Re:The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
How does a human differ in kind from a rock?

-Well both are well modelled as being slow processes (i.e. localized 
states and events) in spacetime.
- A process is a particular kind of pattern of organization of some 
subregion of spacetime.
- We share being made of similar kinds of matter particles that stay 
close to each other in spacetime for
some finite time period, and some finite spatial extent.

Oh, but you said how do we differ?

Well, a human roganism is a sub-unit of a longer-lived species pattern 
within an organic emergent system eco-system
pattern.
A rock does not appear to have that much complexity of form and 
autopoietic function.

A rock is one of those kind of local spacetime patterns or systems that 
doesn't have much choice about how it is.
The laws of physics, and the nature of the rock's components and the 
thermodynamics of its vicinity are such that it
pretty much collects into how it's going to be at some time, then is 
physically constrained to stay just that way,
at macro scales anyhow, for a long period of time. Of course, being a 
big physical process pattern subject to
the laws of thermodynamics, it is, actually, changing, and usually 
dissipating (disorganizing), just very, very slowly.

A human organism pattern is existing at a thermodynamic range 
internally, and in a thermodynamic regime in its
environment, that allows for more options. for how (and e.g. where) to 
be (over short time scales.) Interestingly,
this makes for the presence of all kinds of other similar organic 
patterns with options, and interesting behaviours
(like eating you for dinner, or infecting you and eating your cell 
structure.) In other words, this thermodynamic
regime, and the particular kinds of atoms and chemical bonds in 
ecosystems, make for active competition for
which should be the dominant pattern of organization of matter and 
energy in the vicinity. i.e. You can't always
just be a rock, because there might be a creature with a hammer wanting 
to break you down into cement.
Or you can't live for ever, as an organism, because something else wants 
to re-pattern your matter and energy;
that is, the matter and energy your pattern has competed successfully to 
borrow for its form for a while.

Clear as oozing primordial subterranean sulphur-vent mud?

Ok but here's the interesting part of the story. Because there are 
options for how to be i.e. how to hold together
at our organic ecosystem thermodynamic regime, there is 
pattern-competition for who is the most auto-poietic
(i.e. what forms of matter and energy collection can hold together best, 
at the expense of others).

And it turns out that life-like ecosystem patterns, species patterns, 
and organism patterns win out for a time,
precisely because their main function is autopoiesis, and they 
eventually, through natural selection, get very
good at it.

And it may turn out that the way you survive best as a pattern in 
spacetime, assuming you have a certain
thermodynamic range to work with, is to store inside yourself 
INFORMATION about that which is
outside yourself and nearby. i.e. about your environment. In otherwords, 
pattern, if you want to live, get
out there and start RE-PRESENTING aspects of your environment WITHIN 
YOURSELF (in some
partly abstract form within some aspect of your own form.)
Eventually, if you do that, simple representation
of your environment. Ouch that hurt. I'm going to flail the other way 
outa here. or
hmmm, my complex molecules like the smell and molecular fit of YOUR 
complex molecules
will give way to complex representation within the organism of its 
environment, and complex action plans
to be carried out to protect the organism (and its kin's) pattern from 
nastier aspects of the environment.
So we get Hmmm. I think that guy and his army is out to get me and 
mine. I think I will pre-emptively
strike on that other guy's country because he vaguely looks like the 
first guy. Ok, bad example.
or you get Hmmm. What an intelligent (accurate 
environment-representer), capable (effective environment
modifier and pacifier), and beautiful (pattern-form-average-conformant) 
woman she is. I'll ask her to marry me.

Or something like that.

And that's the major difference between humans and rocks. Our 
thermodynamic regime necessitates that
we navigate options for our existence/non-existence as stable patterns 
by representing informationally, then
navigating and affecting, our surrounding  space, time, matter, and 
energy forms.

Eric

Hal Ruhl wrote:

Hi Stephen:

Observers:

In this venue dances interact and change each other discontinuously by 
mutual collision or by exchanging smaller dances.

How then does a human differ in kind from a rock?  Should we expect 
them to differ in kind?

