On 28 Mar 2015, at 10:22, Mindey I. wrote:
Hi Everyone,
so, my background: http://mindey.com/42 -- I always wanted to know its
origin precisely.
The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse,
and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful.
Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical
inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an
attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part
of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable
candidate for "Origin".
Hmm, you will need to explain the origin of "nothingness".
And the problem I see here is that you have as much notion of
nothingness that you have notion of things.
Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse
experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of
physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only
something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly
generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer
games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our
computers.
From here, we can conclude:
(1) It follows that, _if_ we could come up with a UTM from
"Nothingness", we could explain pretty much everything that is
computable.
If you take the set notion of "nothingness", that is the empty set,
then from just the notion of unary intersection of set gives the
everything notion of sets. That contains all computable things, and
also all non computable things. But it might be too much.
Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited
granularity (selectivity), and limited lifespan, which seem to imply
finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by
a being.
This might be equivalent with the computationalist assumption.
(2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable.
Hmm... Not really, because with everything/nothing type of theories,
if we are finite objects, we are distributed in infinitely may
examplary in the everything, and this introduce a non computable
element in our life experiment.
You might read:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
To come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", let's:
1. assume "Nothingness"
Unfortunately this is too much fuzzy.
2. conclude "Equidistance"
(because "Nothingness" means equal absence of information regarding
any aspect whatsoever)
Assuming some metrical space.
3. see the definition of a ball
4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.:
Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with
special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite
standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect
conceivable ball regading any information aspect whatsoever.
The idea is nice and would have pleased Plotinus, but I am not sure if
you are aware of the many assumption you make here.
At least I guess you agree that some part of mathematics has to be
assumed.
Unfortunately, we don't know if Pi is really equivalent to UTM,
Pi is a particular computable number. I don't see how you can make it
equivalent with a computing machine, which can be seen as the given a
finite number verifying some number relation.
because we had not yet solved the Normality of Pi conjecture,
You can take the number 0,12345678910111213141516171819202122...
instead. (Champernow number).
But again, using some coding (well, decoding) you can see all
description of all computations of all Turing machine. But you will
not see any computation, which are more abstract relation. It is a
common confusion, but description of relation are not the same as the
relation themselves.
but
assuming it is Normal, to understand how your unique experience of
life could have arisen:
1. assume that your life experience is a finite number
2. conclude that it is in Pi.
So I disagree. Your experiences are in the number of champernow, but
they are not in the relation making them into computations. It is like
confusing Borges babel library and the universal dovetailling.
The universal dovetailing (generation and running of all programs)
existence can be proved in very little theory, but you need more than
syntactucal information: you need the relevant computable relations.
However, if Pi is normal, then then the conclusion is not informative
at all, because we will find any finite string in it many times over.
It would be much more informative, if Pi actually is _not_ normal.
Any comments/errors?
You need to be clear on the things you assume, and the minimal laws
they obey.
In this list (and in my publication) I show that all specification of
a UTM can be used for deriving the physical laws and consciousness. I
use a very tiny fragment of arithmetic, or even a smaller theory (SK-
combinators)/
I think your main confusion is between a description of a computation,
and a computation. Amazibgly enough, I was just explaining that
confusion, which was cropping again in some critics of the step 8 of
the main argument in the paper linked above.
Nice try, and quite in the spirit of this list, like Borges, and
Everett, but you might need to study what has already been done.
Mathematical logic can be useful to see what needs to be assume or
not, and to make clear the presentation of the theory.
Also, you don't seem aware of the mind-body problem, which, when we
assume computationalism, reduces *any* theory of matter into a
probability or uncertainty calculus on computations. This has to be
taken into account, or you risk to eliminate persons and
consciousness. In fact computationalism is epistemologically
incompatible with materialism (even the weak doctrine which just
assume some primitive physical reality).
Bruno
Mindey
Related: discussion on Halfbakery:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Explanation_20of_20Origin_20of_20Universe
--
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.
