Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 06-nov.-06, à 03:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Bruno Marchal wrote:
 It is not a question of existence but of definability.
 For example you can define and prove (by Cantor diagonalization) the
 existence of uncountable sets in ZF which is a first order theory of
 sets.
 Now uncountability is not an absolute notion (that is the
 Lowenheim-Skolem lesson).
 Careful: uncomputability is absolute.

 Bruno



 Well, 'existence' would certainly be a stronger notion of platonism
 than mere 'definability'.

 So Bruno, what would your answer be to the question of whether the
 universe is a computer or not?  I think it all depends on how you
 define 'universe' and 'computer' ;)

 Personally, my answer is no, I don't think the universe is a computer.
 I define 'universe' to mean 'everything which exists' and computer to
 mean 'anything which is Turing computable'.  Since I think
 uncomputables do exist, they are part of the universe and they are not
 Turing computable so the universe as a whole can't be a computer.


I agree with you.  Even the seemingly tiny universe of numbers is 
full of non computable stuff.
Recall that Church thesis can be used to prove the existence of non 
computable objects in very few lines (as I have done more or less 
recently in posts to John and Tom).





  But one doesn't need to believe in uncomputables to doubt that the
 universe as a whole is a computer.  There is also the problem of
 infinite quantities to contend with.  Something which is computable is
 most likely finite (by holographic string principles), but if there
 exist things with infinite extent or quntification (like space for
 instance) it's hard to see how the universe as a whole could be defined
 as a computer.


Hmmm... The very notion of general computability needs the infinite 
(the finite realm is *trivially* (obviously) computable). So infinite 
per se is not directly responsible  of the non computability. It is the 
diagonalization closure of the computable realm (I can come back on 
this).

Bruno

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


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---




Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread James N Rose

With apologies that I have not been following the 
discussion under this subject header, but a question
occurred to me that goes beyond the conventional notion
of computation as regards 'computer/computing' operations.


Are any models of 'theoretical' computers (or more
properly: 'computation relation systems') assigned
Cybernetic functions?  And with such assignment,
an evaluation of the secondary, tertiary, ad inducti,
tiers and content of s/t/ai information?

Jamie Rose


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread John M

Thanks, Bruno,
now I have an URL for the archive, pretty comprehensive,
the puzzle still prevails (not as one YOU should be concerned about):

1. why did not show up the post in the mailing as sent?

2. how come the archive got it as [EMAIL PROTECTED] i.e. the old address, when 
the list turned into [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...?

3.and how did the list-address of my post  change from - what I wrote in 
sending it as:
To:everything-list@googlegroups.com
into
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - the 'unfound',  undeliverable one?

Teleportation, of a return from a HP universe?

John

- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7



Le 05-nov.-06, à 00:47, John M a écrit :


 Bruno,
 although I did not see in my list-post my comment to Marc's report about 
 the
 German conference (sent before your and Saibal's posts) I may continue it
 (maybe copying the missing text below);


Your message is in the archive though. See for example:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html




 Saibal's :
 uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first order
 logic,...
 is interesting: it may mean that the wholeness-view (like Robert Rosen's
 'complexity' and my wholistiv views as well) do not compute with 1st 
 order
 logic - what may not be fatal IMO.
 I use model a bit opposite to Skolem's text (sorry, I could not read 
 your
 URL, my new comnputer does not (yet) have ppt installed)


? (Why would you need ppt?)



  - but as I
 decyphered Skolem's long text, it is a math-construct based on 'a theory'.
 A different model.
 My 'model' (and R. Rosen's) is an extract of the totality, a limited  cut
 from the interconnectedness by topical, functional ideational etc.
 boundaries and THEORIES are based on that (usefully, if not extended 
 beyond
 the margins of the model - limitedly observed to formulate them.)
 If this is beyond 1st order logic that is not the fault of such
 model-view - with uncomputable (impredicative) numbers and unlimited
 variables - rather shows a limitation of the domain called 1st order 
 logic.
 (I put numbers in quotation, I used the word to apply it according to the
 here ongoing talks.)
 Rosen (a mathematician) also called it Turing un-emulable.
 Your explanation about the ZF uncountability and the uncomputability is
 intgeresting, I could not yet digest its meaning as how it may be 
 pertinent
 to my thinking.



To say more on this would need to explain more logic (with logic = a
special branch of math).

My point was just that it follows from Church Thesis that the classical
notion of computability is absolute. Like Godel said this is a
mathematical miracle, and my whole work entirely depends on that
miracle (both the informal but rigorous UDA, and the formal AUDA).
This is what is lacking in Tegmark for exemple, which take the
mathematical reality for granted (I take only the arithmetical reality
for granted).
But even in the arithmetical frame, the fate of the universal machine
will consist in discovering an absolutely non completely computable
reality, and an infinity  (transfinity) of relatively non countable
structures.

