Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics

2008-04-08 Thread James N Rose

Brian,

Your inquiries about FL is an uncharted but important one.

I'd like to suggest though that your approach is too 
conventional and 'consistency' is not the ultimate
criteria for evaulating it's connection with validity 
or more importantly - feasability - in context with
'logic' - and mathematical value judgements.

I've taken a wholly different/radical approach which
has been productive.  Existential Probability is a
strong and broader base to use and in general is 
an umbrella-space for all logic systems.  I call the
most generalized form Stochastic Logic.  It has the
interesting attribute of placing FL and QM on a par, 
in the scheme of things, with direct connection with
Boole, and Aristotelian logic before-that.

In historical framing, it can be seen that the earliest
logics were limited-specific-condition logics and that
each new step was toward 'improved generalization'.

The leap that FL makes is removing the boundaries of 
the probability space and pushing toward a 'logic'
system that copes with Cantorian infinities and
transfinites.  It pushes towards plural-criteria
logic (what you've indicated as akin to Multi-modal).

It is a critically important step that out-paces
all the conventional analysis.  Think of it as the 
tool to developing utile computation/description 
methods for 'logic' evaluation of the (so far) 
intractible many bodied problem.  Complexity math
is one way of coping with -some- factors of many-bodied 
systems, but even that math hasn't been fully scrutinized 
or (logically) evaluated for kladistic characteristics
yet.  I've looked some of the equation forms and found
some interesting things going on in 'recursion' equations
that relate to breaking away from 'zero to one' boundary 
restriction.

I discuss a bit of it in general vernacular at 

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiu05charting.htm

Feel free to contact me directly at integrity @ prodigy.net
(remove the spaces) if you'd like to discuss in more detail.

I made an effort several years ago to get Lotfi Zadeh speaking
with Herb Simon (just before he died) in the hopes that traditional 
and leading edge probability theories could find commonality.

They did talk some but nothing definitive or fruitful came
from it - mainly because each had too much vested interest 
in separate academic venues.  And because second and third
generation 'probabilists' were so dedicated to their particular
stances on 'how the math should be done', instead of opening
themselves to combining the methodologies into a grander
schemata - it's going to take someone or someones with -your-
sensibility and intuitions to make it happen.   :-)

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Discussion of Logic re Physics

2008-03-23 Thread James N Rose

Brian,

Your inquiries about FL is an uncharted but important one.

I'd like to suggest though that your approach is too 
conventional and 'consistency' is not the ultimate
criteria for evaulating it's connection with validity 
or more importantly - feasability - in context with
'logic' - and mathematical value judgements.

I've taken a wholly different/radical approach which
has been productive.  Existential Probability is a
strong and broader base to use and in general is 
an umbrella-space for all logic systems.  I call the
most generalized form Stochastic Logic.  It has the
interesting attribute of placing FL and QM on a par, 
in the scheme of things, with direct connection with
Boole, and Aristotelian logic before-that.

In historical framing, it can be seen that the earliest
logics were limited-specific-condition logics and that
each new step was toward 'improved generalization'.

The leap that FL makes is removing the boundaries of 
the probability space and pushing toward a 'logic'
system that copes with Cantorian infinities and
transfinites.  It pushes towards plural-criteria
logic (what you've indicated as akin to Multi-modal).

It is a critically important step that out-paces
all the conventional analysis.  Think of it as the 
tool to developing utile computation/description 
methods for 'logic' evaluation of the (so far) 
intractible many bodied problem.  Complexity math
is one way of coping with -some- factors of many-bodied 
systems, but even that math hasn't been fully scrutinized 
or (logically) evaluated for kladistic characteristics
yet.  I've looked some of the equation forms and found
some interesting things going on in 'recursion' equations
that relate to breaking away from 'zero to one' boundary 
restriction.

I discuss a bit of it in general vernacular at 

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiu05charting.htm

Feel free to contact me directly at integrity @ prodigy.net
(remove the spaces) if you'd like to discuss in more detail.

I made an effort several years ago to get Lotfi Zadeh speaking
with Herb Simon (just before he died) in the hopes that traditional 
and leading edge probability theories could find commonality.

They did talk some but nothing definitive or fruitful came
from it - mainly because each had too much vested interest 
in separate academic venues.  And because second and third
generation 'probabilists' were so dedicated to their particular
stances on 'how the math should be done', instead of opening
themselves to combining the methodologies into a grander
schemata - it's going to take someone or someones with -your-
sensibility and intuitions to make it happen.   :-)

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Discussion of Logic re Physics

2008-03-23 Thread James N Rose



Brian Tenneson wrote:
 
 Thanks for your reply.  I have a lot to say, so let me try to rate my
 breath, as it were.
 
 1. It is nice to hear a human say this is uncharted territory.  
 .
 .
 I think my main improvement, while not really coming close to really
 answering my question, was changing the goal from prove Russell's
 Theorem is not always true to asking the question Is Russell's
 Theorem true in all logics?  A bonus seems that now there is a
 theoretical physics, by way of the MUH, motivation for answering this
 question.
 

This is an important task.  As I mentioned, the direction of
concepts-progress is:  'towards maximum generalization' -- even 
absolute generalization, if you will.   An encompassing single
notion, or limited group of notions, that imply 'all else'.
Simplest principle(s).  Matching the sensibility connected
with a 'theory of everything'.  Simplest qualia.  

 3. On that note, Physics/Philosophy actually what inspired me to go in
 this direction.  I was mainly, back then when this idea of trying to
 find a consistent universal set theory occurred to me, trying to
 answer a intended-to-be serious argument against the existence of the
 universe.
 
 I was stunned at the notion that someone was trying to prove the
 universe does not exist.  I think they were asserting some form of
 solipsism.
 
 In a nutshell, here was their argument.  My opinion is that it is not
 at all formal but very clever and probably persuasive but, ultimately,
 like the many clever proofs that 1=2 and such.  It's just going to
 be convincing to those who aren't vigorously attacking the argument,
 which I soon did.
 
 begin their argument for the non-existence for the universe
 Definition: To contain means insert something most people would
 accept here.  The notation and word for 'is contained in' is
 isin.
 
 Thing and exists are undefined or ... acceptably defined only be
 common intuitive sense of what a thing is, but neither formally (in
 her argument)
 
 Definition: the universe (call it U) is a thing that has the property
 that it contains all things, notated by (x) (x isin U), where x is a
 thing.


This in itself is a problematic conjecture (presumption).  So fundamental
in fact that no past or current analysis has enunciated the criteria-error.
(The reason for this is illuminated by Benj Whorf's linguistics analysis
circa 1936 ... which paraphrasedly states that, absent experiential recognition,
systemic information self-insulates on itself.)   In this case, the presumption
is that perfect quantification is possible; and in -that- basis, that 
probability 
valuations are designatable (fixed), for all situations and scenarios possible.

That is -not- the 'generalized case'. Those presumptions, which classical non-FL
math is built on, is closely-defined and therefore godelianly incomplete.

Specificly - there are at least two non-considered factors in conventional
computation: all possible simpletemporal-conditions, and, gross-set and
sub-setS of relations that 'exist' when the entire spectrum of simpletemporal
conditions are included.

This situation stems from the mathematical principle: Simplfy.  Yes, it
helps remove extranous information-noise and makes some certain relationship
clear and identifiable.  But it also -removes- from thoughtful consideration
the information resident in and analytically important about - the total
mathematical environment.

Let me give you a pragmatic example with at least two ramification
implications that conventional analysis/presumptions -totally miss-.

Consider the gaussian-mean curve.  It has been classically analyzed 
to death; all things about it considered: complete/known.

That is a major deficiency/error.

Consider the equation form that produces the standard-deviation
curve.  It is known; isolated, independent.

Now consider any 'real events' that produce and mimic/map the curve.
I like to use two, each which highlight two missing-consideration
factors.   First, is random test results from some 'standardized'
exam.  If you set up a criteria for accurate/innacurate answers,
the resulting spectrum is typically the standard deviation curve.
The time sequence of the answers registered is open, just the net 
patterned result.  In otherwords, the distribution curve misses
two essential input-factors: the reason the testing event happened,
and, the time frame of measurement.  The testing event is 'factored
out' -causal impetus/energy- brought to zero/one, the time frame of 
testing is 'factored out' (brought to zero/one).


Second is a pachinco apparatus, with balls falling though a
matrix of pegs.  Run enough sample events and you reproduce
gaussian mean-distributiuon curve.  But there are at least 
two missed factors/presumptions.  One is the presumption of 
component ordered-relations.  And relatedly, the presumption
of a stable universal impetus-field being present; it is
assumed, taken for granted, and ... 'factored out'.  The 
gravity/gradient field the 

Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics

2008-03-06 Thread James N Rose



Brian,

Thank you for starting this thread on Logic and
Contemporary science/math/physics.

I am amazed that there isn't more written on it,
since in my own approach - which comes at a TOE
by General Systems Theory analysis - I saw early  
on that a profound relation exists from Platonic
times to now - and includes QM, Boolean thought
and even Fuzzy Logic and complexity mathematic.

The current problem is that no one has put them
all into a kladistic house - comparing relations and 
definitions.

Before I jump into a random exposition of my thinking,
what are your impressions about logic, math, materiality,
et al.?

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Overcoming Incompleteness

2007-05-25 Thread James N Rose

Bruno, et al.,

There is a CRITICAL FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in 
Godel's papers and concept.

If a simpler 'less complete' system - which 
-includes- its statements, attempts to make 
-presumptive statements- about a 'more complete'
corresponding system ... and its relationship to
the simpler 'base of statements' system, then a
conclusion is: a system CANNOT accurately 'self 
assess' but can accurately 'other assess' information
which may not in fact be present for assessment.

Generalized conclusion:

It is not possible to assess known information
whereas it is possible to assess unknown information.


James Rose

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-04-03 Thread James N Rose

Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but
I am of a like-mind to him.

What I have discerned, is an important insight
that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you
point out, make things mightily more complicated.

There is level of complication that has been with
us all the time, but which we have smoothly or 
inadvertantly 'chosen' to ignore; because it is too 
intimate within standard functions and operations to 
be immediately noticed.

EVERY integration, or differentiation; or multiplication
or division of a non-scalar factor  ... changes the 
dimensionality of a relational equation.  This, by
default, changes the rank of the corresponding Cantorian 
matrices.

No statistical evaluation stands alone as if borne full
grown.  It exits -within- a mathematical landscape of 
adjacent and extended functionFORMS that are the rest of
the pre-integrations, pre-differentiations, pre-multiplicands,
pre-dividands ... that surround it in 'mathematical space'.

And it, in and of itself, represents a part of the 'mathematical
environment' for any and all of those .. 'others'. 

The beautiful simplicity is that -every- change of dimensional
specification, CONVERTS mathematical statements, IN COMPARISON
TO THOSE MATH-ENVIRONMENT COMPANIONS.

If, for example, a base function was qualia deterministic, 
the conversion reveals the function product to be qualia 
statistical.

And even more 'confusing', as it were, is the concept that
we can take a base datum group, assign it an 'identity',
change the dimensionality as described above, and end up,
not with an 'alternative function/identity', but with the
Base Datum Identity -- SEEN as if looking at it through
alternate lenses and windows.  IT 'stays' the same; we
'appreciate' -- different relational aspects that are
there all the time but unrecognized because the
mathematic-statements are out lenses of focus.

Choose a different mathematical lens (like choosing
a different wavelength of energy) and you 'see'
something different.

Intrinsic to all observables -and- mathematic-forms,
are BOTH deterministic -and- statistical relations.

They CONVERT.  They CONSERVE.  Even through the change 
of qualia.  They REVEAL ... different relations when 
seem through options math-viewers.

Quite fascinating.

:-)

Jamie
April 3, 2007 


 Jamie,
 wise words, but no cigar here. For a RE-Evaluation I have 
 insufficient knowledge even in the E - to compare it into a RE-.
 Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being 
 just a 'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical 
 fraction of the totality within boundaries of our capabilities to 
 observe) because so far nobody (incl our computers) had the mental 
 power to exercise statistics upon the infinite totality - which 
 would be trivial anyway.   Stathis is wise to concentrate on THIS 
 (our?) universe in his Stathistical considerations, as he mentioned. 
 If we include the multiverse (any definition) into statistics it would
 produce inadvertently infinites compared to infinites and it would 
 require a Georg Cantor to find out how to compare all those infinites. 
 The sophisticated 'statistical' and 'probabilistic' math is fine, it 
 is a good mental game, but all is originated in limited patterns for 
 the comparison. 
 
 
 Change the boundaries of your model (selection) and both the 
 statistical figures and the (arbitrary? so called:) probabilities 
 will change.(Useful though they are in building our technology). 
 You need a vacation from the mathematical brainwashing to agree.
 I feel, you have it. 
 
 John

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-04-02 Thread James N Rose

John M, et al,


It is a fact of existential experiencing that 
minds are typically so innured to their millieu
and environmental encounters that 'alternative 
interpretations' are overlooked and missed to
appreciation and understanding.

---  When it became apparent to me that
QM -and- Relativity are undeniable behemoths
of existential relation, a la mode Holmes,
the unavoidable conclusion arose that the
mis-analysis which keeps them 'separate' rests
not in their respective qualia and aspects, but 
in our comprehension of mathematics.

If the respective mathematics of statistics and determinism
are distinct and 'irreconsilable', then we need to do 
a re-evaluation of the 'mathematics in general' for amenability, 
rather than making an effort to force-fit equations that
resist algorythmic transformation into one another.

Jamie R

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.

2007-01-20 Thread James N Rose

Conjecture:

Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.

Notion:  If the Speed of Light is not just a 
fixed constant but a fixed maxima, then, if Newton's 
3 Laws of Inertia are to be maintained, especially
regarding 'equal  opposite' ...

the current depiction of blackholes being able to
constrain photons 100% infers that any random photon
moving directly outward from the center-locus of a
singularity can only be kept from forward linear motion 
by a force not just equal to, but necessarily greater 
than, its vector moment - presumed to be C.

If only just '-C', then Probability would require
blackholes be never 'black', but accumulatively
brilliant white - unless - 'C' is out-maximummed.

Or, the model has an error - and the dynamics of
light restriction/containment are of a wholly 
different nature than currently presumed.

Comments?

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.

2007-01-20 Thread James N Rose

Actually, John M, I believe in wave-packets (relevant to 
my off-list posts to you recently).  I'm not a fan of
'gravitons' .. unless they turn out to be 'knots of 
spacetime'.

But even if all you say is correct .. at some point in
a chain of logical causality relations .. either notions
stay consistent, or, an anomaly arises that requires
development of a new-'imagined'.

I wrote the conjecture to the list, because if those
several 'conditions' have been presumed valid locally 
and individually, but, when weighed in, all together,\
don't stay consistently valid for all the factors/relations,
then something's amiss, and I felt it worthwhile to
state a conjunction situation that seems to point to
such a dis-connect - an 'ooops' in the consistency fabric.

I was more hoping for a discussion about where/how 
the mathematics doesn't just 'balance' C the speed
of light (which seems the logical implication of 'C')
.. such that spacetime ohmage/resistivity -is- '-C', 
but never more than that.

The deductive conclusion might be, not that the event
horizon is 'black' but that we 'see' black, because the
event horizon is an enormous ever-increasing density
of photons held motionless.  They are there, in 
immobile stasis, never reaching external observers.

A hyper-attraction model, on the other hand, 
would have all 'photons' still actively moving
a) either at standard C, internal to the even
horizon, or b) at C+, having first been overpowered
by a more negative than -C inertial moments, and then,
moving at C ... in an inertial field more super-
conductive, than standard C-limited spacetime.

