On 26 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
]
What you're describing sounds a little bit like cellular automata,
which start with a single cell (maybe the existent entity called
"nothing"?) and a rule and out of that comes emergent stuff possibly
like our universe. But, anyways I once again agree with what
you're saying that the emergent properties of "nothing" can be
pretty amazing, IMHO.
Yes cellular automata, but could also be a simple program with an
endless – highly non-compressible -- output running on an infinite
tape. The point I was pointing at is that out of simple initial
conditions, even potentially no conditions hypothetically, an
infinitely complex – non-compressible – resulting data stream can be
produced. If one is in the position of having only a non-privileged
and partial view of this infinite stream it could very much seem
nearly impossible to ever hope to discover the cause, by working
back from the resulting effect.
Whereas if one had a privileged outside view of the system and was
able to observe the program (or automata) in operation it would be
clear, concise and possible to defined (with a finite bounded
definition)) some program that will exactly produce the resultant
unbounded set.
Sometimes perspective and point of view is everything.
You can say that.
Assuming computationalism, you can start with 0, 1, 2, 3, ... and
accept as unique laws the law of addition, and the laws of
multiplication above enough classical logic.
From that you can extracts the points of view, and derive everything
apparent and non apparent from the statistics on the point of views,
and their main invariant, consciousness being one of them for the
first person points of view, a typically true but non 3p justifiable,
nor 3p definable (like arithmetical truth itself, by Tarski).
Bruno
-Chris
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:57:29 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in
some other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the
simulation that is us exists as does the computer and the code we're
a simulation in. My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there
are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular
arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there
not being existent entities.
Existence and non-existence can be viewed as different perspectives
on nothing…. existence and non-existence are emergent and understood
in dialectic opposition to each other… they arise out of each other,
and are defined in terms of each other.
-Chris
Chris,
I totally agree and that's what I've been trying to get at in my
thinking and at the website. Well put!
Well… it does seem we agree about nothing J
Have been pondering something I read a while ago when I began
reading Russell’s book (online first and now in the much better form
of a real book)
It is this bit of information about information. A very simple
mathematical operation that can be described – defined by a simple
recursive program produces an unending stream of numbers defining it
to an ever more precise numeric precision… to infinity. Some such
numbers say 10/3 are highly ordered and repetitive though never
ending.
The example Russell gave is an unending numeric stream that is
however different from – say 10/3 -- in that the resulting stream
of numbers that it outputs is highly chaotic and unordered very much
resembling the number streams generated by the best random algorithms.
The very simple operation of defining the square root of two
generates an -- (as far as we know infinitely extending) – number
stream that is characterized by a high degree of randomness.
Now say you are an observer from a parallel universe who somehow
gets a kind of sample set through some absurd imaginary portal that
deluges the poor fellow with reams upon reams of seemingly random
data – each one of them, let’s give it a data dimension say a KB,
MB, GB doesn’t matter, but constrained to a given chunk or window
size. These inter-dimensional data packets unfortunately arrive to
our observer in a scrambled order…. The data deluge arrives for
eternity… but will the recipient ever be able to derive the function
from the data. I doubt a highly random data stream – generated by a
very simple operation – could be re-ordered.
What could those observers deduce from this endless series of out of
order packets containing numeric data of a given range of degrees of
precision in the infinite stream resulting from the eternal
recursive refinement of this operation?
Would they ever be able to work back to the function from this out
of order quantized series of numeric data packets picked from random
slots in the infinite series?
It seems highly improbable to me, maybe there is some subtle
ordering in the output stream that could eventually become apparent
after enough data chunks were cross compared. Who knows, I am no
expert on the randomness of the output of the square root of two,
but in general sense there are functions f() that can be defined by
a simple set of recursive or looping actions… e.g. a simple
program... that can generate an infinite and – for the sake of
argument – perfectly random numeric output stream (doesn’t matter if
it is in base ten or base two, or any other base) – e.g. a simple
program like the one that recursively continues to define ever
increasing degrees of precision for the square root of two, but that
is abstract and ideal in that its output is taken to be perfectly
random – one terabyte of data in the stream looking pretty much like
any other similar sized chunk from the stream.
I pity those observers, and feel that no matter how many resources
they brought to bear in trying to discover the meaning of this
mysterious numeric communication coming through their inter-
dimensional portal… that they would never be able to figure the
actual simple formula / program that produced the petabytes ^
petabytes ^ petabytes ^ petabytes (ad infinitum) of data in their
transmission. Maybe some would build a religion around the mystery…
who knows, more likely the portal would become abandoned after the
last researcher was driven insane trying to discover the meaning.
The point of this long rambling dive into random data streams is to
illustrate how difficult or impossible it is to derive the original
function from the data output by it, and how the output of even a
very simple program can be an infinite series that would take
infinite storage capacity to contain.
Another way of putting it is that an apparently infinitely huge
container {in a meta sense} would be required in order to contain
the complete set of the output resulting from a simple function, and
that this is true no matter what compression algorithms one tried to
apply to the output stream {e.g. the output is highly – or in the
ideal perfectly -- random}
From a simple program an endless stream of data and increasing
complexity, in fact ultimately infinite complexity in the sense of
not being susceptible to any form of compression.
Naturally if by some incredibly stroke of luck our observers
discovered packet number one of the transmission – e.g.
1.414213562373095 – they would have hit the cosmic lottery jackpot
and could potentially put it all together and deduce the meaning of
the rest of the stream (assuming they had figured out the encoding
of the numeric stream and were able to logically map the meaning of
the ‘.’ Symbol)
In the end this rather a lot about nothing, perhaps there is a point
hiding in there somewhere… a point about the amazing emergent
complexity of nothing in fact J
-Chris
Roger
https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/
and a more detailed explanation along with more philosophical stuff
and a beginning model is at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
(click on 3rd link down)
While we are working on different models, it's been a great
discussion. Thanks.
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
