the secret sauce of life and reality as the Order the determinist so deeply loves. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.