Jamie






John M wrote:
 
 Jamie,
 since BHs are figments of Hawkins' et al. imagination
 for 'something there  must be', we can 'imagine' that
 something so as to bounce back those photons (you
 believe in) INSIDE once they got in and this is the
 reason why the darn blob is  black.
 Imagination should not be constrained to imagined
 reality. MAke it so that it fits.
 (Hungarian proverb: Once it's goose, it should be
 fat).
 John
 --- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-07 Thread James N Rose


Bruno,

Please be patient for my reply to your question.
I'll compose an answer soon on inertia and change
of inertia and how I reached the notion of
assigning that as the essential-primitive of
Consciousness.

James


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-07 Thread James N Rose


John,

My email pgm sometimes (as now) balks at quote/copying 
material from emails I'm replying to.  So I'll do as best

to reply without having your exact words to refer to.

re Bruno's inquiring about how I link changes of inertia
to Csness, I'll do that in a few days.

re Gendankens - I won't waste time debating you. The only 
thing that's important about gedankens is that they

isolate and highlight certain relationships which seem
important to the line of inquiry. If real-event scenarios
 analogs can be used - all the better. But if invented,
that's not criminal or necessarily 'conceptually illegal'
:-) .. serves the inquiry and 'what if' exploration of 
relations, I WOULD SAY.


re 'falling branch/tree', yes it came to be 'experienced
sound' versus 'generated wave' - but originally, it was
a clear 'existential' question: can a thing 'exist' if
something else doesn't experience the effects OF that
first thing's existence.   Ie: if science hasn't acknowledged
something experimentally/experientially, then the 'something'
has no verity or validity.  No 'proof', no existence.

Unfortunately, there is a conflated/confused definition of
'proof'; it now embraces: 'explanation' and independent record.

re Csness=data storage.  Yes, you no longer count it sufficient for
Csness.  But a lot of folks do, especially AI researchers.  They 
presume that 'memory reconstitution' is equal to Csness reconstitution.

And that's not the case.

re femto coma-awakening-death.  it may be the gedanken you may find
frustrating, and then cast it aside as 'unknowable', and if
unknowable, then ..SOWHAT, but I put it to you that this is 
exactly the relational key to understanding Csness.


What is the limit of us, or any system for that matter, to wholistically
'experience itself'.   That was the opening concept notion I put forth
in Understanding the Integral Universe.  Imagine youself floating
totally alone in a lightless, energyless universe, with no external
anything - to gauge anything by. Not motion not anything. ... 
What purpose would consciousness serve?  .. It wouldn't. Consciousness

is only of utile value in situations where self encounters else.

I keep on that track of logic for a while, parsing away until
concluding that anykind of 'response' can be embraced as a
'primitive consciousness' - no matter that its not
complex or re-reportable/transmittable/sharable.  But it's
at that extreme, that I conclude that any holistic system,
even if minimalized in complexness of architecture, can
be projected to be holistically self-sensitive in an
information disseminational way.  That the formative 
entity: spacetime - it already presumed non-discontinuous.

That continuousness is the stage for disseminated information,
where changes of time, motion, fields, forces, waves --
least action -- constitute a 'sharing' of change-information.
The Batesonian minimal'bit'.  Reliant on the smallest 
spacetime 'change' .. which is identifiable as some or 
any change-of-inertia event.


[ok Bruno, I guess here is a good portion of what you were 
asking about].


My main goal was this:  find a reasonable comprehension for
primitives that could develop into complexities - have a 
core foundation of simple 'relations' that -become- 
human/animal sentience.  Bridge the realms of physics

and biology, without breaking the known/presumed relations
already identified.

Only I had to make one crucial change in definitions.

The universe is not dichotomized nonliving/living.  It is
dichotomized preliving/living.  The qualia we find in 
living systems ARE PRESENT in pre-animate systems, only

they are there in simple basic preparatives forms.

My favorite example being the valence shells of atoms.
These are relationally and effectively the lungs of 
an atom - able to fill (inhale) an electron, and 
unfill (exhale) an electron.  Do atoms actively 
flex these 'cavities' to capture/exude electrons?  No,
absolutely not. But life 'breathes', if and only if 
atoms chemically transfer electrons by moving them

into and out of valence shelled arrangements.  Life
'breathes' because atoms breathe.  Atoms aren't 
'alive', but we couldn't be either unless that
shared/similar function-relation was fundamentally 
there in the first place.


The same goes for Csness.  The universe is a 
fundamentally pansentient organization with many

levels of sentient compleness and self-awareness.
We humans, are part of the sentient capacity of the
universe to 'understand itself'.  We aren't a separate
mentality exploring an it -- 'out there';  we ARE
a piece of the 'it' exploring the other parts of
the It.  We are the universe attempting to not
just experience itself, but to understand itself - in 
a novel, different, available, way.


Jamie
7 Jan 2007


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-05 Thread James N Rose


John, 


You made excellent points, which I'm happy to
reply to ..

John M wrote:


--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
JR:
 ...
 Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades,
 re-wakes alone in
 a room, registers its situation and in an instant -
 dies.  Would that
 moment qualify for 'conscioueness'?

JM:
and how would WE know about 'that moment'? does the
coma-patient push a button to register? If there is a
conscious machine (human or humanoid?) he is not
alone. So the 'gedankenexperiment' (as all of this
kind do) fails. Jamie left out HIS version of  Ccness,
to better understand his points. (E. g.:


Actually, gedankenexperiments have been rather successfully
important - eg Maxwell's Demon.

And at the end of my post, I -did- define my version of
CCness: every/any event that embodies a 'change of inertia'
is definable as a primitive form of both moment of action
-and- event of self-environment interaction .. even and 
especially when it is environment-with-itself.


But, John, to get back on track with your dispute points...

remember the 19th century query .. 'if a tree falls in a
forest and no (human) is there to hear it, is there sound?'
  Same question, different venue. 


If -you- have a sentient moment and no one else is around
to acknowledge or affirm or recognize it, are you existentially
'conscious'?   According to your standard, no.  Your own
self-awareness of 'being' is not sufficient.  


But - I do note that you allow for pan-sentience (a concept
liberally considered for a few decades in the field
of consciousness studies). 



JR:

 I put it to the list that there are several factors
 that are implicit
 and explicit to the notion of consciousness .. which
 we humans mis-identify
 and mis-weight.  They involve more than the human
 arrogance that 'our'
 sentience is the gauge to measure any/all
 other-sentience against.

JM:
Earlier, when I felt an obligation to identify what
I am talking about when I say: Consciousness(?) I
generalized the concept to ANY sensitivity in ANY
aspect, (as acknowledgement (and?) response to (any)
information (meaning any difference that transpires) -
so Hans Morawetz's teddy bear can  indeed have
 'consciousness' . I called that a universal
(pan-)sensitivity to escape 'psycho' as in
'panpsychic'.
Jamie continues about his coma-experiment:

 The questions arise .. could a true 'sentience' have
 existed in that brief
 span of time?  I.e, what is the shortest time span
 of sentient (self)other
 awareness necessary, to qualify for consciousness?
JM:
after the excellent extension of the term from human
udeational restrictions Jamie falls back into physics
of measurable scales. I allow timeless fulgurations,
but cannot condone the restricted content of simply
'awareness' (except for the anestesiologists, who
indeed include into the term an observed response.


Why not? And why challenge my mention of a time parameter?
Duration is a conditional necessity if one is to get past
the question you pose later on .. is data 'storage'
alone, a sufficient requirement for 'consciousness?  Thats
and important question and it includes books in a library-
where the data is effectively 'inert' and not actively 
differentiating - sufficient to make-a-difference.


Consciousness, as I note of it, requires transfers/
transforms of data/energy - not simply 'storage'
of states. Duration events and intensity/field events.



I find the simulacron-pair of consciousness and life
'close', at least none of them is identified in a
widely acceptable content (callable: meaning).
(Hal Ruhl was the only lister who responded lately to
my question about 'what do we look at (think of) when
we say life, (I owe him a thankful response,) all
others in dozens of posts satisfied themselves with
the 'meaning' discussion without identifying what we
should relate those 'meanings' to.
JR:

 Whether human-or-not, 'situational awareness',
 becomes a parameter for consciousness, as well.
---(Amen, for one aspect of it)---


ok then.  and this is important,  because
here in simplest form , is CCness:

  (dynamic) 'situational awareness'.





 -time
 -memory/continuity
 -reactive/interactive capacity
  ... etc.

 not just in human terms, but allowed in a spectrum
 of extent,
 from just-greater-than-zero to some full-functional
 (for that
 system) capacity.


 When you take the raw parameters criteria, and
 shrink them
 down to their minimalist extents -- so that all the
 BASIC
 CONDITIONS of 'sentience' are met/present - whether
 for a
 femto-second or 2 days or a billion years; whether
 capable
 of acting-on-awareness or not, or, only capable of
 self-registry
 of received-information; and so on .. we reach a
 point in
 the existential scenario when 'computation' falls
 away as being
 'too complex' in the conditions-spectrum.

 What we reach in this paring-away scenario - are
 qualia of
 existence necessary to meet MINIMALISTS conditions
 for
 sentience-of-some-sort.  Which would not have

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-04 Thread James N Rose




Bruno Marchal wrote:


Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in more than one
posts) :

 Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a recording being
 conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need for the conscious
 machine to handle counterfactuals. If it were not for this assumption
 then there would not have been much point to the rest of the paper.
 Actually, Putnam and Chalmers also think that the idea of any physical
 system implementing any computation is absurd. I am not sure of
 Mallah's position (he seems to have disappeared from the list after I
 joined), but Hal Finney seemed to give some credence to the idea, and
 outside the list Hans Moravec and Greg Egan seem also to at least
 entertain the possibility that it is true. I would be interested if
 anyone is aware of any other references.

Hans Moravec has defended in this list indeed the idea that even a
teddy bear is conscious. You could perhaps search in the archive my
reply to him. I will try to sum up what I think about this, but other
things need to be clarified, perhaps.



I put it to the list that there are several factors that are implicit
and explicit to the notion of consciousness .. which we humans mis-identify
and mis-weight.  They involve more than the human arrogance that 'our'
sentience is the gauge to measure any/all other-sentience against.

Allow me the gedankenexperiment notion that a sentience exists fully
potentiated and knowledgeable in some pre-existential realm. That
it suddenly finds itself instantiated in this universe and starts
enacting 'consciousness'. In a blink of a moment it dematerializes - to
the horror/wonderment of the rest of us standing here watching the event.

Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades, re-wakes alone in
a room, registers its situation and in an instant - dies.  Would that
moment qualify for 'conscioueness'?   


The questions arise .. could a true 'sentience' have existed in that brief
span of time?  I.e, what is the shortest time span of sentient (self)other
awareness necessary, to qualify for consciousness?

Whether human-or-not, 'situational awareness', becomes a parameter
for consciousness, as well.

-time
-memory/continuity
-reactive/interactive capacity
... etc.

not just in human terms, but allowed in a spectrum of extent,
from just-greater-than-zero to some full-functional (for that
system) capacity.


When you take the raw parameters criteria, and shrink them
down to their minimalist extents -- so that all the BASIC
CONDITIONS of 'sentience' are met/present - whether for a 
femto-second or 2 days or a billion years; whether capable

of acting-on-awareness or not, or, only capable of self-registry
of received-information; and so on .. we reach a point in
the existential scenario when 'computation' falls away as being
'too complex' in the conditions-spectrum.

What we reach in this paring-away scenario - are qualia of
existence necessary to meet MINIMALISTS conditions for 
sentience-of-some-sort.  Which would not have to be:

sentience-of-OUR-sort.

In the final existential analysis for 'what is sentience/
consciousness' - it become the smallest, shortest contingient   
situation for an-aspect OF existence to REGISTER that some

Batesian difference that makes a difference -- is co-present.

In the final existential analysis of primary qualia of the 
universe, I preffered in 1996 that the most FUNDAMENTAL

dynamic change in this universe is some/any CHANGE OF INERTIA
from a fixed sameness.

This puts the formative, functional, primal qualiatative aspect
of sentience/consciousness right in the very fabric of the cosmos.

It is -not- complex or human consciousness -- which emerges later.
But it is the primal foundation-presence and qualia on which
emerged forms of consciousness rely  - in order for those complex forms
to exist, as they do.

Food for thought, ladies and gentlemen, food for thought.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute 
4 Jan 2007



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: computer pain

2006-12-20 Thread James N Rose




Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree.
Let me see if I can summarise:

Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs
for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents
taught them, or what it says in a book believed to be divinely
inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under
evolution if that term can be extended beyond genetics to
include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc. that help a
society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take
this and formalise it in some way so that we can discuss
ethical questions rationally:

Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness
in society - Utilitarianism

Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment
- Judaism and Christianity (interesting that this only
no. 6 on a list of 10: God [intuitive people] knows his
[know their] priorities)

Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The
meta-ethical explanation of evolution, broadly understood,
as generating the various ethical systems is also objective.
However, it is possible for someone at the bottom of the
heap to go over the head of utilitarianism, evolution, even
God and say:

Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest
good for the greatest number, I don't care if the species
dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will shout it
from hell if sends me there for killing people for fun and
profit. This is my own personal ethical belief, and you can't
tell me I'm wrong!

And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him
on a point of fact or a point of logic. In the *final* analysis,
ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems
that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere.

Stathis Papaioannou



A bit convoluted and somewhat embellished, but essentially: correct.

And violence need not be the standard for an ethic leading to
problematic results.  The 19th century Christian sect Shakers
abhord reproduction  proseletyzing.  They were non-violent 
devout prayer based people, but their 'ethic' led to their own

extinction.

As impartial evaluators, it is sometimes difficult for us
to unemotionally unbiasedly categeorize human dynamics.

There are in any given human millieu a -variety- of 
parameter which have actionable behaviors that can 
be categorized beneficial/unbeneficial, preferrable/

unpreferrable, good/bad, constructive/destructive,
encouraging/disencouraging, not-evil/evil.

Any one parameter, or group of parameters can become the
'situational standard bearer' and other parameters fall 
where they may.  We value 'individuality' but some cultures
sacrifice individuals for the security of the collective. 
Different cultures will resist sacrificing until deemed

absolutely necessary. Others have a lesser requirment;
may even proactively sacrifice for strategic motivations.
And the 'positive' motivation is labelled 'altruism' -
sacrifice in the promotion of and alternative (sic-'greater')
benefit.  An 'evil' of one parameter re-cast as a 'good'
for another.

Killers -do- have a rationale and 'logic' they function
under. And it can be 'objectively correct'.  IF  -- if and
only if - the parameters' assumptions/decisions are accepted
as utile, correct, tenable.

Jamie


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread James N Rose

Just to throw a point of perspective into this
conversation about mimicking qualia.

I posed a thematic question in my 1992 opus
Understanding the Integral Universe.

 What of a single celled animus like an amoeba or paramecium?
 Does it 'feel' itself?  Does it sense the subtle variations
 in its shape as it bumps around in its liquid world?  Does it
 somehow note changes in water pressure around it?  Is it
 always hungry?  What drives a single celled creature to eat?
 What need, if any is fulfilled?  Is it due to an internal
 pressure gradient in it's chemical metabolism? Is there a
 resilience to its boundary that not only determines its
 particular shape, whether amoebic or firm, but that variations
 in that boundary re-distribute pressures through its form to
 create a range of responsive actions? And, because it is
 coherent for that life form, is this primal consciousness?
 How far down into the structure of existence can we reasonably
 extrapolate this? An atom's electron cloud responds and interacts
 with its level of environment, but is this consciousness? We
 cannot personify, and therefore mystify, all kinetic functions
 as different degrees of consciousness; at least not at this point.
 Neither, can we specify with any certainty a level where
 consciousness suddenly appears, where there was none before.
 UIU(c)ROSE 1992 ; 02)Intro section.

