Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 12-nov.-06, à 03:43, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : As I stuff my head with the bird menagerie, and try to see if I need to breed a new bird, I find that EC is best thought of as a form of combinatorics (as you thought, Bruno!). You should use combinators instead of combinatorics because most people will confuse those two very different branches of math. Combinators are just sort of lambda terms without variable. Is there anyone out there who has any intuitions as to which bird(s) would correspond to 'coherence' or 'symmetry breaking'? All eliminators, like the kestrel, introduce some irreversibility in the computations. Duplicators, like the warbler, can break symmetry in their own ways. I find that I must have some sort of 'adjacency' or 'proximity' applicator. Perhaps, with the bird metaphor, I need birds that have selective hearing and hear better those birds that are closer, where 'closer' means 'I can hear you'. Ah ah! I guess you need to type your lambda terms (or the combinators). Then you will be able to benefit from the very extraordinary relation between lambda terms and proofs known as the Curry Howard isomorphism. This is in fashion today and you will find many interesting papers about this on the net. The Curry Howard iso provides also a relation between weak logic and computations. BTW there are more and more genuine quantum lambda calculus, but from the point of view of extracting physics from computations this can be seen as a form of treachery. The most typical models for lambda are cartesian closed category. Actually lambda calculus provides a deep computer science motivation for the whole of category theory, but this is a bit advanced logic perhaps. There are good books by Lambek, Asperti Longo, etc. Also... is there a 'Nothing' or a 'Vanishing' bird? If a 'normal form' completely dissappears to 'Nothing', then its normal form is 'Nothing'. Trying to axiomatise 'Nothing' seems a tad tricky, but I'm getting an idea of what it might be. Kestrelling to a Konstant 'nothing' seems useful but I'm not sure how to formalise it or whether that is the right way to think of it. The confusing difference is between 'doing nothing' and 'being nothing'. There are programming languages which allow the empty program, but to my knowledge this does not make sense in lambda or combinators. I will think about this ... I can't believe what I just wrote, but they are serious questions from a newbie combinatoricist. Patience is required. Sure. Wish you luck. Funny how these things work out. I know it sounds a little obtuse, but I'm going to leave it there for now. If anyone wants a nice 'programmers intro' to Lambda Calc: Michaelson G. 1989. An introduction to functional programming through Lambda calculus. Nice bird intro here: http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/Lambda/ That is good indeed (but not quite standard). There is also the Smullyan pocket book: How to Mock a Mockingbird?. The birdy names of the combinators comes from it. And then the best (because the only one :) intro to combinators on the list: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05920.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05949.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05953.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05954.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05955.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05956.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05957.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05958.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05959.html http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05961.html A summary and a follow up of those post can be found in my last (Elsevier) paper which I should put on my webpage or send to ArXiv.org. (Please, ask me personally a copy if you want a free print quickly). The best textbook on (untyped) lambda calculus remains, imo, the book by Barendregt (North Holland). (If you read it, and if you are not mathematician, please jump over the first chapter which is very difficult and not useful for the beginners). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
I'll take that as a 'no'. Meanwhile I have gone far enough that I think I want to take it elsewhere and publish something. I'll find a local logician and infect them with EC/lambda calc. It's oing to look basically the same: (()()()()) etc There is no end product computation. The act of B-reduction itself is reality. The hard part as I see it is the massive parallelism and embedded the B-reduction in the symbols. EC always ends up reduced back to its origins (which ca ne regarded as 'doing nothing', as opposed to being nothing. EC, as a 'work in progress' at any moment there is, via the original axioms, a casual chain from any () to any other () that is not actually part of any direct B-reduction. This is, in effect virtual matter in the form of virtual computation. It is this virtual computation that forms the potential for the basis of the '1st person' construct. Funny how these things work out. I know it sounds a little obtuse, but I'm going to leave it there for now. If anyone wants a nice 'programmers intro' to Lambda Calc: Michaelson G. 1989. An introduction to functional programming through Lambda calculus. Nice bird intro here: http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/Lambda/ This is not where the original thread started, but I suspect father Ted will forgive me if I halt here for the moment. The game is still afoot, just taking a new more interesting form. I remain keen to do a COMP EC contrast ASAP. Stay tuned to ignore the next episode! :-P Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
As I stuff my head with the bird menagerie, and try to see if I need to breed a new bird, I find that EC is best thought of as a form of combinatorics (as you thought, Bruno!). Is there anyone out there who has any intuitions as to which bird(s) would correspond to 'coherence' or 'symmetry breaking'? I find that I must have some sort of 'adjacency' or 'proximity' applicator. Perhaps, with the bird metaphor, I need birds that have selective hearing and hear better those birds that are closer, where 'closer' means 'I can hear you'. Also... is there a 'Nothing' or a 'Vanishing' bird? If a 'normal form' completely dissappears to 'Nothing', then its normal form is 'Nothing'. Trying to axiomatise 'Nothing' seems a tad tricky, but I'm getting an idea of what it might be. Kestrelling to a Konstant 'nothing' seems useful but I'm not sure how to formalise it or whether that is the right way to think of it. The confusing difference is between 'doing nothing' and 'being nothing'. I can't believe what I just wrote, but they are serious questions from a newbie combinatoricist. Patience is required. :-) Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 10-nov.-06, à 05:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda conversion. Why do you want use the lambda calculus if you don't want use its jargon? The advantage of using some very well known formalism (like LAMBDA, or the combinators) is that you can directly refer to well known theorem in the literature. Of course you have too familiarize yourself with a bit of technical jargon, but lambda calculus is a technical matter, so this was expectable. Perhaps you could use a popular functional programming language like LISP, before moving to the more technical lambda? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 10-nov.-06, ࠰5:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda conversion. Why do you want use the lambda calculus if you don't want use its jargon? It's OK bruno! I only meant I struggle, not that I was not going to use it! I would be silly not to use a well established formalism, as you say. I have so many computer languages wasting space in my poor brain I have trouble squeezing yet another syntax in there and getting it to flow nicely. :-) Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
snip Are you saying that you disallow lambda expression having the shape: (LAMBDA (X) F) with no occurrence of X in F? The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. Put in another way, do you take elimination of information as a primitive like in the usual lambda lambda-K calculus, or do you follow really the original lambda-I calculus of Church. (In term of combinator: do you allows the kestrel K (cf Kxy = y). I am going to try and do it all in the original church calculus because all the job is is a single long string that slowly collapses and the collections of symbols form structures as it does so. All I have to do is instantate. After that, we isolate virtual theorems. After that we construct an occupant of the string that can use virtual theorems to construct a view of the rest of the string. As the string evolves it will be disposing of bits of itself. If this is what you mean by losing information, then that is what is happeneing. There is no end to the 'reduction' involved, except that the string will dissappear. There is no 'result'. It is a rolling process. If you translate the hypostases in lambda-calculus, the third person description allows information elimination, but the comp-physics (third person plural hypostases) normally should not (see my Elsevier paper). There is no computer involved. The string is the computer. The string collapses under its own natural drive to dispose of chunks of itself. What this is as a 'hypostase' I have no idea. The idea is to show subjectivity going on within the string. I have been stuffing my head with lambda calculus. Seems OK. I would suggest you to develop this in a web page or in a pdf, and to refer to it, perhaps. Yeah... symbols aren't so good to manipulate in text. cheers colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 07-nov.-06, à 06:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. Good idea, but note that it is a very general statement. Many theories can be instanciated in lamabda calculus. So all I have to do is roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Are you saying that you disallow lambda expression having the shape: (LAMBDA (X) F) with no occurrence of X in F? Put in another way, do you take elimination of information as a primitive like in the usual lambda lambda-K calculus, or do you follow really the original lambda-I calculus of Church. (In term of combinator: do you allows the kestrel K (cf Kxy = y). If you translate the hypostases in lambda-calculus, the third person description allows information elimination, but the comp-physics (third person plural hypostases) normally should not (see my Elsevier paper). BTW I have already try to explain Church calculus in the list (through their little cousins the combinators), but it is technical ... See: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/ f1342a54d761e296/80e50456bf597ac7? lnk=gstq=combinators+logicrnum=1#80e50456bf597ac7 I would suggest you to develop this in a web page or in a pdf, and to refer to it, perhaps. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
Hi, Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is done I can use Godel's incopmpleteness theorem to show vitual theorems in EC (=virtual matter). Computationally it will be a functional language like Haskell, not an object/state based language, that correcttly depicts how EC works in a cellular automata. But that cellular automata will be having no experiences and I think I can prove it. Remember what I want to do is apply EC to a set of integrative levels in brain material and show its prediction of virtual bosons as the virtual matter of experience. bear with me regards, Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
TEST: resend...some sort of bounce thing happened with the mailer Hi, Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is done I can use Godel's incopmpleteness theorem to show vitual theorems in EC (=virtual matter). Computationally it will be a functional language like Haskell, not an object/state based language, that correcttly depicts how EC works in a cellular automata. But that cellular automata will be having no experiences and I think I can prove it. Remember what I want to do is apply EC to a set of integrative levels in brain material and show its prediction of virtual bosons as the virtual matter of experience. bear with me regards, Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
