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

2007-08-06 Thread John
Colin and all:
it was a shock to receive your post (below).
First I have to copy it out and restore the text to some readability from all 
those haphazardous   lines.
Then I have to restore my thinking into those lines of the topic - right 
recently 'destroyed' by a list inuindating me with 100+ posts daily mostly with 
political hogwash, but many of them with interesting multitopical content. 

I hope to return to sanity.
Then I will try to respond - if I feel I can - which will require an other 
aberration from the ubiquitous 'sanity' into the ideas of this list. This is 
something like being 'normal' as we discussed it with George Levy a year or so 
ago. Sane (normal) is average and usual. If the majority is insane, that is the 
normal sanity (oops I fell back into politics). 
So let me renormalize (not in theor. physical ways) and please,
accept my reply kindly - after some time.
Happy birthday
John Mikes
  - Original Message - 
  From: Colin Geoffrey Hales 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:59 PM
  Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7



  sorry about all the posts.
  something weird going on.

  
   see below..
  
  
   See below, please
   John
   - Original Message -
   From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
   Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
  
  
   Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
   Marc:
   I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the
   
   IS
   ?
   *
   I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question. Any
   suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
   (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am  and so on) John
   There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I
   can
   think of:
   Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy),
   if
   you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are
   'being',
   you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
   does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
   innate to the situation.
   SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
   on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
   a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
   rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
   This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit
   to
   the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
   point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the
   'reality'
   of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
   make sense?
   Colin
   JM:
   maybe, not to my understanding;
   I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an
   'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
   May I paraphrase your explanation:
   I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I
   call
   so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something
   different.
   Not too explanatory.
   Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I
   exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'. I was
   driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
   a
   snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
   So:  what is existence'?
  
   John
  
  
  
   To exist is to be a chunk of our universe.
  
   Why is there a universe?
  
   I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness
   is a sea of monkeys typing...one day, accidentally, they write a
   masterpiece.
  
   Why is there randomness?
  
   It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The
   logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true.
   not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not
   to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard.
  
   This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound.
  
   It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the
   same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural
   levels of the randomness the details don't matter.
  
   So there you go life the universe and eveything. It's all completely
   meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of
   'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our
   efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you
   have them!
  
  
   Is the universe a computer? No.
   It the universe computation? Yes.
  
   :-)
  
   Colin Hales
  
  
  
  
   
  




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because

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

2006-11-09 Thread John M

See below, please
John
- Original Message - 
From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




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

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

 John


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

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

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

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

 make sense?

 Colin

JM:
maybe, not to my understanding;
I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an 
'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
May I paraphrase your explanation:
I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I call 
so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something different.
Not too explanatory.
Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I 
exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'.
I was driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first a 
snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
So:  what is existence'?

John 


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



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

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

See below


 See below, please
 John
 - Original Message -
 From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




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

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

 John


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

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

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

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

 make sense?

 Colin

 JM:
 maybe, not to my understanding;
 I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an
 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
 May I paraphrase your explanation:
 I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I call
 so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something different.
 Not too explanatory.
 Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I
 exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'.
 I was driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
 a
 snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
 So:  what is existence'?

 John


The same laws that run a rock run us. I don't know 'what it is like' to be
a rock, but I think I can reasonably expect it to be like 'not much'. The
rock has the same 'perspective view' of everything that is not itself. It
has simply not gone to the trouble of arranging for the potential view to
be made 'like something'.

The same rules that make me, you, and the rock are also used to make use
of the potential view. So from that perspective 'existence' is to be a
chuck of the universe...end of story.

As to the deeper question as to why there is something rather then
nothing, the age old question.. well I have my delusions about this
which currently involve making a universe out of randomness, spontaneously
as a very infrequent but logically inevitable result of the behaviouir of
random processes.

Then there is the deeper question of why are there random processes at
all? This question is solved based on one logical inevitability the
impossibility of the infinite. To manufacture a perfect 'nothing' re


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



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

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

See below


 See below, please
 John
 - Original Message -
 From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




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

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

 John


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

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

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

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

 make sense?

