Well, I agree that the implications of mapping coarser with finer grained ∈-machines
belong in a church. But the actual mappings (and any attempts to characterize the
expressive scope of those machines) are a kind of math inquiry, however obscure. What
irritates me is that people shunt the concept of orders with that of levels. We don't
need the concept of "leak" if we stick to the tried and true concept of higher
order languages where the macros are mixed in with the primitives, not somehow
independent of them.
For example, if we talk about a freezing event, where the "physics" after the
event are constrained in such a way that we can ignore large swaths of possible events
because they're vanishingly unlikely, then in a higher order language, those lower order
operators are still available, just rarely/never executed. While it's true that we could
instantiate a model that re-created the freeze from first principles, it's efficient to
launch the system from (second?, derived?) principles instead and watch it play out from
the freeze onward.
But the higher order language is *open* to thawing the macros, a devolution
back to a dynamic dominated by the primitives. That won't happen in these
(strictly) leveled, independent machines.
On 6/14/24 07:25, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The double slit experiment demonstrates what appears to be nondeterminism, but
that hasn't prevented development of an accurate model of the phenomena that
deterministic computers can simulate. I don't have to believe a deterministic
interpretation of the double slit experiment, but Occam's Razor encourages me
to. (I can't control the initial conditions of the universe.) What is the
point of discussions about things that cannot be modeled? These discussions
belong in a church. They are not inquiry.
On Jun 14, 2024, at 6:20 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote:
But the trouble is that controlled experiments are our gold standard for
testing such. Control is the default. It seems like at least confirmation bias.
Of course control demonstrates determinism. It's petitio principii. In order to
demonstrate a counter exmaple, we have to control everything we could possibly
*ever* control, being left with only that we can't control ... like proving a
negative.
In that context, those of us who believe there exists some thing we can't
control act a bit like theists. Whenever they manage to concretely define the
process they claim is uncontrollable, we demonstrate it's controllability. Then
they move the goalposts and we start all over again. It's tiresome and even if
we want to be charitable, allowing that maybe there's something uncontrollable
out there (or there is something we might call God), at every turn, as soon as
it's defined concretely, it's eventually falsified. That leads some of us to
tire out, give up, and just flip the faith and assume there is no
uncontrollable thing.
On 6/13/24 19:13, Marcus Daniels wrote:
What’s odd is this idea there is something about nature that can’t be
described in a repeatable way, such that a digital computer could simulate it,
in principle. Paradoxically, to defend that idea, one would have to describe
an experiment that could illustrate counter examples -- concepts that could not
be said. It is obfuscation by construction.
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