=== STEP 7: Something from nothing. (the big bang) U(.) = (*) from previous STEP. = (()()()()()()()()()()...()()()()()) There is some need to deal with this issue because it leads to the mathematical drive of EC that we inside see as the second law of thermodynamics. NOTES: 1) The axiom set is one single huge fluctuation (*) which I have previously labelled U and depicted as U(.). 2) The overall 'fluctuation' is the same (a fluctuation!) but different in that it consists of the temporary coherence of a massive collection of individual (). The overall process could really be labeled U( as what is happening is one massive fluctuation followed by a return to 'nothing' where all the () disperse. In terms of physics you could call this a single massive 'symmetry breaking' event caused by a single massive coherence. 3) At the initial point (big bang) there is no structure in U(.) other than the initial coherence (which can vary throughout but overall still add up to one super-fluctuation). 4) The underlying processes that are the source of each () are, in essence, deep randomness. Depth unknown. Call the deeper randomness of which a () is constructed a []. There can be a variable number of [] in a (). For EC at this stage we don't have to worry about the number of [] in (). Although it will determine the initial rules of formation. 5) The underlying processes [] can be incoherent, but dispersal of [] from coherent () will tend to reinforce coherent emergent [] structures back up into it. Thus the situation can dynamically persist. 6) The reason it happens at all is that a perfect 'nothing', everywhere and always, requires an infinite amount of energy. Infinities are impossible, so the something comes from nothing as an 'average' nothing. 'Nothing' can therefore be be viewed as intrinsically unstable. Any appearance of anything can be regarded as a temporary failure to be 'Nothing'. This sounds nuts but it's consistent with the facts and logical. 7) The net result is that the dispersal of () partly or fully into [] and deeper is the natural drive of U(). () Each () can be thought of as a mathematician. The number of mathematicians in EC is equal to the number of () that collaborate according to the rules of formation. At this point and with further thoughtEC predicts what we see as energy, entropy, black holes, background radiation, gravity and the origins of some of our laws of nature. But that's way too much info and a side issue. We are really interested in the entire class of possible EC treated as structure made of change based on an arbitrarily large source of randomness pumped by the instability of 'Nothing'. === I think I've blown your brains out enough with this lot. NEXT Before rules of formation we have to look at dynamic hierarchies, lossy and lossless entities and 'symmetry breaking'. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: To observe is to......EC
Colin Hales wrote: When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate at. There's nothing to travel in anything and nothing to travel. It's meaningless. It's hard not to use 'temporal' language, isn't it? So when you say the 'rate' the () operate at, you're referring ultimately to representational granularity? And 'travel' is redistribution of structure over this granularity? In deep 'time' (many more state changes in the proof beyond 'now') EC predicts (I think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only not through moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter (there is no time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?) would feel the same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be different. An EC aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the year 10^^25 could be our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state evolution. It's the same effect as that got by going really fast. Yes, this would resolve the 'twin paradox' through the way that each twin's structural redistribution is dissipated differentially through its 'systemic acceleration' versus its 'rate of internal change'. If I've followed you, in saying 'there is no time', you're taking the view (e.g. with Barbour) that there is only 'change' in the sense of the sort that we notice in comparing one part of a 4-dimensional *compresent* structure with another, as opposed to change that 'annihilates the prior' in the A-series view of 'time'. So, in this case, the EC 'nows' containing 'me' are identified 'indexically' within a continuous/structural ensemble? David Colin Hales wrote: 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a problem in a block version. Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present? But perhaps I'm jumping the gun. David Jump away! I'm letting EC 'rules of formation' ferment at the moment Preamble... the mental secret to EC is to attend to one of my all time faves: Leibniz. His approach has always born fruit in my analyses. What he was on about, translated into modern jargon, was that brain operation is a literal metaphor for the deep structure of matter. Brain operation is a whole bunch of nested resonating loops. I have observed in general and found the same pattern in a lot of things - trees, clouds... and most wonderfully in the boiling froth... rice is best. :-) Time. It's important to distinguish between the mental perception of it and the reality of it. * TIME PERCEIVED There is a neurological condition (name escapes me) where the visual field is updated on mass as usual but at a repetition rate much lower than usual. Try pouring a glass of wine you see the glass at one instant and the next time you see it: overfull. Try crossing a road. A car is 200m away... you walk and bang, it's 10m away. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally. In a normally operating brain in the face of novelty, where more brain regions are involved as a result of dealing with the novelty (such as when traveling in a new area), more energy is recruited, more brain regions are active and the cognitive update rate is increased. Time feels like its going slower. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally. * TIME REALITY - according to EC Time is virtual. There is only EC proof and its current state. The best way of imaging it is to think of it as a nested structure of nearest neighbour interactions according to a local 'energy' optimization rule. 'Energy' is a metric counting how many ()s there are in a given structure and how many it can do without and still remain the same 'thing'. () () could go to (()()) or vice versa. It doesn't matter. Overall it's a one way trip (door slams behind you) depending on what 'nearest neighbour' situation results from the present 'nearest neighbour' situation. Locally there can be lossless EC transformations. Globally the net result is dissipation back to primitive () (and then to its constituents (noise). There is no future, only next state.
Re: To observe is to......EC
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a problem in a block version. Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present? But perhaps I'm jumping the gun. David = STEP 5: The rolling proof NOTES: 1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.) above) 2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms) 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. 4) The documentation of all the outpouring prior states (configuration of the entire set of axioms) is what would be regarded as a standard proof - A theorem evolving under the guiding hand of the mathematician. It's just that there is 1 mathematician per axiom in EC. 5) In effect, all that every happens in EC is rearrangement of axioms into a new configuration, which then becomes a new configuration of axioms. 6) The 'theorem' proof never ends. 7) This process, when viewed from the perspective of being part of EC looks like time. Local regularity in the state transition processes would mean that local representations of behaviour could have a t parameter in them. 8) Each fluctuation can be regarded as a 'mathematician'. This makes EC a single gigantic parallel theorem proving exercise where at each 'state', each mathematician co--operates with a local subset of other mathematicians and where possible they merge their work and then form a 'team' which then works with other local mathematicians. 7) The local options for a mathematician are totally state dependent i.e. depending in what other mathematicians (or teams of merged mathematicians) are available to merge with. 8) The rules for cooperation between mathematicians will look like the 2nd law of thermodynamics from within EC. Those rules will emerge later. === Well I hope they will!. NEXT: some of the rules. Remember we are headed towards analysing the nature of the structure of the EC proof and at the mechanism of 1-person. In terms of EC, if local structure in EC is a part of the single EC proof, then it is a 'sub-proof' in EC. At the outermost structural levels the proof literally is 'matter'. The 1-person is a virtual-proof performed by matter. Virtual matter. It's done under the same rules. Nothing special. Everything is the same in EC. We can then look at what COMP would do to it. cheers, colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: To observe is to......EC
Colin Hales wrote: 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a problem in a block version. Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present? But perhaps I'm jumping the gun. David Jump away! I'm letting EC 'rules of formation' ferment at the moment Preamble... the mental secret to EC is to attend to one of my all time faves: Leibniz. His approach has always born fruit in my analyses. What he was on about, translated into modern jargon, was that brain operation is a literal metaphor for the deep structure of matter. Brain operation is a whole bunch of nested resonating loops. I have observed in general and found the same pattern in a lot of things - trees, clouds... and most wonderfully in the boiling froth... rice is best. :-) Time. It's important to distinguish between the mental perception of it and the reality of it. * TIME PERCEIVED There is a neurological condition (name escapes me) where the visual field is updated on mass as usual but at a repetition rate much lower than usual. Try pouring a glass of wine you see the glass at one instant and the next time you see it: overfull. Try crossing a road. A car is 200m away... you walk and bang, it's 10m away. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally. In a normally operating brain in the face of novelty, where more brain regions are involved as a result of dealing with the novelty (such as when traveling in a new area), more energy is recruited, more brain regions are active and the cognitive update rate is increased. Time feels like its going slower. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally. * TIME REALITY according to EC Time is virtual. There is only EC proof and its current state. The best way of imaging it is to think of it as a nested structure of nearest neighbour interactions according to a local energy optimization rule. Energy is a metric counting how many ()s there are in a given structure and how many it can do without and still remain the same thing. () () could go to (()()) or vice versa. It doesnt matter. Overall its a one way trip (door slams behind you) depending on what nearest neighbour situation results from the present nearest neighbour situation. Locally there can be lossless EC transformations. Globally the net result is dissipation back to primitive () (and then to its constituents (noise). There is no future, only next state. It looks like 2nd law of thermodynamics from within it. By traveling fast through the EC string (like a wave through water) the faster you go compared to the refresh rate of EC-you by the () structure that is you, your structural state-evolution will proceed at a lower rate than other pieces of the EC string. EC you (organisation only) is moving, but your structure is merely being replicated within the EC string, not moving at all. If we have had a previous metaphor for the EC string Id call it what was once called the ether. Although its not real in the sense that it was once thought just a concept a way of viewing the EC string. When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is meaningless EC cant construct/refresh you beyond the rate its () operate at. Theres nothing to travel in anything and nothing to travel. Its meaningless. In deep time (many more state changes in the proof beyond now) EC predicts (I think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only not through moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter (there is no time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?) would feel the same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be different. An EC aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the year 10^^25 could be our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state evolution. Its the same effect as that got by going really fast. When you are inside EC and local structure evolves in an organised way and achieves regularity it means an abstraction of an EC structure can have a t in it. Unfortunately.then we get distracted by the t possibly being negative and now and start talking as if time was real and the abstraction was more than an abstraction.
