On 24 Jan 2014, at 12:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I mean the computer in a cruise missile is a computation , the sensors
and the actuators. I also don`t want to steal your precious
"computation" concept. I just resigned. I call it now "self sustained
processes" that compute. Although for me that expression is a
redundancy.
I would have you a little more in my side if I say that the physical
reality is a computation by God in order to create the order of
reality, but for you that is not enough.
It is enough. Look at the Plotinus paper. God is the "Arithmetical
truth".
When we use the standard notion of computation (discovered by Emil
Post, Alan Turing, Alonzo, Church, Andrzei Markov, etc.) it is easy to
justify that such a "God" is responsible for the existence of all
computations. Note, though, that it is only a tiny fraction of God
which can be said to compute. God, the arithmetical truth, do much more.
For you, God
undistinguisable from the computation,
What?
On the contrary. I insist all the time that Arithmetical Truth is way
beyond the computable realm.
The computable realm is just one drop in the ocean of the arithmetical
truth.
and the computation produces
whathever disorder possible, order among them.
A priori those notions are not related. There are theorems which
invite to look at some relation, like the fact that there are
universal machine which computations are reversible and they don't
dissipate energy.
That is nonsense for
me.
Physical order is NOT brought by a computation, in the
computationalist theory. It is brought by the First Person
Indeterminacy (FPI) on all computations. Some computation can play
roles there, but it is a complex matter. I just formulate the problem
and show how to solve it without eliminating the true but non provable
part (suggesting, or offering, a theory of qualia, notably, extending
the quanta, which are testable).
That is a sacrifice of nonsense to pay in the altar of Simplicity,
that you happily pay in the hope to find something that will eliminate
that nonsense.
I am a logician. I just show that the hypothesis that the brain can be
emulated by a digital universal machine has consequences in biology,
psychology, physics, theology, etc. All the consequences are testable,
and most of them arguably already "observed".
My initial goal was to refute comp, but that's how I discover that the
machines defend themselves very well on that question. Yet the
consequences were considered as non-sense (like "many world"), and
well, my understanding of QM makes me think that comp is not yet
refuted.
Don´t count on me for that. Don't waste your time trying to convert me
to your computationalist faith.
That is unfair, as I insist also all the time that comp is my working
hypothesis. I have never said that I believe in comp. I am a
mathematician. I just prove that comp implies a series of propositions.
I don't say "ys" to the doctor, nor "no". I am agnostic on comp, like
a scientist should be on any theory.
The observation of the world makes me think that comp is plausible,
yes, especially at the light of Gödel theorem, and of quantum
mechanics. But that's all.
My initial inspiration for comp came from The Molecular Biology of the
Gene (Watson).
I say that yours is a faith and not an hypothesis because you extract
vital conclusions from it.
?
For example "Marihuana is good because it
permits the access to alternative computations-dreams". Itsn't so?
You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of
that kind from computationalism.
Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most
common one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the
field, but this has nothing to do with comp.
Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your remark
makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of comp). It is
normal that altering consciousness products or methods can provide
information on consciousness.
(It is not a rethorical question. it is not an "accusation". I just
ask)
Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic.
To dissociate completely and "visit other realities" Salvia is more
efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when
cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours.
But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic.
Normally.
Bruno
2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>:
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer
or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital
computer.
So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition.
because
it embrace everything.
Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
simulations,
representations and all other information related aspects of the
universe.
It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the
physical
world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation
can be a
morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate
yet
related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members
of the
Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then,
are
Identical.
Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using
lego
pieces? No, my dear legologist.
What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces
entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation
is
whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and
thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is
used
ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to
increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it.
Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to
their
input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of
transformation
Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that
produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile.
A cruise missile is not a computation.
Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation,
nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on
all
computations).
I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no
controversial notions. the notion of computation is based on the
mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and
(mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and
computability theory are standard branches of computer science.
Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the
notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise
definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal
systems.
Bruno
But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used,
the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines,
uses or build it.
These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are
made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or
to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired
outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer.
. It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call
"essence of computation" instead of "computation" as such. or
alternatively "the self sustained process for which the
computation is
_ever_ made for"
of information, including transformations that are automorphisms.
A simulation is an special case of the latter.
So there are things that are computations: what the living
beings do
at the chemical, physiological or nervous levels (and rational,
social
and technological level in case of humans) . But there are things
that
are not computations: almost everything else.
We are using a very narrow definition of computations and thus miss
the
computations that physical processes outside of our CPUs and GPUs
are
performing. If the functions of an Isolated physical system are
such that
the transformations they induce in/on their cover space (?) of
representations are a simulation of the physical system, what
obtains? A
one to one map of the system that co-evolves with it. When we
consider
physical systems interacting with each other, could they
additionally have
partial emulations of each other within their "self-simulations"?
--
Alberto.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