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm


Pain is a net-collective qualia, an 'other-tier' cybernetic 
emerged phenomenon.  But it is -not unrelated- to phenomena
like basic EM field changes and 'system's experiences' in those
precursive tiers.

Also, pain (an aspect of -consciousness-), has to be understood
in regard to the panorama of 'kinds-of-sentience' that any given 
system/organism has, embodies, utilizes or enacts.  

In other words, it would be wrong to dismiss the presence of
'pain' in autonomic nervous systems, simply because the
cognitive nervous system is 'unaware' of the signals or
the distress situation generating them.

If one wants to 'define' pain sentience as a closed marker,
and build contrived systems that match the defined conditions
and criteria, that is one thing - and acceptable for what it
is.  But if the 'pain' is a coordination of generalized
engagements and reactions, then a different set of 
design standards needs to be considered/met.

Vis a vis  -this- reasoning:

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiu04start.htm 



Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
cognating on a sunday morning
2006/12/17


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 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: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread James N Rose



Brent Meeker wrote:
 
 If consciousness is the creation of an inner narrative
 to be stored in long-term memory then there are levels
 of consciousness.  The amoeba forms no memories and so
 is not conscious at all. A dog forms memories and even
 has some understanding of symbols (gestures, words) and
 so is conscious.  In between there are various degress
 of consciousness corresponding to different complexity
 and scope of learning.

That notion may fit comfortably with your presumptive
ideas about 'memory' -- computer stored, special-neuron
stored, and similar.  But the universe IS ITSELF 'memory
storage' from the start.  Operational rules of performance
-- the laws of nature, so to speak -- are 'memory', and 
inform EVERY organization of action-appropriateness.  Its 
'memory' of the longest-term kind actually. 

Amoebic behavior embodies more than stimulus-response
actions - consistent with organismic plan 'must eat';
but less than your criterial state of sentient awareness
 - consistent with 'plan dynamics/behaviors'.

The rut that science is in, is presumption that 'our sentience
is 'the only' sentience form' and is the gold standard for 
any/all aware-behavior activity.

Sentience better fits a model of spectrum and degrees; rather
than not-extant / suddenly-extant.

Correct analoging is more challenging with the former, which is
why no AI afficionados want to give up the Cartesian Split way
of thinking and dealing with things - trying make square 'wheels'
roll in the long run.

Jamie 
 
  http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 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: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread James N Rose



Brent Meeker wrote:

  That notion may fit comfortably with your presumptive
  ideas about 'memory' -- computer stored, special-neuron
  stored, and similar.  But the universe IS ITSELF 'memory
  storage' from the start.  Operational rules of performance
  -- the laws of nature, so to speak -- are 'memory', and
  inform EVERY organization of action-appropriateness.  Its
  'memory' of the longest-term kind actually.
 
 Assuming there is no inherent randomness.  Even in MWI of QM, you can't 
 recover
 the past from the present, except in a coarse-grained approximation.  So you 
 may
 say the universe has 'memory' and even 'is conscious' but that's stretching 
 the
 common meaning of the words beyond recognition.


Your comments are exactly on target Brent, because I am
doing exactly that - stretching the 'common meanings' of
this and several other concepts.  Not to take them beyond
'recognition', but definitely beyond the conventional.
Because the conventional notions are narrow and too
presumptive (by familiarity, and unexplored assumptions).

When you mentioned MWI and 'randomness', my first thought
was of Andre Linde and alternative universes defined not
as variables of -this universe- but as alternatives of
the universal constants - where different values of force
and field strength and assignment - vary. Eg, where the
fine structure constant is not (approx) 1/137, but maybe
1/143.9.  

Even those 'possible universes' would be functionally-pinned
to certain values and not others.  Where again - the value-states
would be the 'primal memory' of -that- specific universe.

Actions that happen 'because of' or 'conditional on' some
temporally previous information (aka 'instructions', guide
data, etc) are what you seem to associate as 'memory driven'
behaviors.  Where we have a current notion of 'stable, recallable
information', and by experience that kind of information seems
to be N (data) that is 'stored and later accessible' when/as
needed.  So with that kind of -general notion- I began to think
about 'general conditions' and where functional instructive
information -could- be held for -any system's- general draw.

Memory as resource.   Well, it just seems to make sense to
first look at relationships that fill that definition, not
the mechanisms we are aware of that match the relationship.

Memory of 'how' to perform.  Irrespective and indifferent to
'mechanisms'.  Whether it provides 'choice' or not to perform.

The universal constants and similar invariant relations-of-systems
must be includable as a form-of-memory.

Which in the long run is much much better for our intuitive
notions of existence, life and being.  Life for example, may
be a special existential state, but its a lot more spectrally
consistent to think of sentience being wholly present, but in 
precursive primary forms, and then in refined, improved capacity
forms later on, than to say that this massively important 
quality flat-out has no familially related qualia, and then
suddenly does.

We already see other aspects that show the spectral notion
to exist.  For example there are power laws and wave function 
-laws- that are seen in the QM realm and macro/complex systems
- like animal speciation/ditribution studies; relation for relation.
Even though the 'qualia' that display the rules, laws and relations
are quite quite different.  Where there is more going on than
scaling differences to account for those mappings.

The example I use often is the QM defined electron 'shells'
of atoms.  The interesting thing about them - especially the 
valence group - is that electrons of the approprotiate energies
can fill or vacate those QM regions.  No big thing, you might
remark.  Very calculable. Great for building molecules we 
might want; understanding physics event and chemistry.

Right.  But there's more.

A qualia currently not defined.

And it goes like this:  certain respiring animals
use materially identifiable organs called 'lungs',
to capture gas and release gas.  They take certain
energy/configuration molecules and exude other 
energy/configuration molecules. Plants are complementary
and do the opposite exchange.

But both kinds of organisms 'breath' in some fashion,
through some 'physical' organs or organelles.

So lets look at valence shells of electron.  There
is no cognition or 'intentional' or survival-related
necessity to hold/release electrons.  An atom or molecule
won't 'cease to exist' if the activity of filling/emptying
valence states of an electron doesn't take place (as part
of some larger/extended metabolic sequence of electron
transferring) - but - a living organism -would- die if
atoms didn't functionally 'breathe'.

The valence shells of atoms are their defacto 'functional'
lungs even if they don't exist in/as a 'physical'
manifestation of -material- operant organelle.

I am NOT imposing a biology model on to physics.
I AM citing that primitive precursive BEHAVIOR
CAPACITIES exist from the outset of existential
living 

Re: computer pain

2006-12-14 Thread James N Rose

Yes Stathis, you are right, 'noxious stimulus' and
'experience' are indeed separable - but - if you want to
do an analysis of comparing, its important to identify 
global parameters and potential analogs.

My last post's example tried to address those components.

I've seen stress diagrams of different architectural
structures that show high vs low 'load' loci.  And
what always struck my thoughts was that they analog
'pressure -sensing-' of living systems images.

The 'whole' of a building is 'sensitive' to all
distribution of structure pressures throughout.

Any cybernetic (sensory interpretation) comes 
afterward.  (per your last remarks).

In both living and non-living systems, electromagnetic
bonds  - stretched away from balance; or, broken ;
or, hyperstimulated - ARE the 'sources' of   
are the 'noxious stimuli'.

Which brings us back to my original point.  That
current 'computing systems' do NOT include sensitivity
or monitoring of the hardware IN-which the software
runs; living systems are so hyperintegrated that
'signals' ARE environment-sensitive (structure sensitive).

The design philosophies are different and in the end
not compatible/matchable, in my view.

Jamie




Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 
 Jamie Rose writes:
 
  Stathis,
 
  As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
  crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
  code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
  a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
  computations.
 
  In a functional way, parallel check-summing, emulates at least
  the first part of an 'experience pain' rete .. the initial
  establishment of a signal message 'something is wrong'.
 
  What I'm getting at is that the question could be
  approached best by not retrofitting to 'experiential
  qualia' .. where we don't have a reasonable way to
  specify the different systems' 'experiencing', but we
  do have a way to identify analogs of process.
 
  For example - its possible to identify in architecture
  and materiales where 'points of highest stress' occur.
 
  The physicality of structures may indeed internally be
  experiencing higher-pressure nodes as 'pain' - where
  the only lack in the chain of our interaction with
  'inanimate' structures, is OUR lack-of -wisdom in
  recognizing that those stress point are in fact
  'pain-points' for those kinds of systems.
 
  For living systems, the nature of the neural connections is
  that the communication lines are still raw and open - back
  to the locus of the problem (pain site).  In non-living
  structures, any break or disruption totally shuts down
  the back-reporting -- 'pain' disappears when all communication
  'about' the pain-source is taken away or simply breaks down.
 
 Except that the relationship between the pain perception and the
 noxious stimulus is not a necessary one. Various neurological conditions
 can leave the noxious stimulus but remove the pain, leave the pain but
 remove the noxious stimulus, even switch sensory modalities so that
 normally painful stimuli are perceived as pleasurable and vice-versa.
 It seems that just certain groups of cortical neurons firing is enough to
 cause pain, and it seems that this quality is intrinsic to those neurons,
 ready for the first painful experience. So the noxious stimulus does not
 seem essential for the pain experience, and there is no reason to think
 that a non-living structure undergoing stress experiences pain since it
 lacks any evolved or designed pain-sensing apparatus.
 
 Stathis Papaioannou
 _
 Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
 

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 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: computer pain

2006-12-13 Thread James N Rose

Stathis,

As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
computations.

In a functional way, parallel check-summing, emulates at least
the first part of an 'experience pain' rete .. the initial
establishment of a signal message 'something is wrong'.

What I'm getting at is that the question could be 
approached best by not retrofitting to 'experiential
qualia' .. where we don't have a reasonable way to
specify the different systems' 'experiencing', but we
do have a way to identify analogs of process.

For example - its possible to identify in architecture
and materiales where 'points of highest stress' occur.

The physicality of structures may indeed internally be
experiencing higher-pressure nodes as 'pain' - where
the only lack in the chain of our interaction with 
'inanimate' structures, is OUR lack-of -wisdom in 
recognizing that those stress point are in fact 
'pain-points' for those kinds of systems.

For living systems, the nature of the neural connections is 
that the communication lines are still raw and open - back
to the locus of the problem (pain site).  In non-living
structures, any break or disruption totally shuts down
the back-reporting -- 'pain' disappears when all communication
'about' the pain-source is taken away or simply breaks down.

Jamie


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 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: computer pain

2006-12-12 Thread James N Rose

Stathis,

The reason for lack of responses is that your idea
goes directly to illuminating why AI systems - as 
promoulgated under current designs of software
running in hardware matrices - CANNOT emulate living
systems.  It an issue that AI advocates intuitively
and scrupulously AVOID.

Pain in living systems isn't just a self-sensor
of proper/improper code functioning, it is an embedded
registration of viable/disrupted matrix state.

And that is something that no current human contrived 
system monitors as a CONCURRENT property of software.

For example, we might say that central processors
regularly 'display pain' .. that we designers/users
recognize as excess heat .. that burn out mother boards.
The equipment 'runs a high fever', in other words.

But where living systems are multiple functioning systems
and have internal ways of guaging and reacting locally and 
biochemically vis a vis both to the variance and retaining
sufficient good-operations while bleeding off 'fever',
hardware systems have no capacity to morph or adapt
itself structurally and so keep on burning up or wait
for external aware-structures to command them to stop
operating for a while and let the equipment cool down.

I maintain that living systems are significantly designed where
hardware IS software, and so have a capacity for local
adaptive self-sensitivity, that human 'contrived' HW/SW systems
don't and mostly .. can't.

Jamie Rose 


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 
 No responses yet to this question. It seems to me a straightforward
 consequence of computationalism that we should be able to write a program
 which, when run, will experience pain, and I suspect that this would be a
 substantially simpler program than one demonstrating general intelligence. It
 would be very easy to program a computer or build a robot that would behave
 just like a living organism in pain, but I'm not sure that this is nearly 
 enough to
 ensure that it is in fact experiencing pain. Any ideas, or references to 
 sources
 that have considered the problem?
 
 Stathis Papaioannou


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 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: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-13 Thread James N Rose

Thank you for your responses, Bruno.
I will reply in return.  

As an overview to my original theme, I believe you
missed several key notions.First, yes, I am bothered
by interpretations of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems,
but I avoid getting entangled in debating 'interpretations'
by getting to deeper theorems-criteria and analyzing 
those.


When I read the Theorems - which I do not have at hand
to quote - it was apparent that invariant - systemwide
information compatibility was and is a founding requirement --
when attempting to assess and invoke those -situations and
conditions- whereby 'some' information becomes segmented and
partitioned away, producing a 'self-evaluation incompleteness'.

Godel expressed the projection that non-present data or rules
may at some future time be made present and then-inclusive, 
allowing for satisfactory completion of true-false statement
assessments;  with the always receding horizon ... where new
true-false assessments arise that are undecidable under the new
added information/relations expansion.

But the scenario depends upon the criteria presumption that
no information is permanently incompatible with any other 
information. 

That is, he begins and foundations his entire assessment
on a true-false statement that is most definitely 
Intuitionist.  And a constructive keystone as well -- 
because invariant induction is at the heart of 
existence and of mathematics -- before any 'local'
differentiations produces conditional-incompleteness states.

A mathematics and systemic analysis that key on
alpha-omega compatibility are far superior and 
more productive than those built on 'incompleteness'.

But I see that no one is doing that, and they
are missing critically important new understandings
because they are not doing that.



As far as your reaction that some of my statements
were 'vague'.  You might try re-reading and re-interpreting
them.  They were in fact rather explicit.  There are
very real relational analogues that scale very nicely 
and exactly between tiers of existence and different
fields/subjects/topics also.

You need to think of metaphors as a real-form
of transduction, with all mapping validity retained.

Best of luck Bruno ; someday 'the lightbulb'.  :-)

James 

 



Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:20, James N Rose a écrit :
 
 
  from July 2, 2006 (lightly amended and then addended)
 
 
  Bruno,
 
  I have found myself in this lifetime to be a staunch
  OP-ponent and challenger to Godel's incompleteness theorems.
 
 Are they other math theorems you are opposed too?
 To be frank, I could imagine that you believe having find an error. If
 that is the case let me know or try to publish it. I doubt it of
 course. Until now I have been able to find the error of all those who
 have pretended to me having finding such an error.
 Sometimes people does not challenge Godel's proof, but some
 interpretation of it. That is a different matter, and obviously less
 simple.
 Did you realize that I have, just last week, give an astonishingly
 simple proof, based on Church thesis,  of a stronger form of Godel's
 incompleteness? Did you try to follow it?
 
 
  In the way that they are structured - with the premises
  Godel preset: of initial boundaries for what he was
  about to design by 'proof' - his theorems -are- both
  sufficiently closed and constituently -accurate- in
  their conclusion and notions.
 
 OK you are cautious. So you criticize an interpretation of Godel's
 theorem.
 
 
  _But_ what I find disturbing about them is that they are
  RELIANT on a more formative -presumption-, which presumption
  enables an analyst to draw quite a -contrary result- to what
  Godel announced. A self-discontinuity _within_ his theorems,
  as it were.
 
  Clearly, this:
 
  He tacitly identifies any information resident -outside- any that
  current/known, as -eventually accessible, connectible, relatable-;
  even if it means restructuring known-information in regard to
  alternative/new criteria and standards definitions, descriptions,
  statements.   A presumption/definition of universal information
  compatibility - of all information - whether known or unknown.
 
 You could say this about my proof, or about Emil Post's one, or about
 some simplified version of it. But it is 99% unfair to say Godel made
 those presumptions. You could argue like that a little bit by invoking
 its use of the omega-consistency notion, but then that case is closed
 after Rosser's amelioration of Godel's proof. The Godel-Rosser proof
 does not rely in any way on any semantical notion, not even AR.
 Godel's proof is even constructive and completely acceptable, even for
 an intuitionist.
 