To observe is to......EC
= STEP 5: The rolling proof NOTES: 1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.) above) 2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms) 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. 4) The documentation of all the outpouring prior states (configuration of the entire set of axioms) is what would be regarded as a standard proof - A theorem evolving under the guiding hand of the mathematician. It's just that there is 1 mathematician per axiom in EC. 5) In effect, all that every happens in EC is rearrangement of axioms into a new configuration, which then becomes a new configuration of axioms. 6) The 'theorem' proof never ends. 7) This process, when viewed from the perspective of being part of EC looks like time. Local regularity in the state transition processes would mean that local representations of behaviour could have a t parameter in them. 8) Each fluctuation can be regarded as a 'mathematician'. This makes EC a single gigantic parallel theorem proving exercise where at each 'state', each mathematician co--operates with a local subset of other mathematicians and where possible they merge their work and then form a 'team' which then works with other local mathematicians. 7) The local options for a mathematician are totally state dependent i.e. depending in what other mathematicians (or teams of merged mathematicians) are available to merge with. 8) The rules for cooperation between mathematicians will look like the 2nd law of thermodynamics from within EC. Those rules will emerge later. === Well I hope they will!. NEXT: some of the rules. Remember we are headed towards analysing the nature of the structure of the EC proof and at the mechanism of 1-person. In terms of EC, if local structure in EC is a part of the single EC proof, then it is a 'sub-proof' in EC. At the outermost structural levels the proof literally is 'matter'. The 1-person is a virtual-proof performed by matter. Virtual matter. It's done under the same rules. Nothing special. Everything is the same in EC. We can then look at what COMP would do to it. cheers, colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: To observe is to......EC
=== STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms' (*) The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related fluctuations. The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet. No concept of place. The number of spatial dimensions is equal to the number of axioms. NOTES: 1) Think of ( ) as a loop that goes up and around the left bracket, across to the top of the right bracket, down the right bracket and across to the left again. Serendipitously the match with Church's Lambda calculus is not altered by this mental trick. 2) To initialise a relevant collection of ( ) as axioms is to construct them, but to construct them IN PHASE. Not all exactly in phase. All that is needed is to have the ( ) sufficiently in phase to enable their mutual interaction. Two ( ) can merge if they happen to transit through the same state as another coincident ( ) in such a way as they a) simply take over each other (in of phase) or combine to construct a single structure (notionally larger). In the process unused portions can be shed this is a dissipative process. If there is no shedding then the combining process is lossless. 3) This is where an understanding of dynamic hierarchies will help. Turtles. The initialisation (construction) of EC axioms can happen from sea of randomness. In other words the fluctuations are made of sub-fluctuations. The origins of the sea of randomness can be traced back to more esoteric considerations of 'nothing' and the 'infinite' - outside the necessary scope of EC. All that has to happen is that ever so often - very very rarely, but statistically inevitable, like the one raindrop that hits your nose, you will get massive numbers of simultaneous phase coherence of similar ( ) fluctuations. The phase coherence doesn't have to be perfect. 4) The EC fluctuations, being made of sub-fluctuations (turtles) will have a characteristic depending on the ratio of the EC axiom 'extent' (the number of sub-fluctuations that create one EC fluctuation). This means that the final EC outcome will be critically dependent on the dynamic of the EX axiom. 5) This process is, I think, what we would call the big bang. The phase variance is, I think, made visible in what we see as the cosmic background radiation. 6) The process of reversion of EC axioms to their original noise is that we see as reality driven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Each time a chunk of on of the original EC axiom is dispersed to a lower level of organisation within the proof, the net proof === --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: To observe is to......
Le 17-oct.-06, à 22:18, David Nyman a écrit : This is a really confusing (to me) aspect of comp v. 'standard computationalism' (and too often no clear distinction is made). Bruno argues (8th step of the UDA) - and I follow him in this - that for consciousness to supervene on computationalism, 'matter' can serve no explanatory role other than that of a placeholder for the 'relata'. OK. Hence, under comp, 'matter' emerges from 'number', not vice versa. OK. The 'yes doctor' argument appears to appeal to the possibility of 'actual material hardware' being utilised to instantiate consciousness computationally. Yes. But it is explicitly a supplementary hypothesis, which is introduced for making the thought experiment easier, and which is eliminated later. (The beginners version in eight step makes this less explicitly, look at the older version in 15 steps perhaps). But there is still the crucial issue of 'substitution level' - instantiation must occur at the right layer of the hierarchy of nesting / recursion, so I suppose that in terms of this hierarchy, all notions of 'hardware' are themselves relational emergents. Yes. Matter has to be redefine in term of a measure of the infinitely many computational histories going through my states, and which are undistinguishable relatively to the substitution level. Comp predicts that if we look at ourself below our substitution level, then we can measure the comp first person plural indeterminacy. That makes comp testable, and even already confirmed by the quantum indeterminacy (qualitatively with UDA), quasi-quantitatively by AUDA. No final theory of this appears to exist at present - ... snip Yes yes it exists. UDA even shows that you got it by interviewing a self-introspecting universal machine. That is something I try to explain from time top time in the list, but the hardness comes from the fact that it needs some knowledge in logic and computer science (and then people complained 'cause it is technical). Do you have some background in mathematical logic? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes. Matter has to be redefine in term of a measure of the infinitely many computational histories going through my states, and which are undistinguishable relatively to the substitution level. Comp predicts that if we look at ourself below our substitution level, then we can measure the comp first person plural indeterminacy. That makes comp testable, and even already confirmed by the quantum indeterminacy (qualitatively with UDA), quasi-quantitatively by AUDA. These issues of testability and confirmation seem central. Could you articulate this in a more extended way? No final theory of this appears to exist at present I meant that the 'faith' aspect of 'yes doctor' seems to imply that there is no certainty of the doctor having chosen the correct substitution level, or indeed demonstrating what this level is. Am I failing to grasp some aspect of this? Yes yes it exists. UDA even shows that you got it by interviewing a self-introspecting universal machine. That is something I try to explain from time top time in the list, but the hardness comes from the fact that it needs some knowledge in logic and computer science (and then people complained 'cause it is technical). Do you have some background in mathematical logic? I'm many, many years from my mathematical education - which in any case didn't include this area - so I'm busking it! However, If you're willing to articulate and explain the formal steps, I'm prepared to do some homework to master it. BTW, the recent flurry of posts on related aspects of comp seem to show yet again that some of your most basic points have not registered yet. I'm not sure we can avoid (realising of course the pressures on your time) getting back to - THE ROADMAP. David Le 17-oct.-06, à 22:18, David Nyman a écrit : This is a really confusing (to me) aspect of comp v. 'standard computationalism' (and too often no clear distinction is made). Bruno argues (8th step of the UDA) - and I follow him in this - that for consciousness to supervene on computationalism, 'matter' can serve no explanatory role other than that of a placeholder for the 'relata'. OK. Hence, under comp, 'matter' emerges from 'number', not vice versa. OK. The 'yes doctor' argument appears to appeal to the possibility of 'actual material hardware' being utilised to instantiate consciousness computationally. Yes. But it is explicitly a supplementary hypothesis, which is introduced for making the thought experiment easier, and which is eliminated later. (The beginners version in eight step makes this less explicitly, look at the older version in 15 steps perhaps). But there is still the crucial issue of 'substitution level' - instantiation must occur at the right layer of the hierarchy of nesting / recursion, so I suppose that in terms of this hierarchy, all notions of 'hardware' are themselves relational emergents. Yes. Matter has to be redefine in term of a measure of the infinitely many computational histories going through my states, and which are undistinguishable relatively to the substitution level. Comp predicts that if we look at ourself below our substitution level, then we can measure the comp first person plural indeterminacy. That makes comp testable, and even already confirmed by the quantum indeterminacy (qualitatively with UDA), quasi-quantitatively by AUDA. No final theory of this appears to exist at present - ... snip Yes yes it exists. UDA even shows that you got it by interviewing a self-introspecting universal machine. That is something I try to explain from time top time in the list, but the hardness comes from the fact that it needs some knowledge in logic and computer science (and then people complained 'cause it is technical). Do you have some background in mathematical logic? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