Yours

Hal




Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

2004-04-17 Thread Hal Finney
Eric Hawthorne writes:
 So does that mean we just say think of the substrate of the universe as 
 being a turing machine equivalent,
 any old turing machine equivalent. Ok, but still, you have to admit that 
 every easy to think of instantiation
 of a turing machine (e.g. a PC with a lot of time on its hands) is a 
 terribly implausible universe substrate.
 For heavens sake, the PC with a lot of time on its hands presupposes 
 time (and space (i.e. different localities,
 with notions of adjacency),  in which to write the tape). Classic 
 chicken and egg problem.

 Does anyone know the way out of that particular conceptual pickle?

How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're
living in one of them?  Or does that require an elderly mathematician,
a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in
order for us to be here?

It seems to me that mathematics exists without the mathematician.
And since computer science is a branch of mathematics, programs and
program runs exist as well without computers.

Hal Finney



Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

2004-04-17 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:03:03AM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:

 How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're
 living in one of them?  Or does that require an elderly mathematician,
 a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in
 order for us to be here?

That wouldn't quite do. Just simulating this planet takes a lot of hardware. 
Just because you can write down Navier-Stokes it doesn't mean rivulets,
streams and oceans spring into being. A little more work is required for
that.
 
 It seems to me that mathematics exists without the mathematician.

To me it seems the opposite is true. As long as it's an unfalsifyable
prediction, there's not much point to pursue it further. 

 And since computer science is a branch of mathematics, programs and
 program runs exist as well without computers.

While I'm open to existence of a metalayer, built from information or
otherwise, I'm very much opposed to mysticism.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
__
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

2004-04-17 Thread John M
Eugen,
an outsider thought to your interesting attachment:
We know about two parallel worlds (wit languages?):
A. the 'physos'-observable one - som call material reality (I don't),
B. mathematics

I extend A into all white elephant/rabbit versions we can 'talk' about.
B exists in the mind of mathematicians (including simpler levels existing
in simpler minds one would not call 'a mathematician'. E.g. me.

The problem starts when scientists start to apply one to the other,
mostly B to A, forcing connections between the parallels. 
It leads to omissions, unnatural conclusions, I call it reductionism 
into those cases where it was (successfully???) done.

I know this was not what you intended.

John Mikes

PS to your interesting Rock post:
that is what your human mind says. Ask the rock, you may be 
surprised. - J


- Original Message - 
From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds





Re: Re:The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread John M
Eric,
an apology:
I just misplaced a remark to this post of yours into my response
to Eugen as a PS.
Please forgive

John Mikes
- Original Message - 
From: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 3:03 AM
Subject: Re:The difference between a human and a rock


 How does a human differ in kind from a rock?
 
 -Well both are well modelled as being slow processes (i.e. localized 
 states and events) in spacetime.
 - A process is a particular kind of pattern of organization of some 
 subregion of spacetime.
 - We share being made of similar kinds of matter particles that stay 
 close to each other in spacetime for
 some finite time period, and some finite spatial extent.
 
 Oh, but you said how do we differ?
 
 Well, a human roganism is a sub-unit of a longer-lived species pattern 
 within an organic emergent system eco-system
 pattern.
 A rock does not appear to have that much complexity of form and 
 autopoietic function.
 
 A rock is one of those kind of local spacetime patterns or systems that 
 doesn't have much choice about how it is.
 The laws of physics, and the nature of the rock's components and the 
 thermodynamics of its vicinity are such that it
 pretty much collects into how it's going to be at some time, then is 
 physically constrained to stay just that way,
 at macro scales anyhow, for a long period of time. Of course, being a 
 big physical process pattern subject to
 the laws of thermodynamics, it is, actually, changing, and usually 
 dissipating (disorganizing), just very, very slowly.
 
 A human organism pattern is existing at a thermodynamic range 
 internally, and in a thermodynamic regime in its
 environment, that allows for more options. for how (and e.g. where) to 
 be (over short time scales.) Interestingly,
 this makes for the presence of all kinds of other similar organic 
 patterns with options, and interesting behaviours
 (like eating you for dinner, or infecting you and eating your cell 
 structure.) In other words, this thermodynamic
 regime, and the particular kinds of atoms and chemical bonds in 
 ecosystems, make for active competition for
 which should be the dominant pattern of organization of matter and 
 energy in the vicinity. i.e. You can't always
 just be a rock, because there might be a creature with a hammer wanting 
 to break you down into cement.
 Or you can't live for ever, as an organism, because something else wants 
 to re-pattern your matter and energy;
 that is, the matter and energy your pattern has competed successfully to 
 borrow for its form for a while.
 