 
  It is through this process of add then re-evaluate that new
  paradigms are achieved.  But, it is dependent on the compatibility
  of the -whole- scope of all the information present at that moment of
  evaluation; and the eventual capacity to coordinate statements with
  all content

Re: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-08 Thread James N Rose

Bruno,

My email has not gotten through accurately this week.
Just wondering if you had replied to my post of July 2nd
or just let it go?

Jamie


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-02 Thread James N Rose

Bruno,

I have found myself in this lifetime to be a staunch
OP-ponent and challenger to Godel's incompleteness
theorems.   

In the way that they are structured - with the premises
Godel preset, of initial boundaries for what he was
about to design by 'proof' - his theorems are both 
sufficiently closed and constituently -accurate- in 
their conclusion and notions.

_But_, what I find disturbing about them is that they are
RELIANT on a more formative -presumption-, which presumption
enables an analyst to draw quite a -contradiction aspect- 
to what Godel announced. A self-discontinuity _within_ his
theorems, as it were.

Clearly, this:

He tacitly identifies any information resident -outside- any 
current/known, as -eventually accessible, connectible, relatable-,  
even if it means restructuring known-information in regard to
alternative/new criteria and standards definitions, descriptions,
statements.

It is through this process of add then rerevaluate that new
paradigms are achieved.  But, it is dependent on the compatibility
of the whole scope of all the information -then- present; and the
eventual capacity to coordinate statements with all content addressable
by statements.

So, his thesis that at any given moment in time, not all information
is present or gathered, and that this makes for limited statement
making, where some evaluation statements in the data-set may instead
be reliant on future/other yet-to-be-included information .. is a 
worthy logical notion.   A closed system may not completely evaluate
itself -- some evaluations are indeterminant.


But, think for a moment about what that presumption of eventual
includability dictates:

That we -can- (right now) state something specific and projective
about the qualia and nature of knowledge and information -- currently
-beyond- the bounds of actual experience and encounter and access.

It also aserts:   information 'unknown' is compatible with and
eventually relatable with information 'known'.

The first foundation of Godel's 'I can't decide about that Theorems'
is the moot statement: 'I -can- decide about -everything- and here's why';
--which is a contradiction of logic.  

The limited set can make true-false statement about the
totality of existence (internal and external to known-ness),
but it cannot guarantee it's own true-false statements
without added 'external' information made internal.


Therefore, the logic of future science and knowledge, 
I assert, is -incorrectly- contrained and defined by 
this - by Godel and his Incompleteness Theorems.


Rather, the logic of future science and knowledge
is premised in Information and Performance Holism.
The unitary interactional and information accessible
quality of Existence.  Which fundamental notion is what
Godel ignores and rejects and tries to discredit.


Where, we CAN in fact make VALID STATEMENTS -about that which-
the incompleteness theorems 'conclude': we should not be able
to say -anything- at all.

You can absolutely place me in the community of thinkers 
who do not swallow the incompleteness phenomena.  Because
my statements/logic are not incorrect and they do identify
flaw/weakness/incorrectness in Godel.

He used not a tautology but a strange negative tautology.

If A then not-A ; if not-A, then never(A) as long
as not-A exists; and since not-A always exists
then A is not accessible to evaluate not-A; but
not-A can assert A and assess A.

All Godel did was give a validation for information
hiding and manipulation -- something useful to politicians
and economic manipulators and spiritual advocates.

He didn't do science or logic or math any favors.
Or the future for that matter.


James N Rose



Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:59, James N Rose a écrit :
 
 
  Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral
  co-extancy.
 
 The comp assumption leads to the less reductive possible account of the
 person and person POVs.
 For example, comp does not guaranties *any* survival, but it guaranties
   that no such survival-guaranties are possible. It guaranties
 eventually that personal identity can only be a matter of ...
 *personal* matter.
 
 Perhaps are you confusing math before and after
 Post-Turing-Church-Godel-Lob ...
 
 ... or you refer to those mathematicians who have not yet swallow the
 incompleteness phenomena...
 
 Actually I believe that the incompleteness theorem (especially with
 comp or weaker) makes it impossible for science, or better, for the
 scientific attitude, to be reductive. With comp the diagonalization
 tale is before all a lesson of modesty.
 
 Despite this, Goel's incompleteness theorem is a constructive theorem,
 and it leads to the discovery that machine ignorance is wonderfully
 structured, rich, productive ...
 And UDA justifies why the laws of physics comes from there, in a
 testable way.
 
 To assume our finiteness, what comp really is about, enlarges the range
 of our possible infinite realms

Re: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-01 Thread James N Rose

The notions of observed/observing, of first vs third,
and all such round robin banter .. all fall down as nonsense
conversation because -no one- has in any real sense
specified the new-functions required to make such
concepts ... a calculus.


There are conflated criteria involved - as well as a total
lack of mathematical symbology that might otherwise provide
fresh territory and useful new ways to procede.

The tendency of science and mathematics is to get rid of
clutter -- and 'reduce' to basic truths and principles and
operations.  The imagined/aspired grail of 'objective reality'.

Unfortunately, reductive operands tend to erase 'distinctions'
that one would otherwise -need- in order to make sense of
'identity/ies' and comparative-perception-sets: .. can V and Z ..
ostensibly 'identical' in construct .. have -different- 'experiences',
or would they superpositionedly co-mingle and 'be one/together'?

General relativity pushed the envelope even -more shut- to distinctions
by identifying transforms, that do allow for alternative experiences
-but- by invoking the principle that no frame of reference is prioritized
over any other.

BUT, just because transforms are possible and therefore Universals and 
Invariants and Conservants seem to be underscoring -reliables- that
make the Objectivity grail seem more real and reachable, it is the 
collateral concurrent fact which is as equally - or more - important:

MANY 'frames of reference' exist - and - they are founded on
criteria which make their distinctionness profound.

The simplest notion being:

  entities exist embedded in concurrent spaces; nothing is a pure-isolate

Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral co-extancy.

Translated: ... no 'identical' entities could or would have perfect identical
indistinguishable experience(s) .. unless ALL internal -and- external parameters
were as-well 'exactly identical' in all aspects, constructs, -and- relations.

Since the only way for such total identicality to exist is such
entities to be perfectly superpositioned  .. and that can't happen
because of the Pauli exclusion principle .. no two (or more) 'identities'
could or would be ... a single persona .. laying claim to some 
'true identity' versus others/clones being replicant/false identities.

Any clones/replicants -- however similar/identical -- would be their OWN
persona and experiant .. having access to wholly unique and personal 
'interactions sets', distinct from any other entity.

Personal Identity is a de-fault resultant of the structure of the universe.
Integrity - of systemic base/performance/entity-ness is key - for everything.


Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-01 Thread James N Rose

Addendum to my previous:

TO make math sensitive to frame of reference distinctions
and useful in an expanded way added parameter-dimensions
might be useful.

Color coding for example.  With new translation operators.

Equations written in red might indicate that attention
be maintained that the values are in regard to frame
of reference P and that factors or sub equations displayed
in gray make note that those are written representative
of an alternative 'perspective' base-frame set.

The math may conflate but the perticipating frames of 
reference can be kept distinct and identified.


Jamie


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)

2006-06-17 Thread James N Rose

Bruno,


Sometimes gedankenexperiments - or even theoretical
contemplations - include unvoiced/unconsidered
presumptions and biases that a system may not
be self-aware of.  Benj Whorf brought this aspect
of systemic nature into consideration, in the 1930's,
when he applied Einstein/Reichenbach notions of
'relativity' to the subjective field of language
and linguistics. {Reichenbach called his analysis
of it (1927) vis a vis gravity, Theorem Theta.}


Several years ago, I proposed that attention
should not be paid to the Halting Problem, but
instead be paid to what comes after.  Meaning,
not to the effective information production
of the computation run, nor to any activity
resulting from the computation run .. but rather
to this: future re-activation of 'the' or any
computation process.

We exist in a universe that is always 'in process'.
Even if some operations 'halt', the essential nature
of co-present simultaneous systems is that dynamics
are so 'on-going' that the main priority is on
re-enacted/re-established/re-initiated actions.

No systems are 'pure isolates' .. there are always
and importantly: relationships of context, continuity,
and recursion.

Placing the Turing or Church or any other devised
'closed conditioned system' on the table of evaluation,
is to miss THE critical group of parameters, that no
'idealized' parameters group includes.

Current closed-set evaluations are fundamentally:
utilitarian, task-oriented, single assignments/missions.

But the statespace of the universe is open, relative,
re-accessible, and re-instantiable .. WITH .. all
systems being vulnerable to correlary/additional
instructions.

It makes no nevermind if a system or computation
'halts' or not.

The crucial things is whether 1) if a computation
halts .. what are the conditions for re-instantiation?,
and 2) if it never self-halts .. then what parameters
are present to induce halting? (a) sufficient utility of
incomplete data, (b) eradication due to untimely utility,
(c) exhaustion of operational resources, (d)  



You see Bruno, mathematics carries a self-blinding
presumption: Perfect universal information distribution/access.

Sequential operations functions are an attempt to 
evaluate non-instantaneous information processing.

And physical reality includes both AND contraints
unique to both - but interactive with the other
domain.



James


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

2006-05-30 Thread James N Rose

Bruno,

It's been a long holiday weekend here in the US, Bruno,
thank you for your reply, and your patience for my
responce. 

Fromconventional math, everything you said was 
correct, put to me by a co-list friend as .. should I 
offer you a financial reimbursement for your answer:

1m$ that is: 0m$  
:-) .

Well, I'm not sending you 1m$, but I will continue
commentary.

Consider for a moment, the possibility that the entire
used ediface of mathematics is an analog of Abbott's
Flatland.  That though we may think we are 'calculating'
in a completely identified domain, that the 'environment'
of mathematics is extensive in new ways, and that there 
are new/different operators needed to access the extended 
mathematics.

Consider G.Cantor.  Suppose I said that not only are
Aleph0 regions of math calculations, but that addional
functions make all of those infinities - calculation
accessible.  That 'normal math' still applies .. but if
and only if .. notated as referencing each frame-of-reference
Aleph n.  That to segue (equationally transduce) from any 
Aleph to any Aleph requires additional notations marks, in 
order to keep separate what Aleph the immediate notation
referneces, or, mores into or out of.


You remarked that it is absurd to :

 From (-5)^2 = 5^2 you will not infer that 5 = (-5), right? 

Actually, what I suggest does -relate- to this question.

We make such presumption about positive or absolute value
numeration that when we do back-functioning we overlook
relations and information that might be inconvenient or
cumbersome to treat.  Such as differentiating an
already integrated operation.  That pesky throw-away
scalar transform value of (+C) is unceremoniously
thrown out because we assume is to be a non-consequential
shift- or spatial-translation factor that needn't
be considered in mathematical generalization.

When we take a square-root, we ignore the minus signs
option.  When we look at quantum equations, we keep the
positive set and ignore the negative set .. which in and
of itself is contrary to quantum-math philosophy .. where
all variables are included, even if anti-thetical. [M and not-M
are concurrent rather than computationally mutually exclusive.]

A closing thought for this morning (possible discussion
of particulars being left for another day):

--from an off-list letter, same list-subject 


Dear __ ,

I am broaching a substantially new logic.

  1m$ that is: 0m$

-is- a patent absurdity in current math.

The version that I came up with essentially
restructures the analysis of mathematics
as comparisons of dimensions.  I did one analysis 
around the pythagorean theorem that results
in a statement  b=b^2 for any and all numbers, b.
[with the autonomous inclusion of new +/- markers
that arrive everytime a dimension is added to
or calculated to.]  

What is missing in math notation are markers that
help a person to remember they may be co-navigating
several different dimensional fields at the same time,
where the left side of an equation is in 'm' dimensions
and the right in 'other than m' dimensions, yet
the equation is valid.  The trouble persists if the
notations presume that native dimensionality on both 
sides is identical.  

In -that- presumption, the numbers have to match conventional
math concepts and no such thing as  b=b^2 for any and all
numbers, b is allowed or even sensible.

It is like trying to have perfect translation
among human languages.  Not possible.  It's only
when we convert languages into the larger 
information network of memes, that 'equal translation' 
makes sense.  That's what I'm doing.  Identifying 
a core realm of 'information' (albeit, mathematical
notions, concepts, information) that can transduce
as real and valid 'equalities' across the equals sign.

When the realm of dimensions is recognized as the
larger realm of mathematical memes.

If a person doesn't do that shift of 
consciousness/sensibilities, they'll never 'get it'.

 ... but I see a shining country of mathematics that
no one else seems to recognize .. yet.   Jamie


Bruno, I know you are still going to treat this line of
thought/conversation as sophomoric. A natural reaction.
I can assure you it is 'of significance' however.

Best Regards,
Jamie Rose

 


  






Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Le 26-mai-06, à 02:50, James N Rose a écrit :


  An example at the core of it is a most simplistic
  definition/equation.
 
  1^1 = 1^0
 
  [one to the exponent one  equals  one to the exponent zero]
 
  To all mathematicians, this is a toss-out absurdity, with
  no 'real meaning'.  n^0 is a convenience tool at best ;
 
 n^0 = 1, because 1= (n^m)/(n^m) = n^(m-m) = n^0.
 Or better n^0 = the number of functions from the empty
 set (cardinal 0) to the set with cardinal n. This 
 justifies also 0^0 = 1 (there is one (empty)
 function from the empty set to the empty set).
 
  along with  'n/0 is 'undefined''.   We note the consistent/valid
  notation, but walk away from any

Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

2006-05-25 Thread James N Rose

Bruno,

You struck a personal nerve in me with your following remarks:

Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 They are degrees. The worst unreasonableness of a (platonist or
 classical or even intuitionist) machine is when she believes some plain
 falsity (like p  ~p, or 0 = 1). The false implies all propositions, so
 that such machine believes everything, including everything about their
 maximal consistent extensions or histories (which does not exist).
 Those machines are just inconsistent.

particularly ,
   
some plain falsity (like p  ~p, or 0 = 1).

Rather than treat these as 'blatantly false' I have been 
exploring the notion for several years .. 'what conditions,
situations, criteria or states would allow such statements 
to be 'true', and what would it mean in how we define and
manipulate and operate the rest of mathematics?'.

I have discovered that an unprecedentedly un-appreciated 
realm of mathematical relations has existed right before
our minds.  The lack, having kept us trying to cope with
'anomalies' and math issues without the full toolkit of
mathematical instruments.

An example at the core of it is a most simplistic  
definition/equation.

1^1 = 1^0

[one to the exponent one  equals  one to the exponent zero]

To all mathematicians, this is a toss-out absurdity, with 
no 'real meaning'.  n^0 is a convenience tool at best ; along
with  'n/0 is 'undefined''.   We note the consistent/valid
notation, but walk away from any active utility or application.

My thesis is that doing so was a missed opportunity.

To be hyper-consistent, the equation set-up   

1^1 = 1^0

indicates that there -must- be some valid states/conditions
(not just 'interpretation') when 0 and 1 are 'equal' in some
real meaning/use of the word equal.  If they can be substituted
in the above equation, without changing a resultant of
calculations (they are embedded in), then they must somewhere
somehow in fact be identical in some way or condition.

The entire ediface of physics is hamstrung because of this,
because mathematical definitions and language compounded
the error by applying - actually DIS-applying - a related
concept .. the notion of 'extent' .. also known as 'dimension'.

Physics and mathematics transform and wholly open up when
we throw away the old concept of 'dimensionless' and instead
reformulate -everything- as 'dimensional'.  Including zero;
including numbers unassociated with variables.