Le 20-oct.-06, à 13:43, David Nyman a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes. Matter has to be redefine in term of a measure of the infinitely many computational histories going through my states, and which are undistinguishable relatively to the substitution level. Comp predicts that if we look at ourself below our substitution level, then we can measure the comp first person plural indeterminacy. That makes comp testable, and even already confirmed by the quantum indeterminacy (qualitatively with UDA), quasi-quantitatively by AUDA. These issues of testability and confirmation seem central. Could you articulate this in a more extended way? Yes. OK ... Not right now. In november I will have much more time. No final theory of this appears to exist at present I meant that the 'faith' aspect of 'yes doctor' seems to imply that there is no certainty of the doctor having chosen the correct substitution level, or indeed demonstrating what this level is. Am I failing to grasp some aspect of this? No you are correct by what you meant. But I don't think it is equivalent with saying that no final theory of this exists at present. The final theory is the one which explains completely why, for ever, there is no certainty the doctor has chosen the correct substitution level and why he would necessarily fail to give the proof. Humans will bet on such level, and some will forget that they are betting. That could lead to some ethical problems. Yes yes it exists. UDA even shows that you got it by interviewing a self-introspecting universal machine. That is something I try to explain from time top time in the list, but the hardness comes from the fact that it needs some knowledge in logic and computer science (and then people complained 'cause it is technical). Do you have some background in mathematical logic? I'm many, many years from my mathematical education - which in any case didn't include this area - so I'm busking it! However, If you're willing to articulate and explain the formal steps, I'm prepared to do some homework to master it. I appreciate very much your willingness for digging deeper. I think some people like Tom, George and Russell and some others could welcome some more technical articulations. Perhaps we could put TECH in the title so that people not interested in the technic can skip them easily. But I can explain all the math. Recursion theory (theoretical computer science) can be grasped quickly. It is a theory where you can reach the amazing results in few steps. Quite the contrary of number theory where you need to read ten hard books to understand the first paragraph of the average current paper (but that is only a problem for the follow up of the work). Mathematical logic is more difficult to explain because examples (of theories, and proofs in theories) are more boring and long to describe, but then we need only a tiny part of mathematical logic. Quantum mechanics is not formally needed. Only, it helps people to know that for empirical reasons some physicists already talk like if the weird many-computations aspect of comp was true. That is QM illustrates some of the comp weirdness (actually QM is still more weird, and, btw, even more Pythagorean ) BTW, the recent flurry of posts on related aspects of comp seem to show yet again that some of your most basic points have not registered yet. I'm not sure we can avoid (realising of course the pressures on your time) getting back to - THE ROADMAP. Yes, I am aware. OK. I appreciate your help there :) I will come back on the roadmap, which is just a planning for the formal articulation. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: [Colin] I know enough about EC. You know enough about COMP. The goal is to get to a more concrete formal understanding of the difference between reality and computation, physics, logic, maths and 'being' through contrasting Entropy Calculus (EC) as the actual logic of the noumenon (reality as a mathematics, which becomes a physics when you are IN it, made of it, trying to understand it) with COMP, as a 'master abstractor' of everything. [Scene: Night-time. Fathers Ted and Dougal are in bed. Ted: Dougal, that's a great idea! Can you tell me more? Dougal: Whoa, Ted - I want out! I can't take the pressure.] ..However, purely on the understanding that I'm a mere COMP kibbitzer, and of course - This is to be FUN. Not work. - let us by all means throw caution to the wind. [Colin] STEP 1:The noumenon that is EC In EC I would write U(.) (for universe) NOTES: 1) U(.) is our singular reality. It. The only one we truly know. 2) U(.) is not an abstracted computation. 3) U(.) is not a mathematical abstraction of reality. 4) U(.) is treated as a function for reasons of the later logic 5) U(.) is merely a symbol which 'points' to reality as a computation. U(.) is an interpretive tool, not a generative tool. 6) U(.) is made of EC/recursive logic of a class as not yet defined. 7) U(.) is literally made of a relationship between the original axiomatic origins. 8) U(.) has no 'appearance', is not an 'observation' of anything. 9) A side issue: U(.) can be regarded as a 'free-form' cellular automata which manufactures its own cells and the cells and their relationships emerge as collaborations of cells within cells. eg. At one level an 'atom' is a cell. Also, if you collected all wolframs 'cellular automata drawings' and condensed them into single cell in a new collective CA, making whole CAs relate to each other ...and so on... to an arbitrary depth, you can get an idea of where I'm headed. [David] The first comment that I would make for clarity is that your definition of the function U(.) is of course an abstraction (as you acknowledge, it merely points to reality). As you said earlier, our only *direct* grasp of the noumenon is our subjectivity (it's Real In The Sense I Am Real). Everything else consists in what we can mutually 'point' to via relational modelling and abstraction. The 'modesty' of COMP entails the acknowledgement that what we can claim to 'know' is limited to what can be ascertained by interviewing 'machines' that function relationally - and this includes ourselves. The 'ground' of all this (i.e. the ultimate, not the relative, turtle) can't be captured in this process, but COMP's point is that this is irrelevant to what is being explicated. We deal only in relata. Hence COMP is at pains to define the formal system to be used to define and manipulate the relata. (This last point may be confusing. In a recursive, nested reality, there may be any number of 'turtles' that instantiate 1-person povs, each of which is 'inaccessible' at this level, in virtue of its being the 'medium' of communication for 3-person relational transactions that occur *in terms of this medium*. In this sense, the 1-person medium is 'incommunicable', but the data distributed via the medium is capable of re-instantiation, thus recreating 1-person experiential analogs. This is a process that occurs both within, and between, 'selves'. The transactions entailed in this can be modelled independent of any commitment to what, if anything in all of this, might be deemed RITSIAR.) [Colin] 10) The reality of EC is such that the |+| is NOT POSSIBLE! In other words: X(.) cannot exist without NOTX(.). There is no real boundary. No real separation. At the same time U(.) is not a continuum in the spatial/mathematical abstraction sense, although for practical empirical purposes, because of the sheer deth of the structure, it can be regarded as a continuum at certain scales. 11) 'fundamental building blocks are IMPOSSIBLE in EC. Fundamental building blocks means that there exists X(.) and NOTX(.) for which no |+| exists. This assumption is the 'biggee' about which science is curently deluded. 12) Having said (11) the 'axioms' are in fact 'fundamental'... but the ways of the turtles offers a way out of this - which will become apparent later (I hope!) [David] Vis-a-vis your comments re boundaries vs. the continuum: I have a sneaking suspicion that we come up against some sort of conceptual barrier in this area. We are trying to describe or model a domain that appears to have profoundly conflicting characteristics (e.g. particle / wave). There are ways of dealing with this mathematically, but in the end they amount to tricks that beg the question, if 'reality' is our goal (and this is of course is the problem, not the solution). Perhaps we need to accept that whatever we're embedded in embraces what inevitably looks like paradox in terms of the relata that
Re: To observe is to......