 Clear as oozing primordial subterranean sulphur-vent mud?
 
 Ok but here's the interesting part of the story. Because there are 
 options for how to be i.e. how to hold together
 at our organic ecosystem thermodynamic regime, there is 
 pattern-competition for who is the most auto-poietic
 (i.e. what forms of matter and energy collection can hold together best, 
 at the expense of others).
 
 And it turns out that life-like ecosystem patterns, species patterns, 
 and organism patterns win out for a time,
 precisely because their main function is autopoiesis, and they 
 eventually, through natural selection, get very
 good at it.
 
 And it may turn out that the way you survive best as a pattern in 
 spacetime, assuming you have a certain
 thermodynamic range to work with, is to store inside yourself 
 INFORMATION about that which is
 outside yourself and nearby. i.e. about your environment. In otherwords, 
 pattern, if you want to live, get
 out there and start RE-PRESENTING aspects of your environment WITHIN 
 YOURSELF (in some
 partly abstract form within some aspect of your own form.)
 Eventually, if you do that, simple representation
 of your environment. Ouch that hurt. I'm going to flail the other way 
 outa here. or
 hmmm, my complex molecules like the smell and molecular fit of YOUR 
 complex molecules
  will give way to complex representation within the organism of its 
 environment, and complex action plans
 to be carried out to protect the organism (and its kin's) pattern from 
 nastier aspects of the environment.
 So we get Hmmm. I think that guy and his army is out to get me and 
 mine. I think I will pre-emptively
 strike on that other guy's country because he vaguely looks like the 
 first guy. Ok, bad example.
 or you get Hmmm. What an intelligent (accurate 
 environment-representer), capable (effective environment
 modifier and pacifier), and beautiful (pattern-form-average-conformant) 
 woman she is. I'll ask her to marry me.
 
 Or something like that.
 
 And that's the major difference between humans and rocks. Our 
 thermodynamic regime necessitates that
 we navigate options for our existence/non-existence as stable patterns 
 by representing informationally, then
 navigating and affecting, our surrounding  space, time, matter, and 
 energy forms.
 
 Eric
 
 
 Hal Ruhl wrote:
 
  Hi Stephen:
 
  

Re: Quantum mechanics without quantum logic

2004-04-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 11:42 15/04/04 +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:



http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404045

Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
Authors: D.A. Slavnov
Comments: 24 pages, no figures, Latex
We describe a scheme of quantum mechanics in which the Hilbert space and
linear operators are only secondary structures of the theory. As primary
structures we consider observables, elements of noncommutative algebra,
and the physical states, the nonlinear functionals on this algebra, which
associate with results of single measurement. We show that in such scheme
the mathematical apparatus of the standard quantum mechanics does not
contradict a hypothesis on existence of an objective local reality, a
principle of a causality and Kolmogorovian probability theory.




To talk frankly it seems to me that Slavnov is a little bit unfair
about Quantum Logic (QL), confusing it with some Hilbert Space idolatry.
It looks still more unfair when you remember that, in the process of
writing the QL founding 1936 paper (ref in my thesis), von Neumann
wrote to Birkhoff  and said:
I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not
believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more. (quoted at length in the
formidable book by Miklos Redei : Quantum Logic in Algebraic
Approach , Kluwer, 1998).
And so we can say that QL has been literally born from a first skeptical
move with respect to the Hilbert space worship. And as far as I
understand Slavnov his move seems similar to von Neumann's one.
Which I think is not a bad move at all. The reason why von Neumann
has abandonned the obvious orthomodular lattice of the closed linear
subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space was that he
wanted to keep *modularity* which is closer to the distributivity (of
the 'and' and the 'or') axioms of a Boolean Algebra, ... so close that
it makes it possible to define the unique
probabilities from the probability one logic, that is from Quantum
Logic (there would be some universal density operator).
I do believe this has no bearing at all with any magical trick capable
of making vanishing the other relative worlds, histories, minds,
maximal consistent extensions, possibilities ... That seems to me
the most preposterous part of Slavnov paper.
In 1939 von Neumann still  invokes a magical
role of consciousness in his singling out a collapsed reality.
That Quantum logic *can* be a formidable tools is exemplified in
my thesis where I show that if we are turing-emulable then
physics (as a science of correct prediction) is necessarily
redefined as a measure on all the computational histories
going through our relatively actual states.
The all is managed by explicit appeal to Church thesis.
And then, translating this in the language of a sound
universal (lobian) machine I extract the logic of the
probability one (from and on all the maximal consistent
extensions) and got an (arithmetical) quantum logic (AQL*)
Is it modular, orthomodular?  Open problems!
Of course modularity would help for the sequel (the derivation
of physics from arithmetics/machine 'psychology'). You can
look at the last pages of the following document for the
precise definition of the arithmetical quantum logic which I
call AQL* now but is named QuelQL* in the following document:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume1CC/4Recapitulation.pdf
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne


