Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Apr 2019, at 19:36, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/2/2019 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> "Analogical rendering" is a perfectly good programming paradigm.
>> 
>> Engineers Develop Analog Computing Compiler 
>> https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/13340/Engineers-Develop-Analog-Computing-Compiler-for-Biological-Simulations-More.aspx
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> "The high-level language of the compiler makes use of differential 
>> equations, which are frequently used to describe biological systems."
>> 
>> "Researchers from MIT have presented a new compiler designed for analog 
>> computers. The compiler, called Arco, takes sets of differential equations 
>> as its input and translates them into circuits in programmable analog 
>> devices."
>> 
> 
> Sounds like old news.  Fifty years ago the Navy built real-time simulations 
> in which air-launched missiles were tested.  They were run on analog 
> computers programed by wiring on big plug boards.  Thirty years ago these 
> were replaced by analog computers which were programmed by digital computers. 


Yes, and that is interesting for practical purpose, but I am not sure this 
would contradict mechanism, nor its immaterialist consequences. It would some 
confusion of level to say so.

If classical mechanics (Newton) was 100% true, then the indexical digital 
Mechanist thesis would already be refuted. But quantum mechanics seems to save 
mechanism from any possible use of non computable element which would be not 
recoverable by the fact that we are run by  “infinitely many” computation.


> 
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> We are bioanalog computers.


I ahem no problem with this. Unless you meant that those bioanalog computers 
are neither Turing emulable, or recoverable from our distribution in arithmetic.


> 
> Stanford creates biological transistors, the final step towards computers 
> inside living cells
> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152074-stanford-creates-biological-transistors-the-final-step-towards-computers-inside-living-cells

That is cool, but a cell, even a prokaryotic cell is already a full complete 
universal machine, in the same sense that the following finite game of life 
pattern is a full complete universal number/machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8AsV7bA94

Such a machine does not need an “infinite tape”, but of course, it needs to be 
able to extend its finite memory indefinitely. Humans too, and that is why we 
have evolved more quickly when using the cave of the wall as extended memory, 
up to papers and … transistors.


Bruno


> 
> DNA Circuits for Analog Computing
> https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
>  
> https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> One day people will be outputs of compilers.
> 
> - pt
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/2/2019 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> "Analogical rendering" is a perfectly good programming paradigm.
>
> *Engineers Develop Analog Computing Compiler *
>
> https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/13340/Engineers-Develop-Analog-Computing-Compiler-for-Biological-Simulations-More.aspx
>
> "The high-level language of the compiler makes use of differential 
> equations, which are frequently used to describe biological systems."
>
> "Researchers from MIT have presented a new compiler designed for analog 
> computers. The compiler, called Arco, takes sets of differential equations 
> as its input and translates them into circuits in programmable analog 
> devices."
>
>
> Sounds like old news.  Fifty years ago the Navy built real-time 
> simulations in which air-launched missiles were tested.  They were run on 
> analog computers programed by wiring on big plug boards.  Thirty years ago 
> these were replaced by analog computers which were programmed by digital 
> computers.  
>
> Brent
>



We are bioanalog computers.

*Stanford creates biological transistors, the final step towards computers 
inside living cells*
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152074-stanford-creates-biological-transistors-the-final-step-towards-computers-inside-living-cells

*DNA Circuits for Analog Computing*
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
 


One day people will be outputs of compilers.

- pt

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/2/2019 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

"Analogical rendering" is a perfectly good programming paradigm.

*Engineers Develop Analog Computing Compiler *
https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/13340/Engineers-Develop-Analog-Computing-Compiler-for-Biological-Simulations-More.aspx

"The high-level language of the compiler makes use of differential 
equations, which are frequently used to describe biological systems."


"Researchers from MIT have presented a new compiler designed for 
analog computers. The compiler, called Arco, takes sets of 
differential equations as its input and translates them into circuits 
in programmable analog devices."




Sounds like old news.  Fifty years ago the Navy built real-time 
simulations in which air-launched missiles were tested.  They were run 
on analog computers programed by wiring on big plug boards. Thirty years 
ago these were replaced by analog computers which were programmed by 
digital computers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 3:19:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Apr 2019, at 20:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>>
>>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly 
>>> relevant for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>>>
>>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something 
>>> (what exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. 
>>> Theologically, it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing 
>>> science.
>>>
>>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do 
>>> not, requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>>>
>>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, 
>>> nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>>>
>>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to 
>>> apparent (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>>> not eliminated). 
>>>
>>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To 
>>> be honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than 
>>> from Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes 
>>> me nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains 
>>> well why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo
>>>
>>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to 
>>> Hardy Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of 
>>> a number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Every programming language has physical semantics 
>>
>>
>> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
>> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. 
>> It is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
>> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond 
>> the terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
>> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
>>
>>
>> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it 
>> can be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
>> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language 
>> cannot see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or 
>> the arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
>> mechanism.
>>
>> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non 
>> computaionalist theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with 
>> actual infinities, a bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some 
>> real numbers and oracles with some infinite precision.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
>> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
>> 