[Scene: Night-time. Fathers Ted and Dougal are in bed. Ted: Dougal, that's a great idea! Can you tell me more? Dougal: Whoa, Ted - I want out! I can't take the pressure.] ..However, purely on the understanding that I'm a mere COMP kibbitzer, and of course - This is to be FUN. Not work. - let us by all means throw caution to the wind. :-) Absolutely. Fun and progress - as long as the 'wind' doesn't involve farting in bed! :P It's forcing me to crystallise ideas and communicate them. I am an EXTREME massively parallel visual thinker...I literally 'see it'... in particular maxwell's equations (and qm, but 'squinty') I am less able at serial manipulation of symbols, tho... but good once I 'see' what they do...- however... turning visuals into into an email... phew! This is good discipline. Remember I want to keep my 'eye on the ball' - the goal is to really get to grips with COMP and its relationship with reality/EC in a way so practical I know I can literally build it. That's my criterion: If I can't build it I don't really understand it. I'm an engineer first, scientist second. Next proper installment/proposal under construction... watch this space. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Colin] a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do. b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any spatiotemporal scale. [DAVID] Do you think it's possible *not* to start with this assumption? [COLIN] No. As a scientifically hypotheses you have a bunch of options, but for this particular one: H1: There is a real world and our perceptions permit a level of apprehension of it you'd have to say that the existence and ongoing success of science makes it perhaps one of the most empirically supported scientific theorems of all time. Every experiment ever done is an emplicit experiment on this hypothsesis. A philosophical argument questioning the existence of reality would have to be an untestable/sophist waste of good words, no? [DAVID] The problem with natural language is that it implicitly assumes the AIV is 'out there' as the primary reality, and it can be tough to work back from this point of departure. I was trying to develop a language that started from the APV and worked outwards, as it were, so that it was easier to see how emergent information boundaries were shaping and structuring the APV and the AIV while at the same time contingently creating the 'not-X', without fundamentally creating novel ontic (as opposed to epistemic) categories. [COLIN] I'm not sure you need be so shy about creating the novel ontic categories - after all, the set we have is entirely an organisation of appearances, not the actual reality underneath. If there is ontic validity to be had, the as yet unassailed ontology of the underlying reality is the only 'real one'. However, the two are not in any real conflict - they are separate ontologies. [DAVID] Somehow it's like: a) we mentally step outside of the APV to see what it's like in the 'external world' b) we make models of what we see out there (the AIV), including our 'brains' c) then we forget about step a), get stranded outside, and take the AIV for 'reality' d) leaving us in a panic about how to get back inside our 'brains' [COLIN] This is an assumption of truth of the following hypothesis: H2: There is a real world an we literally access it This, I think, conflicts with modern neuroscience and is therefore refuted. It makes use of an assumption about perception that is not proven. However, getting mainstream empirisism and consciousness studies to realise it is another matter! [DAVID] Somebody once asked what is the external world 'external' to? Do you know? Damned good question! It seems that anything perceptually regarded as 'not me' would do. I've found the terms by Derek Denton useful: 'INTEROCEPTION' as those phenomenal percepts constructed of qualia intentionality(aboutness) directed at physical self (situational emotions, primordial emotions). I would extend the definition to include internal imagery of all kinds as a more complex form. 'EXTEROCEPTION' as those phenomenal percepts constructed of qualia representing (intentional content/aboutness in respect of) the external world or our physical interface with it (touch, taste, vsision, aural etc). So I guess the external world is that part of reality depicted by and therefore apprehended through exteroception would be as good a starting definition as any. It depends on whether the notion of 'self' includes physical self (I think it does). [COLIN] some people here think the APV is '3-person' some people here think the AIV is '3-person' [DAVID] My view is that the *fact of * the APV is 1-person, and everything else is 3-person. That is, the 1-person is the unmediated intuitive grasp of 3-person information by the 'underlying reality'. What lies within the APV, the AIV, or the 'external world' to which they refer, then depends solely on contingent boundaries emerging from 3-person information gradients and horizons. Essentially this is categorising the ontology as 1-person, and the epistemology as 3-person. However, I realise that this is a minority approach, and has caused much confusion, so I've more or less given up trying to promote it. [COLIN] How can this approach possibly be optional! [DAVID] I think the general view is that the APV is 1-person, and the AIV is 3-person. But then, the AIV *model* of the APV is 3-person, and the distinction between this and the 1-person APV is confusing (the 'hard problem'). [COLIN] The mere idea of self referential model (the AIV *model* of the APV) is, IMO, an oxymoron at the heart of the (hard) problem. This is a cultural assumption several hundred years old - it's use-by date is soo expired. How do you get the message out? [COLIN] The easiest way to think of it is to regard X as a finger puppet. The 'fingers' are behaving atomly in that the fingers are painted (appear - APV) to deliver the appearance of 'atom-ly (AIV) behaviour'. The AIV says nothing
Re: To observe is to......
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: [COLIN] I'm not sure you need be so shy about creating the novel ontic categories - after all, the set we have is entirely an organisation of appearances, not the actual reality underneath. If there is ontic validity to be had, the as yet unassailed ontology of the underlying reality is the only 'real one'. However, the two are not in any real conflict - they are separate ontologies. [DAVID] I was actually thinking in terms of emphasising the *single* seamless ontic status of 'out there' and 'in here' - i.e. the contingency of 'boundaries'. The 'novelty' would be introducing a second primary ontic status (this is IMO the point where the hard problem appears). But you see what I mean about language? This is why I don't insist on using my own terminology in this area, although it's still the way I think about it privately. My view is that the *fact of * the APV is 1-person, and everything else is 3-person. That is, the 1-person is the unmediated intuitive grasp of 3-person information by the 'underlying reality'. What lies within the APV, the AIV, or the 'external world' to which they refer, then depends solely on contingent boundaries emerging from 3-person information gradients and horizons. Essentially this is categorising the ontology as 1-person, and the epistemology as 3-person. However, I realise that this is a minority approach, and has caused much confusion, so I've more or less given up trying to promote it. [COLIN] How can this approach possibly be optional! [DAVID] As, I've said, it's the specific language (perhaps) that's optional, not IMO the analysis, or the intuition that lies behind it. [COLIN] RE: COMP I have a calculus (a heuristic for one, really) called 'entropy calculus', EC, which I think (not sure yet but confidence rising) might be able to be thought of an actual instance of COMP based on the real occurrence (rough coincidence) of an extravagently huge number of identical primitives (which operate as axioms). Each axiom can be viewed as a 'mathematician'. The calculus is massively parallel mathematics (not singular/serial, as driven by a lone classical mathematician pushing a proof along). The current state of the cooperative efforts of all the mathematicians whose relationships are iterative rules of inference/transformation literally is reality. There is one massive rolling 'proof' unfolding without end. [DAVID] Perhaps this could connect productively (metaphorically at least) with cellular automata theory (cf. Wolfram et. al.)? There is some convergence in the notions of primitive 'axioms' and massive parallelism - and I suppose that if the operational space was sufficiently 'extravagantly huge' (limit case: infinite), you might argue for the recursive emergence of number, arithmetic, and the rest. I guess there would be no discrete UD, its role (i.e. the stepwise execution of all 'code' in rotation) being distributed over some massively parallel assemblage of 'theorem provers'. How, or whether, one could get comp to run on this 'machine', I am unsure. I'd be interested in your view of what the minimum axiomatic constraints of such an approach might be, such as instantiations of 0-bit and 1-bit, plus some minimal set of state-based rules. This seems a fruitful theoretical area, but one in which I possess no expertise. [COLIN] In other words: REALITY is a COMPUTATION on a natural axiom set? YES. COMPUTATION manfactured of an existing reality constructs a REALITY? NO. [DAVID] This is a really confusing (to me) aspect of comp v. 'standard computationalism' (and too often no clear distinction is made). Bruno argues (8th step of the UDA) - and I follow him in this - that for consciousness to supervene on computationalism, 'matter' can serve no explanatory role other than that of a placeholder for the 'relata'. Hence, under comp, 'matter' emerges from 'number', not vice versa. The 'yes doctor' argument appears to appeal to the possibility of 'actual material hardware' being utilised to instantiate consciousness computationally. But there is still the crucial issue of 'substitution level' - instantiation must occur at the right layer of the hierarchy of nesting / recursion, so I suppose that in terms of this hierarchy, all notions of 'hardware' are themselves relational emergents. No final theory of this appears to exist at present - at the last resort you are left to choose in 'good faith'. So whether it constitutes an 'existing reality' in your terms is moot. [COLIN] If you could help me relate EC to COMP it'd be a big help. I think there might be a TOE in here someplace via a reified COMP instantated as EC that is empirically supported but ONLY testable in brain material. Just an idea. [DAVID] Hmm..a simple task, perhaps, but where to begin...?? I'm not sure Bruno would be very happy at the notion of 'reifying' comp, but I don't want to fall into the quagmire of the interminable struggle
Re: To observe is to......
