# Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

`Another take is : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403031`
```
Deriving laws from ordering relations
Kevin H. Knuth <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Knuth_K/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 3 Mar 2004)

The effect of Richard T. Cox's contribution to probability theory was to
generalize Boolean implication among logical statements to degrees of
implication, which are manipulated using rules derived from consistency
with Boolean algebra. These rules are known as the sum rule, the product
rule and Bayes' Theorem, and the measure resulting from this generalization
is probability. In this paper, I will describe how Cox's technique can be
further generalized to include other algebras and hence other problems in
science and mathematics. The result is a methodology that can be used to
generalize an algebra to a calculus by relying on consistency with order
theory to derive the laws of the calculus. My goals are to clear up the
mysteries as to why the same basic structure found in probability theory
appears in other contexts, to better understand the foundations of
probability theory, and to extend these ideas to other areas by developing
new mathematics and new physics. The relevance of this methodology will be
demonstrated using examples from probability theory, number theory,
geometry, information theory, and quantum mechanics.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear Bruno,
>
>   You wrote:
> "Physics emerges from the FPI on UD*. It is an open question if there is
> a winner program, but empirically we can bet that the winner, if it exists,
> can emulate  a quantum universal machine. But it might be a quantum
> universal machine + an oracle, or a quantum machine defined on a ring, etc.
> We just still don't know."
>
>   Does the "winner" need to be absolute (over all possible tournaments of
> all possible computations) or could there be winners with respect to some
> finite tournaments on finite set of computations? Think: Nash equilibria.
>
>   It seems to me that while there are no Absolute Winners, there can be
> "local winners" or "Victors" in tournament between computations in a finite
> set of computations that are "interacting" in some way.
>
> Could this give us a coherent notion of a measure?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 17 January 2014, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:00, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 1/16/2014 12:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
>>>>>> Intel
>>>>>> CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense
>>>>>> that a
>>>>>> computer can in theory do everything your brain can do is almost
>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>> correct. It is not that the brain is like a computer, but rather,
>>>>>> that a
>>>>>> computer can be like almost anything, including your brain or body, or
>>>>>> entire planet and all the people on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think neuroscientists have, over decades, used the computational
>>>>> metaphor in too literal a way. It is obviously not true that the brain
>>>>> is a digital computer, just as it is not true that the weather is a
>>>>> digital computer. But a digital computer can simulate the behaviour of
>>>>> any physical process in the universe (if physics is computable),
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Bruno concludes that physics is not computable.  So does that imply
>>>> one should say "no" to the doctor?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Comp explains that physics is not *entirely* computable, that is we
>>> cannot predict all sequences of observations. But that is already the case
>>> thanks to QM (with our without Everett). So no worry!
>>
>>
>> Are you referring to quantum indeterminacy? But isn't even that
>> computable from a third person perspective, the UDA generating every branch
>> of the multiverse?
>>
>>
>> The UD cannot generate a non computable sequence in one branch, or
>> through one computation.
>>
>> But the UD can dovetail on the coupling of one universal number
>> multiplied (coupled with) a dovetailing on *all* sequences, making the
>> indeterminacy recoverable statistically by the multiplied machines. (cf the
>> iterated self-multiplication).
>>
>> - Computable means generates by one program.
>>
>> - FPI-recoverable means first person "experienceable" (in the comp usual
>> sense) by a machine multiplied into infinity in the UD, or in arithmetic.
>>
>> Physics emerges from the FPI on UD*. It is an open question if there is a
>> winner program, but empirically we can bet that the winner, if it exists,
>> can emulate  a quantum universal machine. But it might be a quantum
>> universal machine + an oracle, or a quantum machine defined on a ring, etc.
>> We just still don't know.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But without Everett, I would perhaps not even have dared to suggest that
>>> comp might be true.
>>>
>>> And yes, the computable aspect of nature, even, with collapse, might
>>> eventually be a symptom that comp is false. but up to now, the most
>>> startling aspect of the observable reality confirms the most startling
>>> asoect of the consequence of computationalism.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>>  including the behaviour of weather or the human brain. That means
>>>>> that, at least, it would be possible to make a philosophical zombie
>>>>> using a computer. The only way to avoid this conclusion would be if
>>>>> physics, and specifically the physics in the brain, is not computable.
>>>>> Pointing out where the non-computable physics is in the brain rarely
>>>>> figures on the agenda of the anti-computationalists. And even if there
>>>>> is non-computational physics in the brain, that invalidates
>>>>> computationalism, but not its superset, functionalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> 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 a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

--
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