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

```LOL! I hit send by accident... Interleaving below
```
```
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  On 1/17/2014 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/17/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  But apparently the brain has a lot to do with those computations in
>>>> Platonia, c.f. anesthetic.  Notice that I'm not a disciple of Platonia.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Me neither, I am agnostic - but within comp it is assumed, so while
>>> discussing comp we have to assume it (unless we're rejecting comp on that
>>> basis). But I can see that Platonia makes sense in that 17 does seem to be
>>> prime idependently of you and me and everyone else, which is (I'm told)
>>> enough for the whole shebang to come into some sort of existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I don't think you have to buy the equivalence between (17 is prime) is
>>> true and (17 is prime) exists.
>>>
>>
>>  No, but all statements about programs can be translated into truth
>> statements about the natural numbers. So you could say "Program X is
>> conscious of the information Y" is a true statement, and that truth implies
>> that the conscious thought of X exists. (Just as the primeness of 17
>> implies two factors of 17 exist).
>>
>>
>> But where does it exist?
>>
>

Is there a "where" there? Maybe the better question is: "What defines
the position of X?" If there exists multiple programs that all generate
the same 1p content that an entity must have to have the thought "17 is
prime" and be able to communicate "17 is prime" to another entity such that
"17 is prime" is a truth for all, what prevents us from identifying each of
those programs with the thoughts "in the heads" of those entities?
What this would do, I think and I am not sure of this, is allow a
definition of semantic content to emerge that makes the notion of "where is
it?" coherent: it is in X's head - where X is now an entity among a
collection of entities. It is for this reason that I stress communicability
and interaction among many entities/observers in this exploration of comp.
When we only consider a single entity within the comp model, we have little
ground to stand on to make claims against solipsism and the existence of
others. This may be aggravating to staunch applications of Occam's razor,
but sometimes we can chop off too much in our zeal to reduce everything to
some essence.

>
> Are you asking for spatial coordinates? I don't know what kind of answer
> would satisfy that question. It exists as a member in the collection of
> mathematical truth; it has no spatial or physical coordinates.
>
>
Where does space come from such that there is a meaningful semantic
content to the concept of a spatial coordinate. A space is a collection of
points with some additional structure that defines relations and orderings
among those points. What do we have to use as a population of points? We
have an infinite number of programs. We usually think of them as woven
together into a single string, the UD. Is this the only possible
configuration or "ordering" of the programs?

What about orderings that are not linear sequences? Consider a lattice.
Can it be coherently considered to be a relational structure "made out of
programs". Could a "space" be such a lattice? I think it can! I have been
exploring the idea of graphs as programs + data for my job and some very
interesting results have been found. It is possible to define a structure
that is program +data as a graph and it's computation as the sequence of
graph rewrite operations of the graphs.
What was found, crudely speaking, is that a certain type of
transformations of a certain kind of space is equivalent to a lambda
calculus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus>, which is, as we
know, a model of computation. This allows a topological space to actually
be a computation! I suspect that there are 4-manifolds that match up
exactly with this lambda calculus of graphs such that we can extract
notions of spaces and thus obtain a coherent notion of position. :-)

The question then is: how much more can we extract? Can we get mass,
charge and spin and physics? I think so!

> X has to be conscious of a location, a physics, etc.
>>
>
> All that is necessary for it to be conscious of a location or a physics,
> (assuming that is necessary), can exist in the mind of X. Or maybe X is
> part of a still larger program, which provides the information of Y.
>

We need a dynamic of some kind to get all the additional structure to
emerge. It is insufficient to just say "it exists in the mind of X", we
need a means for it do be necessarily the case that it exists "in the mind
of X". I think that is is kinda true that X is part of a larger program Y,
but the mereology <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/> is not
trivial.

>
>
>> If all this is the same as where I exist, then it is just a translation
>> of this world into arithmetic.  It's the flip side of "A perfect
>> description of X is the same as X", i.e. "X is the perfect description of
>> X".  If every perfect description is realized somewhere in arithmetic (and
>> I think it probably is) nothing is gained by saying we may be in arithmetic.
>>
>
I suspect that the statement "X is the perfect description of X" is a not
trivial fact! It can be used as a fixed point or
"eigenform<http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Eigen.pdf>"
of a dynamic process that accumulates semantic meaning. FOr example, X can
be identified with an entire equivalence class of descriptions of X what
have a variation such that the class is not a singleton.
In my thinking, physical system *are* semi-perfect self-descriptive or
self-simulating computations. What must be noticed is that a "simulation"

>
> This is about more than descriptions or what is describable. If
> mathematical statements are true independent of anything else then
> mathematical truth can serve as the basis of all that we consider to be
> real.
>

I think that there is a lot more detail that is being glossed over!
Descriptions of descriptions of descriptions... Soon we get infinite
regress unless there is a cut off. Nature offers us all kinds of cut off
mechanism that we could use, but this requires that we abandon the doctrine
of AR and its stipulation that all that exists are integers and arithmetic
operations. We need something to express a multiplicity of observers that
can interact with each other and a mechanism of communication. We need a
basis for semantic content that is distinct yet, possibly, emergent from
the Arithmetic.

>
>
> Jason
>
>  --
> 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.”

--
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