Ok David, Let's start afresh and do this. At least give it a go. This is to be FUN. Not work. I know enough about EC. You know enough about COMP. The goal is to get to a more concrete formal understanding of the difference between reality and computation, physics, logic, maths and 'being' through contrasting Entropy Calculus (EC) as the actual logic of the noumenon (reality as a mathematics, which becomes a physics when you are IN it, made of it, trying to understand it) with COMP, as a 'master abstractor' of everything. We can jointly address epistemological and ontological issues along the way. We can do this incrementally, one posting at a time. Nice and slowly so we can follow it and point to where we fly off into respective weeds. I can pose symbols and relata. You can tear it to bits and interpose COMP interpretations. == STEP 1:The noumenon that is EC In EC I would write U(.) (for universe) NOTES: 1) U(.) is our singular reality. It. The only one we truly know. 2) U(.) is not an abstracted computation. 3) U(.) is not a mathematical abstraction of reality. 4) U(.) is treated as a function for reasons of the later logic 5) U(.) is merely a symbol which 'points' to reality as a computation. U(.) is an interpretive tool, not a generative tool. 6) U(.) is made of EC/recursive logic of a class as not yet defined. 7) U(.) is literally made of a relationship between the original axiomatic origins. 8) U(.) has no 'appearance', is not an 'observation' of anything. 9) A side issue: U(.) can be regarded as a 'free-form' cellular automata which manufactures its own cells and the cells and their relationships emerge as collaborations of cells within cells. eg. At one level an 'atom' is a cell. Also, if you collected all wolframs 'cellular automata drawings' and condensed them into single cell in a new collective CA, making whole CAs relate to each other ...and so on... to an arbitrary depth, you can get an idea of where I'm headed. STEP 2: Ontological demarcation (notional virtual cells) In EC, if there is a chunk of noumenon that I would wish to depict I can draw a completely fictional CLOSED boundary around any subset of U(.), say X(.) and define its relationship to U(.) thus: U(.) = X(.) |+| NOTX(.) (1) NOTES: 1) |+| must be regarded as messy/complex. 2) |+| must be regarded not as addition, but SURGICAL RESECTION or JOINING 3) |+| includes all entropy in and out of X(.). 4) |+| is to be thought of as a 2 way interchange over a notional boundary. 5) INPUTS to X(.) are OUTPUTS from NOTX(.). If X(.) was a human then |+| includes inputs (food/water/photons/heat/potential/kinetic energy, impacting nuetrinos, cosmic rays, everything) 6) OUTPUTS from X(.) are INPUTS to NOTX(.) waste material, heat energy, phonons, kinetic energy dissapation, potnetial energy reliquishment and so on). 7) |+|, despite all the above complexity, mentally can be conceptualised as addition. Just a very very messy addition. 8) X(.) and NOTX(.), like U(.) are NOT abstractions. They are pointers to real EC entities just like U(.) 9) boundary CLOSURE makes the whole system lossless in an entropy sense. This means that |+|, as a 'joining' of X(.) and NOTX(.) 10) The reality of EC is such that the |+| is NOT POSSIBLE! In other words: X(.) cannot exist without NOTX(.). There is no real boundary. No real separation. At the same time U(.) is not a continuum in the spatial/mathematical abstraction sense, although for practical empirical purposes, because of the sheer deth of the structure, it can be regarded as a continuum at certain scales. 11) 'fundamental building blocks are IMPOSSIBLE in EC. Fundamental building blocks means that there exists X(.) and NOTX(.) for which no |+| exists. This assumption is the 'biggee' about which science is curently deluded. 12) Having said (11) the 'axioms' are in fact 'fundamental'... but the ways of the turtles offers a way out of this - which will become apparent later (I hope!) = NEXT STEP: I am going at this TOP-DOWN. When that is done the 'bottom up' axiomatic beginnings will emerge. I hope. On route towards an empirically testable outcome we'll look at what happens when X(.) is considered to be a human and how to depict a human including all the layers of nested hierarchy that we see as brain material. I'll also introduce a 'being' operator. We can later look at COMP equivalence at any level of what I have called in the past 'Turing Granularity'. A bit like what Chalmers did in his 'silicon replacement' zombie thought experimentsExcept at multiple scales. At some point consciousness will be effected/affected. This will be COMP replacement instead of silicon. Bruno(COMP)-granularity? :-) == Over to you. On with the fun. Colin Hales
Re: To observe is to......
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do. b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any spatiotemporal scale. Do you think it's possible *not* to start with this assumption? The problem with natural language is that it implicitly assumes the AIV is 'out there' as the primary reality, and it can be tough to work back from this point of departure. I was trying to develop a language that started from the APV and worked outwards, as it were, so that it was easier to see how emergent information boundaries were shaping and structuring the APV and the AIV while at the same time contingently creating the 'not-X', without fundamentally creating novel ontic (as opposed to epistemic) categories. Unfortunately, the terminology tended to become impenetrable and in the end a barrier to communication. I don't have a solution to this. Somehow it's like: a) we mentally step outside of the APV to see what it's like in the 'external world' b) we make models of what we see out there (the AIV), including our 'brains' c) then we forget about step a), get stranded outside, and take the AIV for 'reality' d) leaving us in a panic about how to get back inside our 'brains' Somebody once asked what is the external world 'external' to? Do you know? some people here think the APV is '3-person' some people here think the AIV is '3-person' My view is that the *fact of * the APV is 1-person, and everything else is 3-person. That is, the 1-person is the unmediated intuitive grasp of 3-person information by the 'underlying reality'. What lies within the APV, the AIV, or the 'external world' to which they refer, then depends solely on contingent boundaries emerging from 3-person information gradients and horizons. Essentially this is categorising the ontology as 1-person, and the epistemology as 3-person. However, I realise that this is a minority approach, and has caused much confusion, so I've more or less given up trying to promote it. I think the general view is that the APV is 1-person, and the AIV is 3-person. But then, the AIV *model* of the APV is 3-person, and the distinction between this and the 1-person APV is confusing (the 'hard problem'). The easiest way to think of it is to regard X as a finger puppet. The 'fingers' are behaving atomly in that the fingers are painted (appear - APV) to deliver the appearance of 'atom-ly (AIV) behaviour'. The AIV says nothing about FINGERS. Then note that whatever the fingers are - you, the observer - are made of the SAME FINGERS and those fingers are painting the APV in your head. The reason no-one ever gets a physics of qualia is that nobody EVER gets scientific about _fingers_ - the underling physics - Everyone thinks the AIV generalisations ARE the fingers. Conventional physics, I think, denies that the fingers exist - all that can be said is what QM / string theory / model of the month describes, and this is equivalent to saying that that's all there is folks. Comp, however, would say that the fingers are something like mathematical ontic / epistemic categories (see some of Marc Geddes' posts), and that these support the emergence of 3-person relata. Sets of these 1-person / 3-person relationships can be nested recursively, the whole resting on the 'turtle' of a tightly constrained 'number reality' (e.g. AR+CT+UDA). The 'modest' assumption here is that not to force 'faith' in comp, but rather study and test it for its interesting and surprising results and generative power. The most powerful result would be to pin down the 'emergence direction' of 1-person -- 3-person once and for all. David [Colin] snip Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity. [DAVID] Yes, and as I've said, I was trying to convey the essence of this thought with what became (unfortunately) confused with 1-person primacy on this list. I'd be grateful for help on reformulating this more coherently if possible. The heart of it is the primary intension of 'exists', whose fons et origo I take to be: 'exists in the sense that I exist subjectively'. [COLIN] Yes. The subtlety is extreme. My way of unpacking it is to think of the concept of 'perspective view': a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do. b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any spatiotemporal scale. Now realise that innate to the situation is that 'being' the notionally segregated portion of the reality innately, automatically prescribes/defines a perspective view of the rest of the universe.
Re: To observe is to......