 Colin

 JM:
 maybe, not to my understanding;
 I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an
 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
 May I paraphrase your explanation:
 I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I call
 so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something different.
 Not too explanatory.
 Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I
 exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'.
 I was driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
 a
 snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
 So:  what is existence'?

 John


The same laws that run a rock run us. I don't know 'what it is like' to be
a rock, but I think I can reasonably expect it to be like 'not much'. The
rock has the same 'perspective view' of everything that is not itself. It
has simply not gone to the trouble of arranging for the potential view to
be made 'like something'.

The same rules that make me, you, and the rock are also used to make use
of the potential view. So from that perspective 'existence' is to be a
chuck of the universe...end of story.

As to the deeper question as to why there is something rather then
nothing, the age old question.. well I have my delusions about this
which currently involve making a universe out of randomness, spontaneously
as a very infrequent but logically inevitable result of the behaviouir of
random processes.

Then there is the deeper question of why are there random processes at
all? This question is solved based on one logical inevitability the
impossibility of the infinite. To manufacture a perfect 'nothing' re


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



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

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

see below..


 See below, please
 John
 - Original Message -
 From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7


 Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
 Marc:
 I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the

 IS
 ?
 *
 I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question. Any
suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
 (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am  and so on) John
 There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I
can
 think of:
 Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy),
if
 you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are
'being',
 you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
innate to the situation.
 SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
 a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
 This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit
to
 the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the
'reality'
 of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
make sense?
 Colin
 JM:
 maybe, not to my understanding;
 I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an
'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
 May I paraphrase your explanation:
 I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I
call
 so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something
different.
 Not too explanatory.
 Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I
exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'. I was
driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
 a
 snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
 So:  what is existence'?

 John



To exist is to be a chunk of our universe.

Why is there a universe?

I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness
is a sea of monkeys typing...one day, accidentally, they write a
masterpiece.

Why is there randomness?

It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The
logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true.
not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not
to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard.

This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound.

It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the
same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural
levels of the randomness the details don't matter.

So there you go life the universe and eveything. It's all completely
meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of
'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our
efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you
have them!


Is the universe a computer? No.
It the universe computation? Yes.

:-)

Colin Hales




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



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

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales

sorry about all the posts.
something weird going on.


 see below..


 See below, please
 John
 - Original Message -
 From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7


 Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
 Marc:
 I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the
 
 IS
 ?
 *
 I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question. Any
 suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
 (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am  and so on) John
 There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I
 can
 think of:
 Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy),
 if
 you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are
 'being',
 you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
 does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
 innate to the situation.
 SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
 on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
 a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
 rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
 This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit
 to
 the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
 point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the
 'reality'
 of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
 make sense?
 Colin
 JM:
 maybe, not to my understanding;
 I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an
 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
 May I paraphrase your explanation:
 I am - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I
 call
 so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something
 different.
 Not too explanatory.
 Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  if I
 exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'. I was
 driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
 a
 snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
 So:  what is existence'?

 John



 To exist is to be a chunk of our universe.

 Why is there a universe?

 I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness
 is a sea of monkeys typing...one day, accidentally, they write a
 masterpiece.

 Why is there randomness?

 It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The
 logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true.
 not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not
 to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard.

 This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound.

 It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the
 same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural
 levels of the randomness the details don't matter.

 So there you go life the universe and eveything. It's all completely
 meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of
 'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our
 efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you
 have them!


 Is the universe a computer? No.
 It the universe computation? Yes.

 :-)

 Colin Hales




 




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



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

2006-11-07 Thread John M

I hope this will go through..
Colin wrote

--- Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
  Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this
 topic to
  Marc:
 
  I wonder how would you define besides 'universe'
 and 'computer' the 
  IS
  ?
  *
  I agree that 'existence' is  more than a
 definitional question.
  Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?)
 definition?
  (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am
  and so on)
 
  John
 
 
 There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea
 of 'being' that I can
 think of:
 
 Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom,
 human, planet, galaxy), if
 you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that
 which you are 'being',
 you automatically define a perspective on the rest
 of the universe. It
 does not mean that perspective is visible, only that
 the perspective is
 innate to the situation.
 
 SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe,
 you another and so
 on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I
 am an atom then I get
 a view of the rest of the universe (that is
 expressing an un-atom). The
 rest of the universe has a perspective view of the
 atom.
 
 This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the
 universe is implicit to
 the situation. The division is notional from an
 epistemological stand
 point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does
 not alter the 'reality'
 of the innate perspective 'view' involved with
 'being' the described.
 
 make sense?
 
 Colin
 
It makes sense (I have to translate YOUR vocabujlaryh
into mine, of course). 
It ramifies into SELF and Not-SELF and into the 
relational view of the totality. 

Also: it leads into my old beef that everything is
consckious at its own level. 
What to include into 'everything' is of course a
matter of debate, it mayh err into physicalism or some
materialistic view of the world. 

Thank, Colin, I have to digest it

John

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



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

2006-11-07 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales


It makes sense (I have to translate YOUR vocabujlaryh
 into mine, of course).
 It ramifies into SELF and Not-SELF and into the
 relational view of the totality.

 Also: it leads into my old beef that everything is
 consckious at its own level.
 What to include into 'everything' is of course a
 matter of debate, it mayh err into physicalism or some
 materialistic view of the world.

 Thank, Colin, I have to digest it

 John


No problem... although the term

everything is conscious at its own level.

gets to look very pan-psychist, which makes me cringe, too. I prefer to
think of it as an innate perspective whose visibility can be manipulated.
Brains do it, kneecaps don't. It doesn't have the same 'magical' flavour
to it that panpsychism brings along, but it looks 'panpsychistic'
nontheless.

Have fun digesting!

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

2006-11-07 Thread John M

Colin,
I just remembered in a recent post to another list that ~15 years ago - 
thinking of what many think as 'consckiousness', I  boiled down to 
'acknowledgement and response to information', (which I identified rather as 
perceived difference and not the meaningles 'bit'), with the notion that it 
closes in to panpsychism - what I did not like because of the psycho 
connotation. I called the characteristic pansensitiveness.
It is e.g.  an ion feeling/responding to an electrical charge or a statement 
of a philosopher (or economist? ha ha) any variety containing any 
'difference' to be perceived (acknowledged, built 'in' etc.). So 
'everything' has that kind of 'consciousness' at the level of its own 
sophistication and quality. Psycho lists did not like it, but found it 
'interesting'.
*
Brain? you probably cover by this name more than the highly watery neuronal 
etc. tissue in the skull - that would be not different from a kneecap which 
is just as part of the total interconnected complexity we include into 
self, the human with its mentality (not explained by the 
tissue-measurements).

And good luck to your lambda integral  of an artifact number - a result of 
dividing 2 primitive phyhsical observation-related quantities and called 
entropy in the reductionist physical view.

I apologize for the typos, I use a new conputer (no spellchecker yet) with a 
barely visible keyboard, awful.
(In a language which is the 5th I learned).

John






 Original Message - 
From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7




It makes sense (I have to translate YOUR vocabujlaryh
 into mine, of course).
 It ramifies into SELF and Not-SELF and into the
 relational view of the totality.

 Also: it leads into my old beef that everything is
 consckious at its own level.
 What to include into 'everything' is of course a
 matter of debate, it mayh err into physicalism or some
 materialistic view of the world.

 Thank, Colin, I have to digest it

 John


 No problem... although the term

 everything is conscious at its own level.

 gets to look very pan-psychist, which makes me cringe, too. I prefer to
 think of it as an innate perspective whose visibility can be manipulated.
 Brains do it, kneecaps don't. It doesn't have the same 'magical' flavour
 to it that panpsychism brings along, but it looks 'panpsychistic'
 nontheless.

 Have fun digesting!

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

2006-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


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


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


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




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


? (Why would you need ppt?)



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



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

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

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

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


Bruno



 John M wrote


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




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

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

 ZF can prove the existence of non countable sets, and still be
 satisfied by a countable model. This means that all sets in the model
 are countable so there is a bijection between each infinite set living
 in the model and the set N of natural numbers. What is happening? just
 that the bijection itself does not live in the model, so that the
 inhabitants of the model cannot see the bijection, and this shows
 that  uncountability is not absolute. It just means that from where I
 am I cannot enumerate the set. But, contrariwise,  uncomputability is
 absolute for those enough rich theories.