As musch as you are brilliant and mathematically inventive,
your statement  some plain falsity (like p  ~p, or 0 = 1)
shows you haven't quite awoken to everything yet.  I hope
I'm in the process of stirring you from your slumber.

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: why can't we erase information?

2006-05-10 Thread James N Rose

a simple question ... (which, if it cannot be
satisfactorally answered/rationalized/justified,
its unanswereability will indicate why any
creationist models versus 'science' models of
cosmology, are not reconcilable).


Q:  What conditions-of-state of the existing
functioning universe act as the boundary condition
which -prevents- the ZPE quantum foam from 
initiating at anytime/anyplce in the cosmos - 
a new 'ultimate singularity' from instigating 
(again and randomly and unrestrictedly)?


==


Collateral situational notion on whether G-contant
is +, 0, or -.   ...  in frame of reference of standard
thermodynamic concept of entropy.

One model for the 'final (mathematical) solution'
to the universe posits that all matter will 
uniformly distribute into all possible 'space'
uniformly, leaving no dis-equilibrium and therefore
- ultimately - no differential, such as is required
for any activity through which 'work' can be accomplished.

The 'final' thermodynamic picture is of a universe
maximally depleted in actionability -- at all possible
levels of 'energy'.



 ... the problem with that model however is that 
the current limiting definitional assignment of 
'energy' with qualia of -motion- and transference
or redistribution of motionenergy alone are patently
limiting, and contain a significant but fundamental
assignment error.


Consider a gedankenuniverse in which only two
motionless masses exist - no initial relative
motion between them and no other masses present.

Under conventional 'definition' they are 
thermodynamically depleted.  

Yet, their mutual spacetime is -not- 'uniform everywhere'.
And it is the unbalanced, non-uniform -spacetime- which
provides the source function for additional actionable
activities.

There is a character of spacetime which is not 'thermodynamic'
but which is a gradient source, significant enough to 
instigate anti-(thermodynamic)entropy motion. (!)

In the end-analysis of a UFT, it is gravity which trumps
all other action impelling gradients.  AND it is obligatory
that gravity be re-defined because of this reasoning,
to coordinate the qualia -of- energy thermodynamics with 
the non-energy definitions and qualia -of- gravity.


The question of erasability or not of information
involves absolute accessibility of all qualia with 
all other qualia.  Transducableness of any information
(form) into any other .. at least in essential
conversion.  Without such inter-translation capacity,
(some) information is effectively PRE-erased.

Non-accesibility isn't limited to erasure (now you
see it now you don't), but includes 'preclusion'
(exists but: never see it never will).

Bringing this inclusive logic to bear on gradients
means that trope-ic qualities must reside as concurrent
with -gradients- per se _irrespective_ of the format 
of system -- be it inertial, electromagnetic, -or-
gravitational.

That is the unifying informational linking 
qualia-primitive of -all- these formats ... what the
UFT wellsprings from and in-which it is discoverable
again.

Entropy and negentropy are characteristics of 
all gradients and are informational parameters of 
all gradients .. NOT of thermodynamic gradients
alone.   The exclusive linking of entropy with 
thermodynamics and thermodynamics alone is patently
hampering and incorrect and limiting.

The association of information with negentropy
is already indicative of this.  Whats required
is the association of information with
differential field structure and not just with
snap-shot 'content quantification' state-comparisons,
a with b and none else.

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



contention: theories are incompatible

2005-11-16 Thread James N Rose
An open hypothesis to list members:

Conservation as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of many worlds.

Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent existentialism. 

J Rose



Re: Memory-prediction framework

2005-08-15 Thread James N Rose
Ben,  You are on the right track, but you missed a
  fundamental principle and therefore are missing
  advantageous use of it in mapping the question.

  The issue comes out as an adjunct one: why is
  standard logic insufficient -and- incomplete,
  when applying it to observed natural logic functions
  of intelligence, mind, and feedthrough (backforward)
  information nets?

  Statistical re-evaluation of probability -is- important.

  But then, the real world gets muddied, with such organs
  as the hypothalmus.  :-)

Jamie Rose




I wrote a sort-of-review of this book some time ago...
 
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/OnBiologicalAndDigitalIntelligence.htm
 
-- Ben Goertzel

   -Original Message-
   From: Lennart Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:00 PM
.
   Thoughts on the ” Memory-prediction framework” in
   explaining intelligence anyone?

   Book: Jeff Hawkins “On Intelligence”



Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-18 Thread James N Rose


chris peck wrote:

 [c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions
 orthogonally configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
 one. [Rose(c)1995].
 
 What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
 directions?

similar to what it means for there to be a real value square root of -1 

or for an object to move in two or more orthogonal spacial directions
'at the same time' ; in some reimann transform or other, all linear
motions can be figured as and only as a mono-dimensional motion.



 Regards
 
 Chris.




Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-17 Thread James N Rose
Interleaving:

chris peck wrote:
 
 Hi James;
 
 Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
 
 I’m not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas,
 but as I have said, it wouldn’t be troubling to me to be considered
 conventional. However, I do think you are being hasty in so far as I’m still
 finding my feet with regards to many of the concepts and arguments on this
 forum. I don’t consider myself to have a steadfast opinion one way or the
 other yet.

Only mirrored back what you wrote first .. 
  just let it go, not imortant
 
 I feel able to raise objections which of course must seem naive to a
 seasoned expert.
 
 What’s more, so far I have been more impressed by the rigour of the posters
 on this board - I think the standard of writing is extraordinary, at times
 intimidating - than the 'unconventional' ideas that you think you are
 entertaining. I don’t see many unconventional views, infact I see views that
 seem to have a long lineage reaching all the way back to Plato and beyond.
 To take one example, when Bruno speaks of Zombies with varying degrees of
 consciousness, I find it reminiscent of Leibniz’s Monadology, not to mention
 the idea that the universe can be conceived as a purely mathematical entity,
 that extension can be done away with.
 
 Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventional to
 you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whether angels
 can jump from a to b without traversing the points imbetween, isn’t it?
 
 A blend of rationalism, idealism and scholastic thought then, but
 unconventional? I’m not convinced about that, nor sure why it matters.
 
 So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
 that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
 Or not dimensional).  Is the universe operatively Abelian,
 or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?
 
 I'm leaning towards the idea that the universe is operationally non-Abelian.
 A state of the universe is a statistical result, so how we reverse the
 direction of time without invoking the idea of possible pasts is unclear to
 me. Perhaps you have the answer.
 
 Regards
 
 Chris.


If the quantum paradigm is accurate, then it would be improper to
identify the universe as functioning wholly Abelian or non-Abelain.

Concurrently, this implies that all systems which functionally
extend from symmetry breaking events must of necessity be 
'dimensional' where Abelian simply refers to pre-broken
symmetry relations and non-Abelian to post-symmetry broken
relations ... where concurrency of pre- -and- post- is the
rule of the day.  And where it would be remiss of any one
dealing with all these relations, to think of them in any
way -except- fully and completely 'dimensional'; where the 
only distinction is the extent of packed and unpacked states
present.  

This allows for classical evaluation of quantum phenomena,
which heretofore has been a roadblock in computational
and relational analysis.

There may be operational reasons why time travel is
or is not possible - I don't have any comments on the
conjecture of time travel - my only stance being that
I state it is and would be improper to consider Time
as -not- being dimensional.

And as an example, I state that even Einstein did not
understand this aspect, one of the true points of his
equation E=mc^2 being that [c^2] is exactly an expression
of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions orthogonally
configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].

Energy is a net abelian 3-dimensional compacture,
even and in spite of being computationally expressed
as a one-dimensional factor.

The whole structure of mathematics is currently 
under-valuated in any full and complete 'dimensional'
way. [Rose(c)1972]

James



Re: Just a question

2005-07-16 Thread James N Rose
I suggest you abandon the notion 'bigger'.

essentially because it is incompatible with
the relation called 'symmetry breaking' - which 
is a major qualia in modern physics-math.

James





Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
 
  For all number x,  if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than
 1.
 
 (by bigger I mean strictly bigger: 17 is strictly bigger than 16, but
 not strictly bigger than 17).
 
 It would help me to explain some point to non logicians if you tell me
 in case you believe the proposition above is false.
 
 I can put it in another way, like:
 
   Whatever the number someone can choose, if that number is
 bigger than
2 then it will be bigger than 1.
 
 Is it obvious?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Bruno
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-14 Thread James N Rose

Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.

The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
to time, and instead identifies certain similarities,
that in turn identify how quantum mechanics and classical
relativity can be unified.  Interestingly, even Einstein
missed this key aspect - of his own mathematics.  

So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
or not dimensional).  Is the universe operatively Abelian,
or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?

James



chris peck wrote:
 
 Hi James;
 
 You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
 mistake that all conventional thinkers
 
 I hope i am a 'conventional thinker'. It gives me reason to think im onto
 something, that ive got something right. That seems to be how things become
 conventional.
 
 spatial.  You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
 non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.
 
 Im not sure I do.
 
 'Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
 typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:'
 
 I can feel a dreadfully non everyday definition approaching :
 
 Tenet JNR-01:  every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
 not just positive integer exponents.
 
 You should decide whether this is conventional (everyday) or not.
 
 Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
 races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any
 effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
 least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension dont involve change of
 position, but our a priori notion of time at least involves a change of
 time. If time has no arrow one way or the other, if there is no succession
 of events, then time stops.
 
 I am left wondering whether you know what I mean at all when I say that we
 are embeded in time in a way we are not in space. Its more the point that
 there is a direction to time rather than whether we characterise the
 direction one way or the other, or whether it can be flipped, or whether
 backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
 way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
 
 regards;
 
 Chris.
 
 From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
 Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700
 
 Chris,
 
 You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
 mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
 outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
 
 you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
 complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
 considerations of 'dimensions' - whether temporal or
 spatial.  You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
 non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.
 
 You also ignore basic arithmetic definitions and
 pretend they hold no meaning, particularly when
 those definition standards arise in weakly discussed
 situations.
 
 Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
 typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:
 
 Tenet JNR-01:  every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
 not just positive integer exponents.
 
 James
 
 13 July 2005
 
 
 
 chris peck wrote:
  
   Hi James;
  
   I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise
 objections
   from other members of this board.
  
   'Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
   pre-bias.'
  
   It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I
 maintain
   that the asymetry exists in the sense that my movement in spatial
 dimensions
   is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly
 inevitable
   next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can
 just
   do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
  
   But, say time travel is possible, we have a futher asymetry in so far as
 the
   idea that time is a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z leads to
   paradoxes if we attempt to move around it. Spatial movement does not
 involve
   paradoxes.
  
   I think this is enough to establish an asymetry in nature rather than
 just
   experience.
  
   Regards
  
   Chris.
  
   From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: everything-list@eskimo.com
   CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
   Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700
   
   chris peck wrote:

 Hi Stephen;

 I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are
   provisos.
 Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to
 freely
 navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in
 time
   and it
 moves onwards in a single direction without anyone’s consent.
   Furthermore,
 where

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread James N Rose
Chris,

You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:

you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
considerations of 'dimensions' - whether temporal or
spatial.  You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.

You also ignore basic arithmetic definitions and
pretend they hold no meaning, particularly when
those definition standards arise in weakly discussed 
situations.

Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:   

Tenet JNR-01:  every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
   not just positive integer exponents.

James

13 July 2005



chris peck wrote:
 
 Hi James;
 
 I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise objections
 from other members of this board.
 
 'Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
 pre-bias.'
 
 It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I maintain
 that the asymetry exists in the sense that my movement in spatial dimensions
 is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly inevitable
 next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can just
 do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
 
 But, say time travel is possible, we have a futher asymetry in so far as the
 idea that time is a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z leads to
 paradoxes if we attempt to move around it. Spatial movement does not involve
 paradoxes.
 
 I think this is enough to establish an asymetry in nature rather than just
 experience.
 
 Regards
 
 Chris.
 
 From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@eskimo.com
 CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700
 
 chris peck wrote:
  
   Hi Stephen;
  
   I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are
 provisos.
   Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
   navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time
 and it
   moves onwards in a single direction without anyone’s consent.
 Furthermore,
   where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would
 appear
   to ensue that just don’t when I traverse the spatial dimensions. I’d
 appeal
   to an asymmetry between time and space, it is a dimension of sorts, but
 not
   one that can conceptually swapped with a spatial dimension easily. I
 don’t
   think the a priori requirements for space will be necessarily the same
 as
   those for time.
 
 
 
 Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential pre-bias.
 While it is true that we can calculate negative spatial values and not
 identify negative temporal values easily - or at all in some cases - let
 me describe motion in this alternative way for you:
 
 1. All action/motion is never a single dimension but instead, a net-vector.
 (be it spatially evaluated or temporally or both).
 
 therefore, it is quite possible to say that the impression of time
 as a positive single vector is masking its composite dimensional structure
 which it is really made of.
 
 2. Negative spatial distances are calculation illusions, usable only
 because
 we can visually identify a sequence reversal and label the suquences
 alternatively - even though - in a relativistic universe, ALL actions and
 traversals of 'distance' are and can only be done ... positively.
 Negative dimension values are conditional computational handwavings.
 
 And again, even spatial traversals are net-vectors.  A body in true motion
 through space is ALWAYS in a positive net-vector; the same as
 presumptively ascribed only to time.
 
 Therefore, Time can and undoubtably does have, internal dimesional
 structuring; contrary to the conventional view of it not.
 
 James Rose
 ref:
 Understanding the Integral Universe (1972;1992;1995)
 
 
 _
 Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
 http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/



The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-11 Thread James N Rose
chris peck wrote:
 
 Hi Stephen;
 
 I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.
 Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
 navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it
 moves onwards in a single direction without anyone’s consent. Furthermore,
 where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would appear
 to ensue that just don’t when I traverse the spatial dimensions. I’d appeal
 to an asymmetry between time and space, it is a dimension of sorts, but not
 one that can conceptually swapped with a spatial dimension easily. I don’t
 think the a priori requirements for space will be necessarily the same as
 those for time.


 
Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential pre-bias.
While it is true that we can calculate negative spatial values and not
identify negative temporal values easily - or at all in some cases - let
me describe motion in this alternative way for you:

1. All action/motion is never a single dimension but instead, a net-vector.
(be it spatially evaluated or temporally or both).

therefore, it is quite possible to say that the impression of time
as a positive single vector is masking its composite dimensional structure
which it is really made of.

2. Negative spatial distances are calculation illusions, usable only because
we can visually identify a sequence reversal and label the suquences
alternatively - even though - in a relativistic universe, ALL actions and
traversals of 'distance' are and can only be done ... positively.
Negative dimension values are conditional computational handwavings.

And again, even spatial traversals are net-vectors.  A body in true motion
through space is ALWAYS in a positive net-vector; the same as 
presumptively ascribed only to time.

Therefore, Time can and undoubtably does have, internal dimesional 
structuring; contrary to the conventional view of it not.

James Rose
ref:
Understanding the Integral Universe (1972;1992;1995)



Re: What do you lose if you simply accept...

2005-05-20 Thread James N Rose
Russell Standish wrote:
 
 On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:29:33AM -0700, James N Rose wrote:
  I would like to gather everyone's attention to point to
  an essential conceptual error that exists in the current
  debating points of this topic, which in fact has been
  an egregious error in logic for the past 2500 years,
  ever since Plato.
 
   .  . . .   .  .   . .   . 

  'color' - that which we first-order associate -with- apple, exists -solely-
  in that region -outside and beyond- ... where 'apple' does not exist.  By
  sheer rigid definition of 'existence' - and logical definitions re 'sets' -
  apple and 'color' are and always must be -mutually exclusive-, with no Venn
  intersection at all.
 