Hal Finney wrote:

How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're

living in one of them?  Or does that require an elderly mathematician,
a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in
order for us to be here?
It seems to me that mathematics exists without the mathematician.
And since computer science is a branch of mathematics, programs and
program runs exist as well without computers.
 

Ok, but real computers are math with motion. You have to have the 
program counter touring
around through the memory in order to make a narrative sense of anything 
happening.

Mathematics, being composed of  our symbols, is an abstract 
re-presentation. I think what Tegmark
must be saying is that something exists which is amenable to 
description by all self-consistent
mathematical theories (logical sentence sets) , and by no inconsistent 
theories. To me, this is just
equivalent to saying that all possible configurations of differences 
exist and that any SAS that
represents its environment accurately (e.g. via abstract mathematics) is 
constrained, by its own
being part of the information structure, to only perceive 
self-consistent configurations of differences
as existing. Self-consistency of mathematical theory, as it translates 
from the representation level
to the represented level, just means that things perceived can only be 
one way at a time, and that's
the kind of thing that a consistent mathematical theory describes.



Re:The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Eric:

At 03:03 AM 4/17/2004, you wrote:
How does a human differ in kind from a rock?

-Well both are well modelled as being slow processes (i.e. localized 
states and events) in spacetime.
- A process is a particular kind of pattern of organization of some 
subregion of spacetime.
- We share being made of similar kinds of matter particles that stay close 
to each other in spacetime for
some finite time period, and some finite spatial extent.
I am trying to stay at the level of the cells.  Particles and spacetime 
would be emergent interpretations  of the activity at the cell 
level.  Activity as stated in earlier posts is a consequent of the effort 
to construct the system only from cf-counterfactuals.


Oh, but you said how do we differ?

Well, a human roganism is a sub-unit of a longer-lived species pattern 
within an organic emergent system eco-system
pattern.
A rock does not appear to have that much complexity of form and 
autopoietic function.
Size, duration, and complexity are not a difference of kind in my 
description, but rather one of degree.

Neither autopoietic nor sympoietic seems to fit well as an adjective here 
as near as I can tell.  As to reproduction dances that are rocks shed small 
dances [sand and clay] that under the right progression become rocks again 
- dances that are humans do the same.


A rock is one of those kind of local spacetime patterns or systems that 
doesn't have much choice about how it is.
The unit of a dance is that a cell polls its nearest neighbors and the 
result determines its next state.   While some patterns and rules may 
result in larger scale emergent coordinations I do not see that choice 
can emerge.

The laws of physics, and the nature of the rock's components and the 
thermodynamics of its vicinity are such that it
pretty much collects into how it's going to be at some time, then is 
physically constrained to stay just that way,
at macro scales anyhow, for a long period of time. Of course, being a big 
physical process pattern subject to
the laws of thermodynamics, it is, actually, changing, and usually 
dissipating (disorganizing), just very, very slowly.
Physics is just emergent from the unit of the dance.

snip

Dances can shed and absorb smaller dances.  This process changes 
dances.  It can cause dances to shift towards or away from another dance 
that is shedding dances.  It can sustain or terminate dances.

I see nothing in the rest of your post that makes my believe there is a 
difference of kind between rocks and humans.

Yours

Hal




Re: The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne


Hal Ruhl wrote:

I see nothing in the rest of your post that makes my believe there is 
a difference of kind between rocks and humans.


I believe it is a mistake to concentrate only on the reductionist theory 
of the very small, and to assume that there
is nothing else interesting about systems that are larger. Theories of 
spacetime and matter's unit composition
are not the be all and end all. To explain emergent system behaviour, 
you have to have a theory whose language
is a vocabulary of various kinds of complex properties. This is because 
emergent systems, as one of their
interesting properties, do not depend on all of the properties of their 
substrate. They only depend on those properties
of the substrate which are essential to the interaction constraints that 
determine the macro behaviour of the system.
Thus, in theory, you can change the system's substrate and still have 
the same complex system, at its relevant
level of description.