 Here I am close to a possible answer of a question by Stathis (why
 comp?), and the answer is that with comp you have robust (absolute,
 independent of machine

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

2006-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


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



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

 Bruno



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

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

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


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





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


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

Bruno

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


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




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

2006-11-06 Thread James N Rose

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


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

Jamie Rose


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



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

2006-11-06 Thread John M

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

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

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

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

Teleportation, of a return from a HP universe?

John

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



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


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


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




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


? (Why would you need ppt?)



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



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

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

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

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


Bruno



 John M wrote


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




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

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

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

2006-11-06 Thread John M

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

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

John

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




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



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

 Bruno



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

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

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


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





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


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

Bruno

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





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



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




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

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales


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

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

 John


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

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

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

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

make sense?

Colin


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



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

2006-11-05 Thread marc . geddes


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

 Bruno



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

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

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

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


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



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

2006-11-04 Thread John M

Bruno,
although I did not see in my list-post my comment to Marc's report about the 
German conference (sent before your and Saibal's posts) I may continue it 
(maybe copying the missing text below);
Saibal's :
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first order 
logic,...
is interesting: it may mean that the wholeness-view (like Robert Rosen's 
'complexity' and my wholistiv views as well) do not compute with 1st order 
logic - what may not be fatal IMO.
I use model a bit opposite to Skolem's text (sorry, I could not read your 
URL, my new comnputer does not (yet) have ppt installed) - but as I 
decyphered Skolem's long text, it is a math-construct based on 'a theory'. 
A different model.
My 'model' (and R. Rosen's) is an extract of the totality, a limited  cut 
from the interconnectedness by topical, functional ideational etc. 
boundaries and THEORIES are based on that (usefully, if not extended beyond 
the margins of the model - limitedly observed to formulate them.)
If this is beyond 1st order logic that is not the fault of such 
model-view - with uncomputable (impredicative) numbers and unlimited 
variables - rather shows a limitation of the domain called 1st order logic. 
(I put numbers in quotation, I used the word to apply it according to the 
here ongoing talks.)
Rosen (a mathematician) also called it Turing un-emulable.
Your explanation about the ZF uncountability and the uncomputability is 
intgeresting, I could not yet digest its meaning as how it may be pertinent 
to my thinking.

John M


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




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

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

ZF can prove the existence of non countable sets, and still be
satisfied by a countable model. This means that all sets in the model
are countable so there is a bijection between each infinite set living
in the model and the set N of natural numbers. What is happening? just
that the bijection itself does not live in the model, so that the
inhabitants of the model cannot see the bijection, and this shows
that  uncountability is not absolute. It just means that from where I
am I cannot enumerate the set. But, contrariwise,  uncomputability is
absolute for those enough rich theories.

Here I am close to a possible answer of a question by Stathis (why
comp?), and the answer is that with comp you have robust (absolute,
independent of machine, language, etc.) notion of everything. Comp has
a Church thesis. few notion of math have such facility. Tegmark's
whole math, for example, is highly ambiguous.

Thanks to Saibal for Peter Suber web page on Skolem (interesting).


Bruno


Le 03-nov.-06, à 13:50, Bruno Marchal a écrit :


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

 Bruno


 Le 03-nov.-06, à 13:43, Saibal Mitra a écrit :

 uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
 order logic, see here:

 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm

=
Copy of my lost? note to Marc (Bov.3 - 6:59AM):

Marc,

I do not argue with 'your half' of the 'answer' you gave to the conference 
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should 
we call a computer?

'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is doing it)?

Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic gadget - maybe 
even on a  binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006? a 
Turing machine?

John M

=



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message

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

2006-11-03 Thread John M

Marc,

I do not argue with 'your half' of the 'answer' you gave to the conference 
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should 
we call a computer?

'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is doing it)?

Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic gadget - maybe 
even on a  binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006? a 
Turing machine?