  Conclusions:
 
  1. No entity is 'complete' in and of itself; entities are completed only
  in co-presence of external environmentals.
 
  2. Systems and entities -will have- qualia that exist (emergently) from
  I-Thou relations which they may not be internally aware of, or be self
  appreciative of, nor the impacts of these qualia on their 'self'.
 
  First and Third frames of reference can never be identical, and
 
  'exhibition of qualia' versus 'access to qualia for feedback purposes'
  are quite different things.
 
  Cybernetic secondary connections 'smooth' and blur this relationship
  of being.
 
 
  (there is more, but I don't have time at the moment to continue; sorry
  to do a 'fermat', but I'll write again, if anyone cares to explore this
  thread after this posting today)
 
  Jamie Rose
  19 May 2005
 
 Agreed that colour is not a characteristic of an object in itself. How
 does this impact on the debate, however?


Russell,

Realize first that you just easily and aggreably opted to completely negate
Platonic 'real v. ideal' as a flawed logic.  Identification of 'essential
qualia' is no longer an a priori valid 'given'.  By next logical extension
of this de-validation, which qualia - assigned to an entity by way of
external evaluation of the entity - represent qualia which the entity
functions on immediately and intimately because the entity internally
has an information link to it?

The school prank of putting a secretly taped sign on a friends back
saying 'kick me'  ..  the conscious performance of the student -excludes-
a qualia which the environmental world identifies -with- the 
student-with-sign.

A description of a system, and a system in and of itself, can never and
will never map perfectly one to one and on to.

QED

Conclusions:
 
   1. Initial condition alternatives result in alternate eventstream outcomes.
   2. Alternate information sets preclude precision cloning, 
   performances, decision gates.
   3. Conscious is not perfectly transferrable.

Jamie



Re: What do you lose if you simply accept...

2005-05-19 Thread James N Rose
I would like to gather everyone's attention to point to
an essential conceptual error that exists in the current 
debating points of this topic, which in fact has been
an egregious error in logic for the past 2500 years,
ever since Plato.

Recent postings cite:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 
 Jonathan Colvin wrote:
 
 [quoting Stathis]
  My curiosity could only be satisfied if I were in fact the
  duplicated system myself; perhaps this could be achieved if I
  became one with the new system by direct neural interface. I
  don't have to go to such lengths to learn about the new
  system's mass, volume, behaviour, or any other property, and
  in *this* consists the essential difference between 1st person
  and 3rd person experience. You can minimise it and say it
  doesn't really make much practical difference, but I don't
  think you can deny it.
 
 I can deny that there is anything special about it, beyond the difference
 between A): *a description of an apple*; and B): *an apple*. I don't think
 anyone would deny that there is a difference between A and B (even with
 comp
 there is still a difference); but this essential difference does not seem
 to have anything in particular to do with qualia or experience.
 
 Jonathan Colvin
 
 Can the description of the apple, or bat, or whatever meaningfully include
 what it is like to be that thing?
 
 --Stathis Papaioannou
 

In 1996 at Towards a Science of Consciousness (Tucson) I presented
several exhibits, each one highlighting some specific relational qualia
of existence in isolation, and identifying each/all in reagrd to a
potential single holistic description of being -and- performances of
being.

The one that has bearing here, was simply an apple - inside a black box
which no light could enter, until the box was opened and photons could
reach the surface of the apple.

The discussion point went something like this:  In contradistinction to 
the 2500 years old 'definition' of self and completeness set forth by
Plato in his discussions of 'real' vis a vis 'ideal', notice is heregiven
that the apple inside the closed box is - ideally - an entity which 
is without color ... absolutely and always - even though weak-logic
presumes and assigns color 'to' things and entities, de facto.

The full existential extent and outer-bound limit of the apple goes
-only- up to BUT NOT BEYOND its physical manifestation; in this case
in entity: its skin.  Where skin -ends-, apple .. -ends- and does 
not 'exist'.

However,

'color' - that which we first-order associate -with- apple, exists -solely-
in that region -outside and beyond- ... where 'apple' does not exist.  By
sheer rigid definition of 'existence' - and logical definitions re 'sets' -
apple and 'color' are and always must be -mutually exclusive-, with no Venn
intersection at all. 

Conclusions:  

1. No entity is 'complete' in and of itself; entities are completed only 
in co-presence of external environmentals.

2. Systems and entities -will have- qualia that exist (emergently) from
I-Thou relations which they may not be internally aware of, or be self 
appreciative of, nor the impacts of these qualia on their 'self'.

First and Third frames of reference can never be identical, and   

'exhibition of qualia' versus 'access to qualia for feedback purposes'
are quite different things.

Cybernetic secondary connections 'smooth' and blur this relationship
of being.


(there is more, but I don't have time at the moment to continue; sorry
to do a 'fermat', but I'll write again, if anyone cares to explore this
thread after this posting today)

Jamie Rose
19 May 2005



Re: ... cosmology? KNIGHT KNAVE

2004-07-22 Thread James N Rose
Bruno,

Nice story and game depiction; it does help - somewhat - to explain
a more expansive generalization of 'decidability' ..the bedrock on
which 'logic' (at least for the traditional understanding of that term)
relies.

Global consistency  'permits'  decidability  'which permits'  logic.

But there are prefaces to -those- relations.  And direct indication
thereby that consistency is 'necessary' but not alone 'sufficient'
to arise 'decision', and then 'logic'.

Case:  have your student place the call. but the native answers in 
cantonese ; or, doesn't know the significance of the device called
'phone' and thinks it just an interesting noise-maker.

A 'consistency' of co-presence would exist in such a universe, but
not a 'requisite interaction' rule.   

Yet a 'logic of co-existence' -would- exist _strong enough and pervasive
enough_ to accomodate co-presence -with- 'involvement and no involvement'
simultaneously.

So .. first there must be a:

global consistency  'which permits'  decidability AND non-decidability

before you can generate the option sub-path ..

Global consistency  'permits'  decidability  'which permits'  logic.



Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute




Re: [issues] Re: Is the universe computable

2004-01-20 Thread James N Rose
Calm, Steve, calm.  :-)  Remember my comment the
other evening:  It is the appropriate moment in 
human thought to change the definitions of
'objective' and 'subjective'.

Implementation is the 'subjective'.  Relationship
need not be.  In fact, relationship is necessarily
-intangible-, but -is- the object of any search
for 'the objective'.

That 'relationship' is made explicit via implementation
does not detract from its purity of specification .. its
'objectivity'.

Nor is the objectivity of a 'relationship' diminished
by the fact that relationship can only be explore, examined,
or empirically specified, except via subjective 'instantiation'.

These simultaneous aspects of reality/being are superposed
with one another.  Both present even as they are mutually
distinguishable.

This takes 'objectivity' to an independent level of
identification, beyond any potential for anomaly, for
variation; immune to perturbation and noise.

It finally allows us to consiliently accomodate
'subjective' truths with objective basese.
Objectivity is the intangible and uncorruptable
'relations', rules, and laws, of being and performance.

Subjectivity is all the necessary examples and instantiations
-by which- we can and do 'know' the 'relations', rules, and
laws, of being and performance.

Jamie Rose
MetaScience Academy. Japan.
Ceptual Institute. USA.






Stephen Paul King wrote:
 
 Dear Hal,
 
 A theorem doesn't weigh anything, and neither does a computation.
 
 Nice try but that is a very smelly Red Herring. Even Conway's Life can
 not exist, even in the abstract sense, without some association with the
 possibility of being implemented and it is this Implementation that I am
 asking about.
 
 Let us consider Bruno's beloved Arithmetic Realism. Are we to believe
 that Arithmetic can be considered to exist without, even tacitly, assuming
 the possibility that numbers must be symbolic representable? If they can
 be, I strongly argue that we have merely found a very clever definition for
 the term meaninglessness.
 
 I beg you to go directly to Turing's original paper discussing what has
 become now know as a Turing Machine. You will find discussions of things
 like tape and read/write head. Even if these, obviously physical,
 entities are, as you say, by definition within a universe and that such
 universes can be rigorously proven to be mathematical entities, this
 only strengthens my case: An abstract entity must have a possibility of
 being physically represented, even if in a Harry Potter Universe, to be a
 meaningful entity. Otherwise what restrains us from endless Scholastic
 polemics about how many Angels can dance on the head of a Pin and other
 meaningless fantasies.
 
 The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
 implementation is not reducible to the idea that Algorithms (or Numbers, or
 White Rabbits, etc.) can exist without some REAL resources being used in
 their implementation (and maybe some kind of thermodynamics).
 
 BTW, have you read Julian Barbour's The End of Time? It is my opinion
 that Julian's argument falls flat on its face because he is making the very
 same mistake: Assuming that his best-matching scheme can exists without
 addressing the obvious status that it is an NP-Complete problem of
 uncountable infinite size. It is simply logically impossible to say that the
 mere postulation of a Platonia allows for the a priori existence of the
 solution to such a computationally intractable problem.
 
 Kindest regards,
 
 Stephen
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:39 PM
 Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
 
  At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
 
  Where and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
  for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
  first cause question?
 
  Anything physical is by definition within a universe (by my definition,
  anyway!).  What are the physical properties of a system in our universe?
  Mass, size, energy, electrical charge, partical composition, etc.  If we
  at least hypothetically allow for the existence of other universes,
  wouldn't you agree that they might have completely different physical
  properties?  That they might not have mass, or charge, or size; or that
  these properties would vary in some bizarre way much different from how
  stable they are in our universe.
 
  Consider Conway's 2-dimensional Cellular Automota universe called Life.
  Take a look at http://rendell.server.org.uk/gol/tm.htm, an amazing
  implementation of a computer, a Turing Machine, in this universe.
  I spent a couple of hours yesterday looking at this thing, seeing how
  the parts work.  He did an incredible job in putting all the details
  together to make this contraption work.
 
  So we can have computers in the Life universe.  Now consider this: what
  is the mass of this computer?  

Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation

2003-11-06 Thread James N Rose
If we are now observing acceleration,
that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
and then a huge reduction in acceleration.

So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
momentum?  Or countered it?  

Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which
is out there 'increasing acceleration' is also 
responsible for the phase of 'decelerating
acceleration' that had to have been in place 
prior to the current cosmological era??!

James



Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread James N Rose
Thanks, Matt, yes it helps.  It helps me see that the
math becomes problematic under the interpretations.

Arbitrary constraints tint and skew what comes out.

James



Matt King wrote:
 
 Hello Stathis and James,
 
In answer to the first question, does the multiverse inlude perfect
 duplications of entire universes, the answer is yes with a but.  Any
 particular universe in it can be sliced up in any number of ways, just
 as 1 = (1/n + 1/n + 1/n. n times) for any value of n.   This gives
 rise to a picture of a very large number of universes differentiating
 from each other as time moves forward, as opposed to the more
 conventional picture of a single universe splitting as time moves
 forward.  Both pictures seem to be mathematically valid and mutually
 compatible, IMHO.  The fact that at a particular instant any given
 universe has multiple possible futures means that any given universe can
 be considered as a sum of however many identical copies of that universe
 you like.
 
[snip]
 
In the plenitude theories of Max Tegmark and others, the requirement
 that other universes share the same laws of physics and the same big
 bang is relaxed.
 
Hope this helps,
 
  Matt.




Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread James N Rose
Dear Federico,

In a mature and open 'exploring community',
especially where people of different language
backgrounds are concerned about coming together,
the responsibility for extracting meaning and
ideas falls as much on the readers as the writers.

Syntax and grammer 'perfection' are secondary to
the ideas and meanings shared, which you accomplish
very very well.

James





Federico Marulli wrote:
 
 I have just read my last message and I have realized
 there were a lot of mistakes dealing with the English
 language. I'm sorry for that, I hope to
 improve my writing skills as soon as possible.
 
 Federico



Re: HARDY and Mathematical versus Physical Reality

2003-10-24 Thread James N Rose
[Bruno, please forward this to FoR as I am only
on e-l at the moment]


Dear Bruno,

Thank you for citing Hardy, and your other remarks as well.

The anchor which mathematics provides versus physics
is 'consistency' of (to pirate a term from consciousness
research) 'qualia'.  Physics at the moment requires two
or more distinct and mutually exclusive types of qualities
or notions in order to descriptively capture all the events,
behaviors, and observations known.  Not so with math.
Relational qualia is singularly consistent in mathematics.

And it is this pandemic language, versus physic's plurality
of languages, which makes math reality seem 'realer' than 
physics.

I think that is about to change, if it hasn't already.

Mathematics also displays breaks in consistency.  More subtle
ones than the dichotomy of quantum vs continuum qualia, but
present none the less.

Consider commutative vs non-commutative operations; Abelian
vs non-Abelian.  Each is valid.  Each produces valid relationships
in math, many with correlates in physical reality.  Each
generates locally consistent patterns and numeration.  But each
is only a piece of the coordinated whole.  

So in a sense, math has its internal 'language' diversity
as well.

I am exploring an extension of this realization. There
are states and concordances of information where information
- strict mathematical specificity - changes and transforms.

There are equation forms which generate the seemingly 
nonsensical 'identity' of 1=0.  Which challenge common sense 
and prior mathematical specificity.  But, this is no
stranger than Boolean or Cantorian rules versus standard
mathematical rules {eg:  a+a=a  versus n+n=2n}.

Regarding your conjectures, I would point out to you that
you ought to be considering a simpler standard .. the meaning
behind the geometric inability to deal with axiomatic
inclusion and proving of 'parallel' sets; rather than approaching
the issue through symmetry/assymetry, reversible/irerversible.

The issue behind the parallel-sets problem is: how
can co-existence be proven when the condition to be specified
is non-connectivity and non-communication between sets?

or reversed

Can co-existence generate conditions that perfectly
restrict operant functioning between some of its
subsets/members?

or rephrased

what are all the possible relations and causal
strings of included-middle with/and excluded-middle?

James Rose



Re: Reality of i (was Something for Platonists)

2003-06-17 Thread James N Rose

Matt King wrote [everything-list] 6/16/03:
 
 Hi James,
 
 I don't want to get into the Platonism 
 discussion as I'm not of a philosophical bent,
 but I would like to start discussion based on
 something you wrote in one of your posts on
 the subject:
 
 James N Rose wrote:
 
  The square root of a negative number has no physical
  reality (or so it is presumed, because no abject
  examples have yet been shown/proven) but it has a most
  definite platonic ideal existence.

   The whole square root of a negative number 
 question boils down to the reality/unreality of
 a single number, the square root of minus one,
 usually called i, as every other negative 
 square root can be expressed as a real multiple
 of this imaginary number.  Now, I'd be the first
 to accept that you can't have i oranges, so i 
 does not have the same kind of physical reality
 as the natural numbers, or even the positive real
 numbers.
 
  However, you also cannot have zero oranges, 
 or minus five oranges for that matter.  So perhaps
 it is no less physically real than the
 negative numbers or zero.
 
 I'd also like to say that in a great deal of
 physics, the imaginary number is indispensible,
 at least in doing the math - could this be 
 sufficient evidence to declare it physically real?
 Specifically, if we have used i to predict the
 result of a particular experiment, and we find
 that our prediction and the result match, is this
 evidence for the physical reality of i?
 
 I'm reminded of looking out of the window
 to watch the trees move, and concluding that 
 it is windy, even though I haven't seen or felt
 the wind...
 
 Just a thought,
 
 Matt.
 



Matt,

Thank you for your remarks, question.

First, let me say I am not wholly antagonistic
to platonic notions, except as the current
(last 2500 year) rendering of it has, IMHO,
a severe deficiency.  What is absent is clear
linkage between the Universal and the Real.

For I do not see a coherent consistent compatible
universe existing without that connection/relation.

So I have spent all my cognitive life working
to identify where and how that requisite is
present .. and to meld the domains.