[Colin] snip Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity. [DAVID] Yes, and as I've said, I was trying to convey the essence of this thought with what became (unfortunately) confused with 1-person primacy on this list. I'd be grateful for help on reformulating this more coherently if possible. The heart of it is the primary intension of 'exists', whose fons et origo I take to be: 'exists in the sense that I exist subjectively'. [COLIN] Yes. The subtlety is extreme. My way of unpacking it is to think of the concept of 'perspective view': a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do. b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any spatiotemporal scale. Now realise that innate to the situation is that 'being' the notionally segregated portion of the reality innately, automatically prescribes/defines a perspective view of the rest of the universe. This is not automatically anything that has 'visibility'! All it means is that if the reality expresses X (ontological identity of some sort) then the rest of the universe must be an absolutely perfect un-X. No matter how weird the reality is, in the un-X is a form of latent perspective 'view' from the position of being X. For example , an atom exists, ergo the 'un-atom' exists (everything in the universe that isn't the atom). There is no reality that doesn't do this. It can't be helped - it's intrinsic to the act of any existence at all. _This does not mean it is actually 'like anything' to 'be' the notionally segregated portion_. Back to the example of an X. To 'be' X is to inherit a latent un-X perspective. Nothing has to do anything. This idea applies to all spatiotemporal scales. From quark/un-quark to planet/un-planet. Also note that the word 'spatiotemporal' is a loaded word. Any level of multi-dimensional weirdness can still be part of the reality. The same concept applies no matter how fleeting an X may be. This is the idea of 'existence' or 'being' which I think has to be adopted to make sense of perception. Once you realise it the whole job of perception changes to one merely of 'visibility' that makes use of this latent potential. To see this: Consider your own left kneecap. From the perspective of being your left kneecap the rest of the universe is expressing a perfect un-kneecap. This is what the universe's innate perspective looks like. Yet we do not see the universe from that perspective. Or from the perspective of any cell in the kneecap. Or any molecule or any atom and so on. Also, from the perspective of being the 'space' inhabited by the atoms in your kneecap (call it knee_gap) the rest of the universe is expressing a perfect un-knee_gap. Space is just as ontologically real in this. It's all the same. Whatever space is, it only has to be something we can pass through and it'll look like space. It's just as much 'stuff' as anything in the periodic table - just that the atoms/particles in it (expressed by it) can move around easily when in it. All the visibility we humans have is centred on our brain material. Something about brain material actually makes use of the intrinsic latent potential perspective view to implement an actual view from that location. That view is called phenomenal consciousness (discussed in all manner of ways previously). Notions of 'self' and indexicality flow but are merely secondary to the actual 1-person view and the innate circumstance that delivers the view. The whole problem changes to one of visibility. I think this concept covers what you call 1-person. When 'YOU' (your brain material) makes use of the latent perspective view to implement an ACTUAL perspective view of everything call this the APV. The appearance of reality thus acquired can be used to make generalisations (the holy grain of the empirical scientist is the exceptionless generalisation). The depiction of the universe in the form of these generalisations is NOT the APV. This is an 'as-if' view. That is - the universe is behaving 'as-if' the ontology in the generalisations actually existed. That universe does not exist. It is methodologically 'deemed' for the purposes of predicting how the universe will appear _within_ the APV. Call this 'as-if' view AIV. Here is where I get confused: some people here think the APV is '3-person' some people here think the AIV is '3-person' I'm pretty sure each of us has their own label for the concepts. What I am sure of is that we confuse each other a lot by not fully realising/describing the distinction in a discussion context. The final note: in terms of the definition of 'being' explained above I must point out that the
Re: To observe is to......
On Oct 14, 5:32 am, Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity. Yes, and as I've said, I was trying to convey the essence of this thought with what became (unfortunately) confused with 1-person primacy on this list. I'd be grateful for help on reformulating this more coherently if possible. The heart of it is the primary intension of 'exists', whose fons et origo I take to be: 'exists in the sense that I exist subjectively'. The problem is that as soon as one formulates it in this way, all sorts of unlooked for windmills spring up for the Don Quixotes of the logical mind to struggle with. Somehow one must avoid being distracted into grappling with pseudo-problems of pansychism, idealism, solipsism etc. - in their timeworn academic clothing - and focus on the embeddedness, or 'here-ness' that is central to this primary sense of 'exists', and see that everything else is somehow derivative of, or emergent from, this primary intension. And, as you say, by this token we are of course ourselves directly rooted in this reality, whatever it is. The belief that the 'underlying reality is actually made of quantum mechanics (as opposed to being merely described by it) to me looks like a mass delusion of the most bizarre kind. One implication of this (which I think is also implied by comp) is that 1-person experience derives from a more complex instantiation than the 3-person narrative that emerges from it. That is, there is a global instantiation level of sufficient complexity to express 1-person existence 'qualitatively'. At this level, qualitative modalities - 'qualia' - also function as stripped-down 'relata', encoding '3-person worlds' of structure, relation, transaction, and locality. We may speculate, for example, that our experientially dynamic discrimination (A-series) of relation and structure (B-series) emerges from the 'unmediated intuitive grasp' of such relational locality within qualitative globality. All this strongly entails that we will never find the 1-person within the 3-person. The evidence of course is perhaps already staring us in the face, were we to accept it as such. There is nothing at all in the 3-person that looks like, or that we have any notion could possibly look like, the 1-person. Maybe this is why. David snip [Colin Hales] No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-) Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that the 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes it's a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing homunculi. [David Nyman] Oddly, I think I *see* what you mean (and I use the term advisedly). One of the problems we experience in discussing these issues (certainly I do, anyway) is the lack of a really effective way to share powerful *visualisations* of what we're proposing. Not everything we're trying to express is formalisable (at this stage anyway) in mathematical or strictly logical terms. I've tried to express before this image of the relationship between what-is-functioning-as-perceiver and what-is-functioning-as-percept, and the picture in my head was always something like you describe. And the key aspect is that you *are* this relationship, your grasp of the situation is unmediated, there is no regress. For me, this is the primary intension of 'exists', and it lies at the heart of what I confusingly referred to as 1-person primacy - meaning only that you can't come by any of this unless you *are* the entity in question. The commitment is total - there is no way of climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively'. [Colin Hales] Glad to 'see' that you 'see'. :-) It is very interesting to see how much trouble people have with this and it is very ironic because it is the position we naturally inhabit (all observation is subjectivity), yet the subjectivity delivers the capacity to behave objectively so brilliantly we think we have actually stepped back from it... but as you say... there is no way of climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively' Yet that is what we scientists insist we are doing! Without subjectivity there's no 'objectivity' (in the form of an 'as-if' or virtual objectivity) to be had. The descriptions we define as 'objective' and describe 'objectively' are merely
Re: To observe is to......
snip [Colin Hales] No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-) Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that the 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes it's a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing homunculi. [David Nyman] Oddly, I think I *see* what you mean (and I use the term advisedly). One of the problems we experience in discussing these issues (certainly I do, anyway) is the lack of a really effective way to share powerful *visualisations* of what we're proposing. Not everything we're trying to express is formalisable (at this stage anyway) in mathematical or strictly logical terms. I've tried to express before this image of the relationship between what-is-functioning-as-perceiver and what-is-functioning-as-percept, and the picture in my head was always something like you describe. And the key aspect is that you *are* this relationship, your grasp of the situation is unmediated, there is no regress. For me, this is the primary intension of 'exists', and it lies at the heart of what I confusingly referred to as 1-person primacy - meaning only that you can't come by any of this unless you *are* the entity in question. The commitment is total - there is no way of climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively'. [Colin Hales] Glad to 'see' that you 'see'. :-) It is very interesting to see how much trouble people have with this and it is very ironic because it is the position we naturally inhabit (all observation is subjectivity), yet the subjectivity delivers the capacity to behave objectively so brilliantly we think we have actually stepped back from it... but as you say... there is no way of climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively' Yet that is what we scientists insist we are doing! Without subjectivity there's no 'objectivity' (in the form of an 'as-if' or virtual objectivity) to be had. The descriptions we define as 'objective' and describe 'objectively' are merely generalisations in respect of appearances of what bruno would call 'objective' (actual) reality...what it is that is actually there, whatever it is that is the 'underlying reality'. That also delivers the appearances into your brain/via your brain, which as actually made of the underlying reality, not of anything we divine through the appearances it delivers. Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity. As I think I have said before: 'seeing' is evidence of the underlying reality and its capcity to deliver 'that which is seen'. The latter delivers two sorts of evidence a) more evidence of the organisation of the underlying reality b) what we regard as objective evidence used by scientists in formulations of emopirical laws that organise the appearances but tell us nothing about the underlying reality because we throw (a) away for no reason other than it is our culture to do so. There's a lot more to observation than merely 'that which is seen'. The act of seeing at all is also observation. Metaphorically... if you hear X is true being said you get 2 lots of evidence, not one: c) some evidence in support of the proposition that X is true d) more definite evidence of the proposition somebody said something 'that which is seen' corresponds to X is true The underlying reality is the 'somebody' Science calls any consideration of the 'somebody' as evidenceless non-scientific metaphysics and spurns/eschews it when is is actually _more_ evidenced! in that (d) is a better supported claim than (c) That's about the lot on 'observation' except to wonder when mainstream science (in particular cosmology and neuroscience) finally 'get it'. This simple cultural foible hides the key to 'everything'. The belief that the 'underlying reality is actually made of quantum mechanics (as opposed to being merely described by it) to me looks like a mass delusion of the most bizarre kind. Thomas Kuhn should be marching up and down with placard saying NO MORE EVIDENCE-ISM EVIDENCE DISCRIMINATION UNFAIR TO UNDERLYING REALITY. :-) cheers, Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To observe is to......