The mathematical advantage of comp is that it does not depends of the
notion of order. I interview the PA machine in first order language
because PA speaks fluently in that language, but I could interview
machine talking higher order language as well (even infinitary language
like when I interview angels (non turing emulable entity).

I leave the original message below in case you have lost it.


Bruno



 John M wrote


 - Original Message -
 From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:08 AM
 Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




 In conscience et mécanisme I use Lowenheim Skolem theorem to explain
 why the first person of PA  see uncountable things despite the fact
 that from the 0 person pov and the 3 person pov there is only countably
 many things (for PA).
 I explain it through a comics. See the drawings the page deux-272,
 273, 275 in the volume deux (section: Des lois mécanistes de
 l'esprit). It explains how a machine can eventually infer the existence
 of other machine/individual). Here:
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume2CC/2%20%203.pdf

 Note also that the word model (in
 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm ) refers to
 a technical notion which is the opposite of a theory. A model is a
 mathematical reality or structure capable of satisfying (making true)
 the theorem of a theory. Like a concrete group (like the real R with
 multiplication) satisfy the formal axioms of some abstract group
 theory. (Physicists uses model and theory interchangeably, and this
 makes sometimes 

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

Hi,

Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is
roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am
doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is
done I can use Godel's incopmpleteness theorem to show vitual theorems in
EC (=virtual matter).

Computationally it will be a functional language like Haskell, not an
object/state based language, that correcttly depicts how EC works in a
cellular automata. But that cellular automata will be having no
experiences and I think I can prove it.

Remember what I want to do is apply EC to a set of integrative levels in
brain material and show its prediction of virtual bosons as the virtual
matter of experience.

bear with me

regards,

Colin Hales



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread John M

Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
Marc:

I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the  IS 
?
*
I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question.
Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
(Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am  and so on)

John

- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




Le 06-nov.-06, à 03:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Bruno Marchal wrote:
 It is not a question of existence but of definability.
 For example you can define and prove (by Cantor diagonalization) the
 existence of uncountable sets in ZF which is a first order theory of
 sets.
 Now uncountability is not an absolute notion (that is the
 Lowenheim-Skolem lesson).
 Careful: uncomputability is absolute.

 Bruno



 Well, 'existence' would certainly be a stronger notion of platonism
 than mere 'definability'.

 So Bruno, what would your answer be to the question of whether the
 universe is a computer or not?  I think it all depends on how you
 define 'universe' and 'computer' ;)

 Personally, my answer is no, I don't think the universe is a computer.
 I define 'universe' to mean 'everything which exists' and computer to
 mean 'anything which is Turing computable'.  Since I think
 uncomputables do exist, they are part of the universe and they are not
 Turing computable so the universe as a whole can't be a computer.


I agree with you.  Even the seemingly tiny universe of numbers is
full of non computable stuff.
Recall that Church thesis can be used to prove the existence of non
computable objects in very few lines (as I have done more or less
recently in posts to John and Tom).





  But one doesn't need to believe in uncomputables to doubt that the
 universe as a whole is a computer.  There is also the problem of
 infinite quantities to contend with.  Something which is computable is
 most likely finite (by holographic string principles), but if there
 exist things with infinite extent or quntification (like space for
 instance) it's hard to see how the universe as a whole could be defined
 as a computer.


Hmmm... The very notion of general computability needs the infinite
(the finite realm is *trivially* (obviously) computable). So infinite
per se is not directly responsible  of the non computability. It is the
diagonalization closure of the computable realm (I can come back on
this).

Bruno

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





-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---




Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

TEST: resend...some sort of bounce thing happened with the mailer

Hi,

Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is
roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am
doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is
done I can use Godel's incopmpleteness theorem to show vitual theorems in
EC (=virtual matter).

Computationally it will be a functional language like Haskell, not an
object/state based language, that correcttly depicts how EC works in a
cellular automata. But that cellular automata will be having no
experiences and I think I can prove it.

Remember what I want to do is apply EC to a set of integrative levels in
brain material and show its prediction of virtual bosons as the virtual
matter of experience.

bear with me

regards,

Colin Hales





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales


 Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
 Marc:

 I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the 
 IS
 ?
 *
 I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question.
 Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
 (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am  and so on)

 John


There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I can
think of:

Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy), if
you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are 'being',
you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
innate to the situation.

SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.

This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit to
the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the 'reality'
of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.

make sense?

Colin


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---