Essentially, the Universal has to be isomorphic
with Cantorian transfinities and Potentia -- 
including the emergent.  It must surpass Godelian
restrictions and the entire domain of information
possibilities must be 'self'-accessible even if
local bounds or limits are noted, used or identified.

In line with your question, it is time to re-conceive
'real'.

The wind and the referential cognition of wind
are both real and informationally co-relevant
-- and -- communicatively involved.  That 
'influence' might be limited to a preferential
direction, is distinct from the information 
access.  And so it is the information access
among domains that I am most interested in and see
as being of superior importance in any cosmology.

Since Plato and Aristotle, humanity has been myopically
concerned with 'association' -- restrictively understood
as 'causality'.  With all the attendant disconnects:
form from function, materiality from process, mind
from matter, relations from relations, intentionality
from mechanisms from conditions from implementation
necessities.

We struggle to put all these back together, but like
the characters in Waiting for Godot, we carry
hampering concepts and weighted baggage of old
ideations which are more problem than utility.

For the universe and whatever aspects of it one
considers (material, energectic, aetheric)  to
function so pervasively consistently demands
not just certain absolute rules of performance,
but absolute communicative relational association:
communicative architecture and access and enactiveness
throughout all possible timespace of the architecture,
access and enactiveness.

Which means -- that Platonia, that 'i' [sqrt -1],
that QM and continuum, and all dimensional realms
have relation (communicative access) with attendant
morphings of information (codification transfers).

Designating the codification transfers relations
is the plateau we have reached.  Relating Universal
to Real.  Specifying that in a certain dimensional
frame of reference the [sqrt -1] -is- real, even
if it doesn't attain to qualifying as real in the
dimensional frame of reference our perception/cognition
operates in.  But the overarching communicative
process~architecture of Being allows the information
of one frame-of-reference to transcribe/transduce
to others, and so, what is 'unreal' to our
tactile criteria is still accessible relevant information,
just restricted to the form it can exist in our reality
as.

No big deal.  We just have to let go of the bigotted
bias that 'our' frame of reference has to be 'the'
frame of reference.

This led me to a strange but unavoidable conclusion
re certain aspects of 'information'.  Nearly without
exception, there isn't a scientific mind on this
planet that doesn't 'understand' that 'different
is different

Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose
Joao wrote:

Speaking as a devout Platonist ... 


About 7 years ago I realized there was
a severe contradiction resident in modern 
concepts of Being.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have
established a condition-of-knowledge which seem
to challenge if not negate Platonic thought.

I'd like to get your ideas on the following:

Consider the Platonic Ideal of 'apple'.  I can 
almost guarantee that your mind immediately came
up with an image of 'apple' including stem, colorful
skin, other qualities, etc.

As Godel designated -system internally consistent-,
we might at first presume the two depictions to be
isomorphic.

But I submit that per Godel, 'apple' includes only 
those characteristics or qualia evident up to 
but not external to the bounds of the system,
whatever they may be.  

That being the case, 'color' of any existential
ideal-apple exists only in the out-space where the
platonic apple per se -does not-.

Therefore 'color' and 'apple' - in any platonic sense -
must be mutually exclusive.  Which seems to press the
2500 year old standing impression of 'ideal apple'.

Another discontinuity.

If you climb Mount Everest and sit down on it,
does the mountain now satisfy the platonic ideal
of chair? 


Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

James Rose



Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose


Joao Leao wrote:
 
 James N Rose wrote:
 
  Joao wrote:
 
  Speaking as a devout Platonist ...
 
  About 7 years ago I realized there was
  a severe contradiction resident in modern
  concepts of Being.
 
  Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have
  established a condition-of-knowledge which seem
  to challenge if not negate Platonic thought.
 
 That just happens to be totally orthogonal to what
 Godel himself expressed as his own opinion on the
 consequence of his theorem... Godel is possibly
 the most consequent of all XXcent. self professed
 Platonists.
 
 
  I'd like to get your ideas on the following:
 
  Consider the Platonic Ideal of 'apple'.  I can
  almost guarantee that your mind immediately came
  up with an image of 'apple' including stem, colorful
  skin, other qualities, etc.
 
  As Godel designated -system internally consistent-,
  we might at first presume the two depictions to be
  isomorphic.
 
 Why?  Is there any reason why my apple need to
 fit a consistent system of appleness? I don't think so...
 
  But I submit that per Godel, 'apple' includes only
  those characteristics or qualia evident up to
  but not external to the bounds of the system,
  whatever they may be.
 
  That being the case, 'color' of any existential
  ideal-apple exists only in the out-space where the
  platonic apple per se -does not-.
 
  Therefore 'color' and 'apple' - in any platonic sense -
  must be mutually exclusive.  Which seems to press the
  2500 year old standing impression of 'ideal apple'.
 
 Not at all. You are confusing images with things and
 forgetting a good deal of what platonism is about. An
 apple, this apple, the apple I am thinking of, all partake
 the form of appleness whatever that is. The color of
 this apple, the color of that bird, this red, the red you
 are thinking of right now, all partake of the form of
 redness in the Patonic world. There is no contradition
 here. There are no forms here!

You have glossed over the issue I was establishing.

Godel pretty well specified a disconnect between
certain ceptualizations - uniform agreements 
even with varieties involved - in that specificities
are subject to alteration upon inclusion of 
external (not currently available) information.

Platonic thought - to satisfy the extensive nature and
the inclusive scope you indicate in your remarks -
requires that all possibilities, all variants, all
potentia, be taken into consideration, in order
to (asymptotically) such ideal of whatever designated.

Or, to restrict it according to the regulations
you jibe about in remarks further along in your
reply (a table can be sat upon, but it is not a 
'chair').

The ideality of 'apple' includes the former condition
of being 'ideal' only when the totality of environments
are included - the exterior realm which Godel says
can -never- be holistically involved in any ultimate
_experiential_ sense.

So if Godel counted himself a Platonist, he necessarily
had to conclude that no platomic ideal (conditions-of-knowledge)
could have any relevance with the material (conditions-of-being)
since there would be no way to secure - permanently
and reliantly - what 'ideal' would be expansive enough,
and, because any window to 'ideal' cannot help but
be rooted in (conditions-of-being) .. the expeiential.

I.e., there would be no way of knowing if any
'knowing' a mind held had any real mappings
with a purported 'ideal'.

My personal arguement with Platonism is
that Plato never took into consideration
the requisite conditions relative to information
conveyance and the issues established by
Heisenberg and quantum mechanics.  Not only will
information influence and alter other information,
but there is unavoidable connectivity in order
for there to be information conveyance (knowability)
in the first place.

There is mechanism and process involved (one of Plato's
prime beliefs).  In fact, all-is-process.  

There is no one thing, no some thing, nor such a thing 
whatsoever. But it is from motion or being carried along, 
from change and from admixture with each other that everything
comes to be that which we declare to ‘be’ (speaking
incorrectly), for nothing ever ‘is’, but always becomes.
  (Plato, Theaitetos 152d) 


In a sense, in fact, to be true to such an extreme 
idealism - unless one were willing to compromise -
if there 'no such a thing whatsoever', then there 
would be no corresponding 'ideal' ... whatsoever.

But, to keep to the argument, even in the Cave,
intervening air and lightwaves are conveyors
of ideal to real .. which must perforce have
relation with both the ideal realm and the real
realm .. or whatever conveyor you might agree
correlates with the physical indicia of waves.


 
 
  Another discontinuity.
 
  If you climb Mount Everest and sit down on it,
  does the mountain now satisfy the platonic ideal
  of chair?
 
 No, why should it? The form of a chair is not the
 form of anything I sit on!  You can sit on a table
 or on your head

Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose
Joao,

:-)   of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
cited or citable.

The 'ideal' as posited - and presumptively relied 
upon by many post facto - is so separated from
'being' and the encounters through which both
being and knowing are instantiated, that it
would not be unreasonable to populate 'ideal'
with all sorts of non-possible existentials.

You can't tie 'ideal' to the spectrum of alternative
but satisfactory exemplars, and also say there
are no requisite relational aspects of the
properties or qualia resident in the different
domains.

Otherwise, you state:

The Platonic World only contains true mathematical
statements, not all the variety that you seem to 
believe it requires. In other words it contains 
presummably less information than most textbooks
of mathematics which include unproved conjectures etc...

So the platonic world cannot/doesnot contain the
ideal called 'unproved/unprovable conjectures?

The Platonic World contains -less- information
than the instantiated world?  Exactly how far
can you extend that argument?..to the point
that it contains -no- information of relevance?

It seems that the Platonic World, as intriguing
and frame-of-reference shifting as it may be --
getting people to perceive beyond the immediacy
of encounters and the presumptions of observation --
is as flighty and weak as the 'real world' it decries.

You hold to it because it infers an eternality that
is very appealing, an opiate to the fear of oblivion
and total absolute negation of meaning concurrent that
comes with complete non-existence (even as potentia).  

I place it on no such special pedestal.  It is not
a holy ineffible.  If it can't be correlated with
being, then there is empty value, use or meaning in
presumptively claiming there is - and yet  - denying
processive ways of having such 'correlations'.

I deduce that platonic notions are nice sophomoric
ramblings, some interesting relations are enunciated,
but in the long run there are more important realite's.

James



Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose


Joao Leao wrote:
 
 James N Rose wrote:
 
  Joao,
 
  :-)   of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
  but, he was also unaware of the importance
  that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
  are resident in any information relation situation,
  as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
  and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
  cited or citable.
 
 I still have no idea of what you are talking about!
 Real communication involvements may be very
 important, but we are not having one here...


Because there is no way you can leave your
mindset, see beyond it.  You think it is 
the ultimate. Se la vie.  


  The 'ideal' as posited - and presumptively relied
  upon by many post facto - is so separated from
  'being' and the encounters through which both
  being and knowing are instantiated, that it
  would not be unreasonable to populate 'ideal'
  with all sorts of non-possible existentials.
 
 Again, I don't know what you mean by encounters
 through which both being and knowing are instantiated.
 You can populate all you want but don't blame it on Plato!
 He was rather economical on his encounters...

h. Well, -you- and other platonist are quote
happy populating it with what -you- are comfortable
with.  Then shut the door and consider no more.
(Especially anomalies or discontiuities left unresolved)

  You can't tie 'ideal' to the spectrum of alternative
  but satisfactory exemplars, and also say there
  are no requisite relational aspects of the
  properties or qualia resident in the different
  domains.
 
 Sorry. You again seem to be confuse the domain of
 your thoughs with the Platonic Realm. There are no
 qualia in Platonia so they need not share relational
 aspects with any other domains, as you insist...
 Forms are Universals not properties.

If there are no qualia but there are universals --
which cannot be identified except via qualia --
something is awry.

If the Ideal need not share relational
aspects with any other domains
then that right off the bat kills
any statements attempted between Ideal and Real.

Nice trick, Joao.
 
  Otherwise, you state:
 
  The Platonic World only contains true mathematical
  statements, not all the variety that you seem to
  believe it requires. In other words it contains
  presummably less information than most textbooks
  of mathematics which include unproved conjectures etc...
 
  So the platonic world cannot/doesnot contain the
  ideal called 'unproved/unprovable conjectures?
 
 I am sure you will agree that those cannot be ideal
 in the platonic world or in any other, if you reflect
 for a second. In an ideal world we prove or refute
 our conjectures. The fact that we can't do that in our
 world should show you how corrupt it is...

strike 'conjectures'; substitute 'presumptions' (weakly founded)

A such purety.;

No sir, this world is not a -corruption-, it is an 
exploration of possibilities.  Your own words betone 
a straightjacket spiritualism that comes straight
out of western bibilical theology, not Greek 
adventures in thought.

  The Platonic World contains -less- information
  than the instantiated world?  Exactly how far
  can you extend that argument?..to the point
  that it contains -no- information of relevance?
 
 I don't think that is the case but it
 could be! Have you read Tegmark's paper on the
 Theory of Everything as and Ensemble Theory?

I debate from -my- years of logos.  I am courteous
to allow all possibilities -- until they are
carried to a limit and proved, or, shown problematic.

  It seems that the Platonic World, as intriguing
  and frame-of-reference shifting as it may be --
  getting people to perceive beyond the immediacy
  of encounters and the presumptions of observation --
  is as flighty and weak as the 'real world' it decries.
 
 Not quite! The flightiness is yours and mine. The
 Platonic World is One and the Same for Eternity!

Maybe so.  I probably confuse your depictions as
accurate on Plato.

One point being .. there may be no 'eternity'.

Oooops, sorry, that's one of your hallowed
anchor principles.  Not to be challenged.
Damn, I slipped again, phooey.
 
  You hold to it because it infers an eternality that
  is very appealing, an opiate to the fear of oblivion
  and total absolute negation of meaning concurrent that
  comes with complete non-existence (even as potentia).
 
 Or with complete Existence and absolute Potentia
 and the only certainty of meaning. You keep trying
 to escape into the Hegelian World instead.

h, there you go again, meaning.  You 
keep talking about connected values and also
insist there are no connections to enact 'meaning'
concurrently.  I'm not escaping anywhere in your
A=A=notA = nothing universe.  It doesn't  ... 'exist'
(reality, not pun, intended).

 
  I place it on no such special pedestal.  It is not
  a holy ineffible.  If it can't be correlated with
  being, then there is empty value, use or meaning in
  presumptively claiming there is - and yet

Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose


Joao Leao wrote:
 
 James N Rose wrote:
 
  Joao Leao wrote:
  
   James N Rose wrote:
  
Joao,
   
:-)   of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
cited or citable.
  
   I still have no idea of what you are talking about!
   Real communication involvements may be very
   important, but we are not having one here...
 
  Because there is no way you can leave your
  mindset, see beyond it.  You think it is
  the ultimate. Se la vie.
 
 It is written C'est la Vie! -- but let us leave it
 at this, before we are back in kindergaten...
 
 -Joao
 

You're welcome .. for not pointing out your
typos and minor spelling faux pas's (did I get 
that one right?).

Let's see, one version of derision - cloaked
in academic references - is valid, but, direct
enunciation that the debating opponent refuses
to consider alternative frames of reference
and association -- is not.

Another aspect of the unrelated-but-relevant
Ideal world, I take it.

BTW, I was quite happy platforming at
Second Year and moving onward; thought
you were up to it as well.

Sorry for having presented as so abrasive
right off the bat, but I there is no other
way to at least get the attention for the
entrenched non-apologist for one system of
thought or another and really place a dent
in the somnambulent inertia one typically
mires down into.

Refreshed language gets things moving where 
established rhetoric tends to reinforce
home-field advantage; more difficult for
the challenger, don't you know!  :-)

Anyway, to remove the garbage and re-post
the nitty gritty:

  If there are no qualia but there are universals --
  which cannot be identified except via qualia --
  something is awry.

  If the Ideal need not share relational
  aspects with any other domains
  then that right off the bat kills
  any statements attempted between Ideal and Real.

These are not superfluous issues.  They challenge
the consistency and fundamentals of Platonism.
(They challenge the paradigm, not you its champion.)

James



Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-16 Thread James N Rose
Joao Leao wrote:

  James N Rose wrote:
 
   If there are no qualia but there are universals --
   which cannot be identified except via qualia --
   something is awry.
 
 Why so? Why can universals only be identified
 via qualia if they are, by definition, what 
 is not reducible to qualia !!!
 

If the Ideal need not share relational
aspects with any other domains
then that right off the bat kills
any statements attempted between Ideal and Real.
 
 What do you mean by statements attempted
 between Ideal and Real?  Give me one such 
 statement and I will let you know...
 
 
  These are not superfluous issues.  They challenge
  the consistency and fundamentals of Platonism.
  
  James
 
 -Joao
 --


An etheric uncorruptable realm is a excellent mythos,
IMHO.  That we act upon and relate to the notion of
it speaks to the fact that it is possible to establish
an authentic relationship with presumed or virtual extants
versus empirical/encounterable extants.