However, that being  said, I think, Hal, that we're on a similar 
wavelength re. fundamental info physics.
Ref. my previous everything-list posts on the subject:

Riffing on Wolfram http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4123.html
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4174.html
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4183.html
Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4412.html
Re: Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4414.html
Re: Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4427.html
Re: Running all the programs 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4525.html
Re: 2C Mary - How minds perceive things and not things 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4534.html
Re: are we in a simulation? http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4566.html
Re: Fw: Something for Platonists 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4594.html
Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4896.html
Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4900.html
Re: Is the universe computable? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4950.html

Warning, my vocab in these posts is a little informal.Go for the
fundemental concepts if you can get them out of the writing.
Cheers, Eric



Re: Quantum mechanics without quantum logic

2004-04-17 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Friends,

I found the seventh paragraph on page 9 to be telling:

The conditions of the Kochen-Specker theorem are not carried out in the
approach described in present paper. ...

This might be the locus upon which the fallacy of the paper turns.

Stephen

- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics without quantum logic


 At 11:42 15/04/04 +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:



 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404045
 
 
 Quantum mechanics without quantum logic
 Authors: D.A. Slavnov
 Comments: 24 pages, no figures, Latex
 
 We describe a scheme of quantum mechanics in which the Hilbert space and
 linear operators are only secondary structures of the theory. As primary
 structures we consider observables, elements of noncommutative algebra,
 and the physical states, the nonlinear functionals on this algebra, which
 associate with results of single measurement. We show that in such scheme
 the mathematical apparatus of the standard quantum mechanics does not
 contradict a hypothesis on existence of an objective local reality, a
 principle of a causality and Kolmogorovian probability theory.




 To talk frankly it seems to me that Slavnov is a little bit unfair
 about Quantum Logic (QL), confusing it with some Hilbert Space idolatry.
 It looks still more unfair when you remember that, in the process of
 writing the QL founding 1936 paper (ref in my thesis), von Neumann
 wrote to Birkhoff  and said:

 I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not
 believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more. (quoted at length in the
 formidable book by Miklos Redei : Quantum Logic in Algebraic
 Approach , Kluwer, 1998).

 And so we can say that QL has been literally born from a first skeptical
 move with respect to the Hilbert space worship. And as far as I
 understand Slavnov his move seems similar to von Neumann's one.
 Which I think is not a bad move at all. The reason why von Neumann
 has abandonned the obvious orthomodular lattice of the closed linear
 subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space was that he
 wanted to keep *modularity* which is closer to the distributivity (of
 the 'and' and the 'or') axioms of a Boolean Algebra, ... so close that
 it makes it possible to define the unique
 probabilities from the probability one logic, that is from Quantum
 Logic (there would be some universal density operator).

 I do believe this has no bearing at all with any magical trick capable
 of making vanishing the other relative worlds, histories, minds,
 maximal consistent extensions, possibilities ... That seems to me
 the most preposterous part of Slavnov paper.
 In 1939 von Neumann still  invokes a magical
 role of consciousness in his singling out a collapsed reality.

 That Quantum logic *can* be a formidable tools is exemplified in
 my thesis where I show that if we are turing-emulable then
 physics (as a science of correct prediction) is necessarily
 redefined as a measure on all the computational histories
 going through our relatively actual states.
 The all is managed by explicit appeal to Church thesis.
 And then, translating this in the language of a sound
 universal (lobian) machine I extract the logic of the
 probability one (from and on all the maximal consistent
 extensions) and got an (arithmetical) quantum logic (AQL*)
 Is it modular, orthomodular?  Open problems!

 Of course modularity would help for the sequel (the derivation
 of physics from arithmetics/machine 'psychology'). You can
 look at the last pages of the following document for the
 precise definition of the arithmetical quantum logic which I
 call AQL* now but is named QuelQL* in the following document:
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume1CC/4Recapitulation.pdf

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--
 Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
 Printer at MyInks.com.  Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US  Canada.
 http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/pyIolB/TM
 -~-


 Yahoo! Groups Links

 * To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

 * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/