a lot of damage before the visual field was reportably affected...by that stage I'm pretty sure you'd have bled to death ... not an experiment I'd like to participate in, but that's my prediction. :-) This is not 'creating reality' in the Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of a representation of it from within the reality. This process I have described is observation and all of observation - nothin else counts as observation. So anything happening in my brain that has a causal connection to the world is an observation. I can buy that, but it seems so broad as to include things, like recalling memories, not usually called observation. Brent MeekerRecalled memories are in the same class as the hallucinations/dreams I mentioned. Such internally sourced fields (including all the emotions) are not the ones I call 'observation'. The sensory fields are hooked into the casual chain from the sensory measurements. They participate in the observation process. All pretty straightforward. The only weirdness is the solution to the 'hard problem' that enables the direct portrayal of the external world in your head (how the few necessary external properties are inherited). These are the solution to the unity/binding problem. Virtual bosons, whilst easy to see in the brain, do not solve the unity/binding problem. That is, why all the painting neurons actually general a single picture. Nevertheless that's my slant on building an observer. The main thing to get from the depiction is that measurement (or any causal interaction, for that matter) is NOT observation from the point of view of being able to formulate survivable generalisations about the external world in the face of arbitrary levels of novelty. Dumb-as-doggy-do machines/computers hooked up to sensing transduction and using a-priori rules (programs) do not 'observe' at all. They merely act 'as-if' they are observing to the extent that the derived rules are faithful to the distal world within which the machine is supposed to be successful. They only survive by virtue of their groundedness in the real human observations that gave them the rules they use. That's the basic set of design decisions (gotta choose something!) behind the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations. Cheers Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: To observe is to......
and using a-priori rules (programs) do not 'observe' at all. They merely act 'as-if' they are observing to the extent that the derived rules are faithful to the distal world within which the machine is supposed to be successful. They only survive by virtue of their groundedness in the real human observations that gave them the rules they use. That's the basic set of design decisions (gotta choose something!) behind the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations. Cheers Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
Colin Hales wrote: Brent Meeker: snip Observation involves (necessitates) the AGI having experiences, some of which are an experiential representation of the external world. The process of generation of the experiential field(s) involves the insertion of the AGI in the chain of causality from that which is observed 'out there' through the external world to the sensing surface, impact (causal interaction) measured by sensing, transport (causality again) of the measurement through the AGI to the brain where the measurement participates in the causality that is the creation of the experiential field. So that is what is *involved* in creating the experiential field. But what is the field? I understand it is a representation of the external world, but what about it makes it a representation? I hope you're not going to say because the observer recognizes or uses it as such. The fields: In the case of visual field: virtual bosons as photons In the case of aural fields: virtual bosons as phonons In the case of touch fields: virtual bosons as touchons :-) In the case of touch fields: virtual bosons as tasteons :-) Makes no sense to me. Why virtual? Touch is possible because fermions can't be the same state. Taste is due to the shape of molecules. And what is field about it? I don't know the details of the various bosons yet, but there is an infinity of possibilities as the virtual bosons are arbitrarily configurable by the spatiotemporal behaviour of the neural membranes involved. This is virtual matter in the same sense that all the members of the standard model depict matter i.e. boson is to matter as virtual boson is to virtual matter. It is by virtue of the existence/reality of the _entire_ causal chain that the experiential field can be created and be called observation of the external world. (Clearly experiential fields can also be created as hallucinations/dreams, without the full causality chain - but that is not the 'observation' we are talking about). In making use of the complete causal chain the oberver has access (inherits some of the properties of) to that which is observed. This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the Cartesian theater fof the edification of the observer. No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-) Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that the 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes it's a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing homunculi. It's just that the brain material (neurons) paints the space like the mirror did. Huh? BTWEach neuron is like a single paintbrush and they all paint in parallel real time. Neurons to not have to actually 'fire' to paint. There are no particles actually traveling anywhere. If you slice occipital with a scalpel early damage would interfere with learning and ability to report contents of vision... but not necessarily the visual field itself. It'd take a lot of damage before the visual field was reportably affected...by that stage I'm pretty sure you'd have bled to death ... not an experiment I'd like to participate in, but that's my prediction. :-) This is not 'creating reality' in the Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of a representation of it from within the reality. This process I have described is observation and all of observation - nothin else counts as observation. So anything happening in my brain that has a causal connection to the world is an observation. I can buy that, but it seems so broad as to include things, like recalling memories, not usually called observation. Brent Meeker Recalled memories are in the same class as the hallucinations/dreams I mentioned. Such internally sourced fields (including all the emotions) are not the ones I call 'observation'. The sensory fields are hooked into the casual chain from the sensory measurements. They participate in the observation process. All pretty straightforward. Memories are also hooked in the causal chain from sensory measurements if they are veridical memories of perceptions. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: To observe is to......
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: George and List: a very naive question (even more than my other posts) since I miss lots of posts that have been exuded on this list (since a decade or so of my incompletely reading it): Has it been ever formulated (and accepted on this list!) what we mean by the verb to observe? What does an 'observer' do in its (not his!!!) 'observer minute'? WHAT (and not 'who') is an observer? Many hours spent on this one. My definition sounds odd but only because I have to literally 'build' observation that I have had to sort it out. As an engineer I know that building an X is a sure route to an intimate understanding of Xso...My design goal: construction of an artificial scientist (artificial general intelligence - AGI). Thus logically I must build an observer. So.. the design aim of the project has observation as follows...(off the top of my head!): Observation involves (necessitates) the AGI having experiences, some of which are an experiential representation of the external world. The process of generation of the experiential field(s) involves the insertion of the AGI in the chain of causality from that which is observed 'out there' through the external world to the sensing surface, impact (causal interaction) measured by sensing, transport (causality again) of the measurement through the AGI to the brain where the measurement participates in the causality that is the creation of the experiential field. It is by virtue of the existence/reality of the _entire_ causal chain that the experiential field can be created and be called observation of the external world. (Clearly experiential fields can also be created as hallucinations/dreams, without the full causality chain - but that is not the 'observation' we are talking about). In making use of the complete causal chain the oberver has access (inherits some of the properties of) to that which is observed. This is not 'creating reality' in the Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of a representation of it from within the reality. This process I have described is observation and all of observation - nothin else counts as observation. No separable part of what I have described is observation including any subset of the entire causal chain (just for you QM wave collapse buffs). Take anything out of the above and observation is no longer happening. Connection of the observer with that external reality is gone along with all access to a-posteriori knowledge of it in the sense that with the faculty for observation as literally the only possessed a-priori 'knowledge', all other knowledge (a-posteriori aboutness) in respect of external reality flows. The best observers of all time IMHO? 1) James Joyce. 2) Douglas Adams. 3) Heraclitus Note they are not scientists they were much more fun! Maybe my AGI artificial scientist will run aweay and become a writer. I can be weird in so many different areas! It's a gift! polyweirdness :-) Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: George and List: a very naive question (even more than my other posts) since I miss lots of posts that have been exuded on this list (since a decade or so of my incompletely reading it): Has it been ever formulated (and accepted on this list!) what we mean by the verb to observe? What does an 'observer' do in its (not his!!!) 'observer minute'? WHAT (and not 'who') is an observer? Many hours spent on this one. My definition sounds odd but only because I have to literally 'build' observation that I have had to sort it out. As an engineer I know that building an X is a sure route to an intimate understanding of Xso...My design goal: construction of an artificial scientist (artificial general intelligence - AGI). Thus logically I must build an observer. So.. the design aim of the project has observation as follows...(off the top of my head!): Observation involves (necessitates) the AGI having experiences, some of which are an experiential representation of the external world. The process of generation of the experiential field(s) involves the insertion of the AGI in the chain of causality from that which is observed 'out there' through the external world to the sensing surface, impact (causal interaction) measured by sensing, transport (causality again) of the measurement through the AGI to the brain where the measurement participates in the causality that is the creation of the experiential field. So that is what is *involved* in creating the experiential field. But what is the field? I understand it is a representation of the external world, but what about it makes it a representation? I hope you're not going to say because the observer recognizes or uses it as such. It is by virtue of the existence/reality of the _entire_ causal chain that the experiential field can be created and be called observation of the external world. (Clearly experiential fields can also be created as hallucinations/dreams, without the full causality chain - but that is not the 'observation' we are talking about). In making use of the complete causal chain the oberver has access (inherits some of the properties of) to that which is observed. This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the Cartesian theater fof the edification of the observer. This is not 'creating reality' in the Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of a representation of it from within the reality. This process I have described is observation and all of observation - nothin else counts as observation. So anything happening in my brain that has a causal connection to the world is an observation. I can buy that, but it seems so broad as to include things, like recalling memories, not usually called observation. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
