Re: random, was Predictions & duplications
John Mikes wrote: >Bruno, I appreciate your choice of incompressibility - as far as >mathematical views are concerned. And you know that with comp a case is made there is nothing outside mathematics (even outside arithmetics) so that's ok for me. But you know also that the determinist self-dup entails the possibility that we are confront with such form of indeterminism. >How about a "random" choice of a color >from a hundred others? If the colors are clearly distinguishable, you can use an incompressible string of O1-symbols translated into base 100. It is not practical, because you will not be able to prove it is random, but the point is that the UD generate all such sequences, so comp "nature" makes such random "choice" all the "time". >can this be algorithmic and incomressible? Yes. But it cannot be known for sure. >Or a choice "at random" from available several routes, how to defend an >innocent accused in court? I don't see the relationship. To defend a innocent accused in court, you better should refute the evidences given by those in charge. >I admire you, physicists, ... I'm not a physicist. I am, let us say, an hesitator between biology and chemistry, who after discovering "godel's result" realise that an abstract biology exists as a branche of mathematics. So I decide (in the early 70) to study mathematics for showing that it is not the cells who obeys to the laws of chemistry (like James Watson said in "molecular biology of the gene") but it is the laws of chemistry which obeys (in a deeper way, sure) to the laws of cells (self-replication). >...for writing an equation to everything. >I cannot >find this applicable with infinite variables and infinite levels of >influences among applicable factors (=natural systems). If the equation of everything is supposed to give a complete explanation, or even just a complete description, I certainly do not believe in it. Not because of some natural systems (I don't believe that exists with comp) but because there is no complete theory of numbers and/or machines. >I do not find Russell's "choice without a cause" applicable without >interjecting "known" before 'cause'. Instead of "choice without a cause" I would say "selection of possibility" without any mean to influence the selection, like in the self duplication experiment in the comp frame. Here we can know even God cannot know the result of the selection. >Which does not mean deterministic >extremism, the choices are close and fractalously propagating into quite >diverse routes, so it is beyond designability how a later situation will >look. Yes. Bruno
Re: random, was Predictions & duplications
Yes, in a different context, random could be applied to deterministic
chaos, however in the context of our discussion, we're not talking
about that.
Cheers
jamikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, I appreciate your choice of incompressibility - as far as
> mathematical views are concerned. How about a "random" choice of a color
> from a hundred others? can this be algorithmic and incomressible?
> Or a choice "at random" from available several routes, how to defend an
> innocent accused in court?
> I admire you, physicists, for writing an equation to everything. I cannot
> find this applicable with infinite variables and infinite levels of
> influences among applicable factors (=natural systems).
> I do not find Russell's "choice without a cause" applicable without
> interjecting "known" before 'cause'. Which does not mean deterministic
> extremism, the choices are close and fractalously propagating into quite
> diverse routes, so it is beyond designability how a later situation will
> look.
>
> John M
>
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: random, was Predictions & duplications
Bruno, I appreciate your choice of incompressibility - as far as mathematical views are concerned. How about a "random" choice of a color from a hundred others? can this be algorithmic and incomressible? Or a choice "at random" from available several routes, how to defend an innocent accused in court? I admire you, physicists, for writing an equation to everything. I cannot find this applicable with infinite variables and infinite levels of influences among applicable factors (=natural systems). I do not find Russell's "choice without a cause" applicable without interjecting "known" before 'cause'. Which does not mean deterministic extremism, the choices are close and fractalously propagating into quite diverse routes, so it is beyond designability how a later situation will look. John M
Re: Random, was Predictions & duplications
"According to whim or taste" implies a conscious entity performing choices according to a free will. This need not be the case. In my mind, random means selected without cause (or without procedure/algorithm)." Russell picked my example from a language which has no equivalent to the word "random" . Besides: I deny free will, except for the "Creator Almighty" when the world was drawn up. Since then all free will is subject to I/O circumstances, prior art, experience, whatever (un?)conscious consideration one may include. "A lot has been written on randomness, and its problematic nature. I don't for one minute suggest I have anything new to say on the matter. " Maybe some choice anong controversial versions? I find Bruno's choice remarkable about the incompressibility. Will think about it, thanks, Bruno. JM