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Apr 2019, at 20:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>> 
>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly relevant 
>> for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>> 
>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something (what 
>> exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. Theologically, 
>> it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing science.
>> 
>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
>> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>> 
>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, nor 
>> eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>> 
>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to apparent 
>> (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>> not eliminated). 
>> 
>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To be 
>> honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than from 
>> Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes me 
>> nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains well 
>> why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo 
>> 
>> 
>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
>> Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a 
>> number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Every programming language has physical semantics
> 
> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. It 
> is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond the 
> terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
> 
> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it can 
> be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language cannot 
> see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or the 
> arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
> mechanism.
> 
> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non computaionalist 
> theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with actual infinities, a 
> bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some real numbers and 
> oracles with some infinite precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
>> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
>> 

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>
>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>>
>>
>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly 
>> relevant for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>>
>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something 
>> (what exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. 
>> Theologically, it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing 
>> science.
>>
>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
>> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>>
>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, 
>> nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>>
>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to 
>> apparent (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>> not eliminated). 
>>
>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To 
>> be honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than 
>> from Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes 
>> me nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains 
>> well why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo
>>
>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to 
>> Hardy Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of 
>> a number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Every programming language has physical semantics 
>
>
> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. 
> It is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond 
> the terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
>
>
>
>
>
> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
>
>
> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it 
> can be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language 
> cannot see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or 
> the arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
> mechanism.
>
> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non 
> computaionalist theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with 
> actual infinities, a bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some 
> real numbers and oracles with some infinite precision.
>
>
>
>
> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429 ] (for IBM's Q computer).
>
>
>
> Same remark. All quantum computers + oracle are simulated in the partial 
> computable part of arithmetic, which (of course?) requires a vaster part of 
> arithmetic to be 

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
> 
> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly relevant 
> for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
> 
> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something (what 
> exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. Theologically, 
> it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing science.
> 
> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many accessible 
> histories at (or below) our substitution level.
> 
> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, nor 
> eliminated, nor duplicated. 
> 
> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost Turing 
> universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we can 
> regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, or 
> not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where energy 
> is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative subcomputation 
> are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to apparent (indexical) 
> breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of “memories”. There are 
> Turing universal group and group have natural mesure theory associated with 
> them, but again, such group must be justified mathematically (and 
> theologically to get the private (first person) parts not eliminated). 
> 
> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To be 
> honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than from 
> Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes me 
> nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains well 
> why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
> between fundamental physics and number theory).
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo 
> 
> 
> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
> Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a 
> number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and classification 
> of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Every programming language has physical semantics

But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and Popper 
made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. It is part 
of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the physical 
proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond the terms 
needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).





> -- which depends on its material computing substrate

That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it can be 
implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the arithmetical 
realm, and anything emulated in that programming language cannot see any 
difference if the original emulator is the physical one or the arithmetical 
one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming mechanism.

If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non computaionalist 
theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with actual infinities, a 
bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some real numbers and oracles 
with some infinite precision.




> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429 ] (for IBM's Q computer).


Same remark. All quantum computers + oracle are simulated in the partial 
computable part of arithmetic, which (of course?) requires a vaster part of 
arithmetic to be studied and get semantics.

Bruno





> 
>  - 

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>
> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>
>
> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly 
> relevant for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>
> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something 
> (what exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. 
> Theologically, it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing 
> science.
>
> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>
> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, 
> nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>
> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to 
> apparent (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
> not eliminated). 
>
> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To 
> be honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than 
> from Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes 
> me nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains 
> well why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo
>
> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
> Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a 
> number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Every programming language has physical semantics -- which depends on its 
material computing substrate -- in addition to (substrate-independent) 
denotational and operational semantics . That includes quantum programming 
languages, like QASM [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429 ] (for IBM's Q 
computer).

 - pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/ 
> 
> 
> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.

That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly relevant for 
the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.

Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something (what 
exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. Theologically, it 
still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing science.

The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many accessible 
histories at (or below) our substitution level.

A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both observation, 
and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a combinatory algebra 
without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the information in y), nor Starling 
S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). 
Information cannot be physically created, nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 

We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost Turing 
universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we can regain 
it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, or not). That 
is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where energy is a constant, 
and computations use no energy, yet relative subcomputation are allowed to make 
relative measurement, leading to apparent (indexical) breaking of the core 
laws, and apparent elimination of “memories”. There are Turing universal group 
and group have natural mesure theory associated with them, but again, such 
group must be justified mathematically (and theologically to get the private 
(first person) parts not eliminated). 

Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the number 
0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To be honest, 
my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than from 
Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes me nervous 
that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the theologian 
(leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the first person 
for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains well why he likes 24 
too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann regularisation). I think 
about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is related to the Monster Group 
and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs between fundamental physics and 
number theory).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo

To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a number. 
That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and classification of 
“orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).

Bruno




> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/

Which language one uses makes a physical difference.

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.