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