Modern Platonists allow that mathematical entities
carry this quality and allow exploration of relations
that may not have real physical correlates but that
eventually, somewhere somehow, expose relations which
do.

The square root of a negative number has no physical
reality (or so it is presumed, because no abject
examples have yet been shown/proven) but it has a most
definite platonic ideal existence.

Plato identifies ideals such as Beauty, Justice,
not just the essences of chair and other 'things'.
And these -seem- to be requisitely a priori to
instantiation, and so, eternal if also intangible.

In support of platonism, one correlate would be like
trying to educe 'wet' from the equations of QM and
atomic interactions.  First, most would say it cannot
be done (albeit that no one has taken the time to 
define or make argument doing so).  Second, the language
of QM doesn't transduce to 'wet' or similar qualia.

Yet such qualia would not occur if the primitives
(QM) didn't have the relational properties that 
included eventual conditions and relations which
could be labeled as and qualify as this or that
'emerged' qualia.

Is 'wet' a platonic realm in the QM tier of existence?

Is QM a shadow of instantiated 'wet' which is in turn
an instance of the true extant/ideal 'Wet'? 

So is 'wet' an invisible inherent aspect
of QM interactions?

There is currently no way to transduce and
correlate meaningful information between
tiers of systems.  But that does not mean it
will never be accomplished, or as correlate,
that Universals will always stand as some
separate perfection.

The universe is an holistic operant.  Any aspect,
meaning or pertinance must have an information
relationship with other aspects of existence.

Between cannot instantiate except in conjunction
with reals.  But instantiate it does.  It is an
intangible, a relation, even as it can be subject
and measurement.

The Platonic 'ideals' - all of them (however anyone
perceives them) are -relations-, and are perforce
transcribable information and identifable coordinations,
in spite of whether anyone has made effort to clarify 
the associations and relations which coordinate to 
the identifiable attractors that qualify as 'ideal'.

There is and will be shown to be a way to de-mystify
Ideal.

James



Infinite computing;self-organization

2003-02-11 Thread James N Rose


Here is a line of reasoning that is a frontal
assault on extant (inadequate) AI paradigms
conjoined with the question of 'self-organization'
AND
shining a light of awareness on -the important-
Turing/computation question that .. comes AFTER ..
the Halting Problem:

Self-organization .. which themata includes
inside-to-out emergent productivity .. AND 
COVALENTLY .. sensitive adaptability to/with 
any/all external effective information and 
energy .. is one on one isomorphic with the
one important behavior that comes after any
resolution of a 'halting problem' - and therefore
supercedes it:

Can a (computational) system which 'halts' 
[for any reason whatsoever] .. restart or 
re-initiate itself?  Even if to deal with
or process an entirely different question
or computation.

There is no self-organization if there is an absense
of capacity to function sans external inputs.

The Halting Problem is a minor issue compared with
ReActivation Capacity?.

But interestingly, because the question of
ReActivation Capacity subsumes a greater scope
of event space (information) than any given 
instantiation of the Halting Problem, there are
more informational resources that can be brought
to bear on 'the question', so essentially,
the ReActivation Capacity issue is easier to 
answer - in the general, if not in the particular.



Another way of juxtaposing the above questions is to
bring in the relationship: relevance (opportunistic
pertinence).

If a computation would take longer than the age of the
universe .. why would it/anyone bother instantiating the
computation?  It wouldn't just be a waste of energy,
it would be an abuse of it.  And any self-relevant system
worth its own respect wouldn't engage in the effort.

Self-organization - as a global themata - has to include
additionally any and all co-habitation of any possible
emergents coming out of self-organizing events (at and
among any and all tiers of activities).  And such products
must be prior, current and forward, relatable .. in order
for 'self-organization' to be a wholly self-consistent
phenomenon.

Therefore, Halting may or may not occur in given
local event spaces, but, Activation/ReActivation
-will- occur as long as relation and relational relevance
is an a priori priority to 'existence'.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
Feb 10, 2003




Re: Constraints on everything existing

2003-01-20 Thread James N Rose
Jean-Michel Veuillen wrote:

 Then our universe did not exist before there were 
 intelligent observers in it, which is not true.
 
 I think that is better to say that all 
 self-consistent mathematical structures exist.
 To restrict existence to universes containing 
 SASs (self-aware structures) is not only is 
 very cumbersome but leads to contradictions.
 
The stipulation that a universe involves principly,
if not fully, population by SAS's .. could be seen
as a 'restriction'.  However, that only happens when
self-awareness .. as a relationship and property ..
is narrowly defined or acsribed to limited types
of organization(s) within a 'universe'.

If instead, it is a property that is relevant
to the generic class relationship(s), then
self-awareness becomes synonymous with

self-relationship(s).

And when -that- is the dominating and established
characteristic of 'being', then it is natural and
unavoidable .. and complete .. that some degree of
associative awareness is present and operating in
all systems in all universes.

The forms and extents may vary.  The behaviors may
be more cognizable 'in' some instantiations and 
relevant 'to' some instantions, but the core
phenomenon is there none the less, in -all-
instantiations.

Co-relevance.  Where it is only secondary and higher
relations, through which may emerge, and via which
may be instituted .. conditional 'disconnects' ..
such that information is locally blocked and some
parts of the totality de facto exist 'numb' to
other extant 'information'; at least if that
barrier remains intact and not bridged (as is its
potential).  I.e., disparate information might
be accessible if the correct transduction (transform)
arrangements are made, and translations made real.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute




Re: I the mirror

2003-01-20 Thread James N Rose
The ancient Egyptians were the first to identify
'mirror' with first-person experience, some 5000
years ago.

The word ankh means both 'life' and 'mirror'
since full living-reality was what visually
appears represented on the surface of 'mirrors'.

Whether there was 'self-experience' there or not
was another issue; it was sufficient to observe
tht identical 'observable phenomena' were there
in both 'places'.

:-)


Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute




Colin Hales wrote:
 
 Dear Everythingers,
 
 This is a query placed as a result of failing to succeed to find answers
 when googling my way around the place for a very long time (2 years). I am
 about to conclude that a) no such discourse exists or b) that it is
 disguised in a form of physics/math that my searching has not uncovered.
 
 I know it is off-topic but I thought I'd run it by you folk as the most
 eclectic agglomerators of knowledge in the multiverse. Off-list replies
 welcome - keep the noise down and all that.
 
 Q. What branch of science has ascertained the role and status of the image
 in a first person perspective of a mirror? .ie. 'be' the mirror.
 
 The answer 'there ain't one as far as I know' is as acceptable as anything.
 I just need to know what's out there. If there's nothing there then I take
 it I'm in that breezy lonely spot past the front lines of epistemology and
 trundle on assuming (a) above.
 
 Thanks in advance.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Colin Hales




a notation question

2003-01-06 Thread James N Rose
Using standard mathematical notation (not logic notation
per se), is there a way to depict the negative or the
absense of the calculus notion of a real epsilons for
all possible deltas?

That is: calculus presumes that any and all functions
will identify and recognize all partition sizes (aka numbers)
no matter how (infinitessimally) small. 

Is there a way to proportionally or otherwise denote
the state which, during approach the sensitivity of the
function -remains present-, but at which and thereafter, 
sensitivity is precluded .. even though the notation
still enunciates that a relationship is still present,
and, that for the appropriate values, sensitivity
(aka, 'recognition') is present/accessible. ?


I identify this as being a crucial and essential operator
that may be currently absent from the mathematical arsenal
of concept/relations/notations at present.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
January 6, 2003




re WorldSciNet

2003-01-02 Thread James N Rose
Does anyone on-list subscribe to

WorldSciNet?

www.worldscinet.com


I would like to retrieve one article 
without having to be a full subscriber.
Assistance would be appreciated.

Jamie Rose




Is complexity theory anti-reductionist?

2002-12-29 Thread James N Rose
To the ISCE list; cc's to related topic listservs.
==

Dear At et al.,

Consideration is a dual-process, not 'either-or'.

When mapped vis a vis holism that is requisitely true.
The consideration of a 'particular' occurs because
such 'particular' -is a representative member- of the
extended, unvoiced, unspecified set(s) it is resident
and member of, and - and even as -, the cognitive
focus/consideration -process- seemingingly truncates
out and disregards that which is not present and or
not obvious.

Think of it in regard to the field-ground graphic
images used in exploring cognitive psychology.

Do you see the old woman or the young one?  Do you
see the cup or the two faces?  Do you see the individual
torso-figures or do you see the single face?

The whole is implicitly present in -all- those, 
and any, cases under all conditions.  

Simply because one cannot avoid collapsing waves
functions when -participating- interactively with 
existence -- doesn't mean that relationships between
'uncollapsed wave functions' are both/either 
'unaccessable' OR 'un-considerable' ; that such
relations are 'non-existent'.

Not only -must- such relationships exist, but because
the -whole- of existence .. -to be- pandemically, 
exhaustively, whole .. must have universal
consistencies and coherencies (which are 'communcation
properties') that infuse all events and processes and
occurences .. invariantly and without exclusion.

The structure and nature of 'existence' .. persistence
maintainable/maintained during communing relations ..
requires the above conditions and properties.

And it is _those_ conditions~properties that all that
we discuss and consider are representatives of.  It
is the state of existence within which General Systems
ideations voices its eminence.

The holo-relations I've written out above comprise
the existential proposition I have been making for
decades nows, enunciating it as a post-Godel paradigm.
Even in the face of a global community of thinkers
which identifies Godel via his Incompleteness Theorems
as the pinnacle of logic.

The flaw in Godel's logic rests in his trying to
account for information accessiblity that is limited
-after- interaction/wavecollapse/truncation.

When, in point of fact, such i/wc/t cannot even occur
if there is an absence of properties through which
information pandemically -is accessible- with -all-
of its Potentia.  Which means, that the properties
of the whole _supercedes_ any limitiations occurring
as a result of i/wc/t.  Which properties -must existentially
continue and be concurrent with- all events, states and
conditions -after- any such i/wc/t.

The properties of 'the whole' are imminent and inferrable
and discernable even in limited sets.

My Integrity Paradigm has consistently maintained this
extensiveness, as I've presented varieties of notions
to you all over the years.  One issue has been and
still is, very clear:   in order to achieve a unitary
science~logic~wisdom~sensibility about the universe
it will be necessary to step beyond Godel's Incompleteness
Theorems.  His ideas are -not incorrect-.  They are 
-self incomplete-.  They are still synchrontic with the 
universe (by default of the propositions I explicated above),
but they are pre-limiting and deficient to handle the
properties which are now obvious and require -inclusion-
in a universal schemata of being.

To restate it as I've presented it here and elsewhere before:

We -know something- {about the qualities and operant properties}
of realms of existence which we have never -explicitly experienced
or made part of our 'known/established information' set- and
which Godel('s logic) would demand of us that we exclude and
abstain from making -any statements- about.

We 'know something' that Godel would claim that we could
not know and demand we not conversantly include.  We have
real access to information that his Zeno-ic logic would 
restrict us from even acknowledging~recognizing.

Godelian proponents and practioners must re-think their
positions.  If not entirely abandon the Incompleteness 
Theorems as a quaint artifact of logic, explored on the
way to a Univera.


Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
December 29, 2002




Re: Is complexity theory anti-reductionist?

2002-12-29 Thread James N Rose
Stephen Paul King wrote:
 
 Dear Jamie,
 
 I really need to know where you acquired this idea about Goedel It
 is foreign to me! Please cite me a source! I do not understand how we can go
 from a proof that formal models that include arithmetic operations will
 contain statements that are undecidable _within the model_ to this: We
 'know something' that Godel would claim that we could not know and demand we
 not conversantly include.
 No where do I see how Goedel's theorems restrict knowledge in the way
 you describe. I see quite the opposite being proven: that the undecidability
 of statements (within formal models) demands that an infinite hierarchy
 exists of models, meta-models, meta-meta-models, ... where the Truth values
 of the model at level n are decidable in level n+1.


Stephen,

In the above you have just expressed the exact difference
between me and Godel, whether you appreciate it or not.

I depict that information of n+1 are related to and 
decidable in n.

This is a distinct and major difference.

All relations and all potentia are present within
the smallest or most limited cases of existence.

An atom, if it existed as the only extant in a
universe would still be denotable as 'containing'
within its construct, sufficient 'information'
from which to extrapolate all possible existential
events and emergences of all (n+m) possibles.

Even the limitation theorems of Godel.

Which is stronger and more important a state
of being than Godel's hierarchy of '(un)decidables'.

Godel's paradigm -precludes- existential
pragmatic holism, even if it uses deferential
acknowledgement of extended infinities and meta
realms.

Rose's paradigm is native with existential
pragmatic holism and shows the easy and
normal accessibility -among- infinities
and meta realms.


Jamie




Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

2002-12-23 Thread James N Rose
Stephen Paul King wrote:
 
 Dear Wei,
 
 Interleaving.
 
 [SPK]
 
 Yes. I strongly suspect that minds are quantum mechanical. My
 arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if
 minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine,
 i.e. compute, what it is like to be a bat or any other classical mind. I
 see this as implied by the ideas involved in Turing Machines and other
 Universal classical computational systems.
 The no cloning theoren of QM seems to have the right flavor to explain
 how it is that we can not have first person experience of each other's
 minds, whereas the UTM model seems to strongly imply that I should be able
 to know exactly what you are thinking. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, this
 is a the dog did not bark scenario.
 
   What about AIs running on classical computers?
 
 
 [SPK]
 
 It would help us to find out if an AI, running on a classical computer,
 could pass the Turing test. 


To Stephen, et al.,

I strongly urge contemplating a new set 
of criteria to replace the Turing Test.

Suggested reading:

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/evolcons.htm
(1996)

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
Dec 23, 2002




Re: Everything need a little more than 0 information

2002-11-29 Thread James N Rose
Gentlemen (and Ladies, if some be present here),

I offer you a small bit of wisdom and irony,
presented in a bit of humor.  

Statement of vernacular AND mathematical truth:

The universe is an ODD PLACE.  (!)

[i.e., it is imbalanced and -not- fundamentally symmetric]


PROOF:

  -infinity --- [zero] --- +infinity

The symmetric infinities balance and cancel each other
out, leaving an entity~identity having no complement;
an 'odd' remainder.

So, when all is said and done, the universe is 
essentially an 'odd place'.:-))) 

Jamie Rose


ps.  then again, you might want to do what I am
doing: looking to build a more complete mathematics
in which some states of [one] and [zero] are
equal to each other.  !  :-)   jr



Marchal Bruno wrote:
 
   From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
There is no problem is saying that all computations exist in
platonia (or the plenitude). This is a zero information set, and
requires no further explanation.
 
 Stricly speaking I disagree. The expression all computations needs
 Church thesis for example. And Church thesis is a non trivial bag of info.
 But I see where is the point. The all computation set is a zero
 information set, but is not a zero meta-information set, should we say.
 Same for all numbers, all sets You still need to define axiomatically
 numbers or sets.
 There will always be some mysterious entity we need to
 postulate. That is why I postulate explicitely the Arithmetical Realism
 in comp. Too vague Everything could lead to inconsistencies.
 
 Bruno




Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

2002-11-26 Thread James N Rose
Stephen,

Eric is taking the quest to its logical conclusion.
Even Steve Wolfram hints that pure space is the source 
of all instantiation.  So the only question that needs
resolution is specifying the natural of the architecture
of that space - and - identifying how it brings entities
forces, particles into being.  And that requires identifying
the characteristics of that realm of 'could be' .. the one
I've labeled in discussions as Potentia.

Jamie



Stephen Paul King wrote:
 
 Dear Eric,
 
 I like your idea! But how do we reconsile your notion with the notion
 expressed by Russell: