Mitch
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 11:23 am
Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
> the behavior of Cellular Automata?
I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal
Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated to
wavelet analysis).
So clouds, lightnings, rivers, geography, cells, tissue, percolation,
diffusion of anything.
But the quantum reality cannot be described by any of those, as they
don't violate the Bell's inequality, so reality, below our
substitution level is more a mean on infinitely many classical
computations.
> Does cell biology do the tasks of CA, orbis this merely, a
> mathematical abstraction? Does anything in physics come to mind,
> when refering to CA?
Especially diffusion and percolation, although there are competing
theories. There are also many variant of CA, so that the term, as
Russell said, can have larger meaning that what computer scientist
defines.
The game of life looks already like life, fire, or sequences of more
and more complex little machines, according to the pattern.
Bruno
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:18 am
> Subject: Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
>
>
> On 02 Oct 2013, at 03:56, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01 Oct 2013, at 01:30, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The real universe is likely to be 11 dimensional, nonlocal with
>>>> around
>>>> 10^{122} states, or 2^{10^{122}} possible universes, if indeed it
>>>> is a
>>>> CA at all. Needles in haystacks is a walk in the park by
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> CA are local. The universe cannot be a CA if comp is correct, and
>>> the empirical violation of Bell's inequality confirms this comp
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>> There is no particular requirement for CAs to be local, although
>> local
>> CAs are by far easier to study than nonlocal ones, so in practice
>> they
>> usually are (cue obligatory lamp post analogy).
>
> We can easily conceive quantum CA.
> But those are not what is named simply CA (which locality is quite
> typical).
> You will not find quantum CA in Wolfram (well, in my edition).
>
>
>>
>> Unless you mean something else by locality. I mean that there is
some
>> neighbourhood radius such that the update function for a given cell
>> only access the states of cells within the given radius.
>>
>> Having said that - I notice that Wikipedia, Wolfram.com and also
Andy
>> Wuensche's article on Discrete Dynamical Networks
>> (http://www.complexity.org.au/ci/vol06/wuensche/) all state that
the
>> update function must be local in the manner described above in
their
>> definitions of "cellular automata". In which case, you are correct.
>
> OK.
>
>>
>> I am clearly taking about a more general subset of discrete
dynamical
>> networks in which the cells are still tiling an n-dimensional
space,
>> but that the update function does not depend on a local
neighbourhood
>> of the cell to be updated.
>
> Better not to call them CA, but quantum CA, or why not comp-CA, as
> comp entails non locality, non cloning, indeterminacy, etc.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know what Wolfram was talking about though - I just assumed
>> he
>> wouldn't be thinking in terms of local update functions for his "CA
>> of
>> the universe".
>
> Alas, that is what he does, or did.
> At the time he wrote his books, he put all the QM weirdness under
the
> rug. He said that if non-locality is a real consequence of QM, it
> means that QM is false.
>
> There are just very few people who grasp those three things at once:
>
> - the mind-body problem
> - the conceptual QM astonishing features (non locality, non cloning,
> indeterminacy, etc)
> - Church thesis and the non triviality of the discovery of the
> universal machine and its fundamental "creative limitations".
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