John M

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7



 Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)

 Is the universe a computer.  Well, if you define 'universe' to mean
 'everything which exists' and you're a mathematical platonist and grant
 reality to infinite sets and uncomputables, the answer must be NO,
 since if uncomputable numbers are objectively real (strong platonism)
 they are 'things' and therefore 'part of the universe' which are by
 definition not computable.

 But if by 'universe' you just mean 'physical reality' or 'discrete
 mathematics' or you refuse to grant platonic reality to uncomputables
 or infinite sets (anti-platonism or weaker platonism) then the answer
 could be YES, the universe is a computer.

 Cheers!




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




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

2006-11-03 Thread Saibal Mitra

uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first 
order logic, see here:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm


[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


 Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)

 Is the universe a computer.  Well, if you define 'universe' to mean
 'everything which exists' and you're a mathematical platonist and grant
 reality to infinite sets and uncomputables, the answer must be NO,
 since if uncomputable numbers are objectively real (strong platonism)
 they are 'things' and therefore 'part of the universe' which are by
 definition not computable.

 But if by 'universe' you just mean 'physical reality' or 'discrete
 mathematics' or you refuse to grant platonic reality to uncomputables
 or infinite sets (anti-platonism or weaker platonism) then the answer
 could be YES, the universe is a computer.

 Cheers!


 




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



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

2006-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

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

Bruno


Le 03-nov.-06, à 13:43, Saibal Mitra a écrit :

 uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
 order logic, see here:

 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


 Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)

 Is the universe a computer.  Well, if you define 'universe' to mean
 'everything which exists' and you're a mathematical platonist and 
 grant
 reality to infinite sets and uncomputables, the answer must be NO,
 since if uncomputable numbers are objectively real (strong platonism)
 they are 'things' and therefore 'part of the universe' which are by
 definition not computable.

 But if by 'universe' you just mean 'physical reality' or 'discrete
 mathematics' or you refuse to grant platonic reality to uncomputables
 or infinite sets (anti-platonism or weaker platonism) then the answer
 could be YES, the universe is a computer.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


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




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

2006-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


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

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

ZF can prove the existence of non countable sets, and still be 
satisfied by a countable model. This means that all sets in the model 
are countable so there is a bijection between each infinite set living 
in the model and the set N of natural numbers. What is happening? just 
that the bijection itself does not live in the model, so that the 
inhabitants of the model cannot see the bijection, and this shows 
that  uncountability is not absolute. It just means that from where I 
am I cannot enumerate the set. But, contrariwise,  uncomputability is 
absolute for those enough rich theories.

Here I am close to a possible answer of a question by Stathis (why 
comp?), and the answer is that with comp you have robust (absolute, 
independent of machine, language, etc.) notion of everything. Comp has 
a Church thesis. few notion of math have such facility. Tegmark's 
whole math, for example, is highly ambiguous.

Thanks to Saibal for Peter Suber web page on Skolem (interesting).


Bruno


Le 03-nov.-06, à 13:50, Bruno Marchal a écrit :


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

 Bruno


 Le 03-nov.-06, à 13:43, Saibal Mitra a écrit :

 uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
 order logic, see here:

 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


 Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)

 Is the universe a computer.  Well, if you define 'universe' to mean
 'everything which exists' and you're a mathematical platonist and
 grant
 reality to infinite sets and uncomputables, the answer must be NO,
 since if uncomputable numbers are objectively real (strong platonism)
 they are 'things' and therefore 'part of the universe' which are by
 definition not computable.

 But if by 'universe' you just mean 'physical reality' or 'discrete
 mathematics' or you refuse to grant platonic reality to uncomputables
 or infinite sets (anti-platonism or weaker platonism) then the answer
 could be YES, the universe is a computer.
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


 


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




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

2006-11-02 Thread Juergen Schmidhuber

Dear colleagues,
many interesting talks
at the Zuse Symposium:
Is the universe a computer?
Berlin Nov 6-7, 2006
http://www.dtmb.de/Aktuelles/Aktionen/Informatikjahr-Zuse/

Best regards,
-JS
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html


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

2006-11-02 Thread marc . geddes

Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)

Is the universe a computer.  Well, if you define 'universe' to mean
'everything which exists' and you're a mathematical platonist and grant
reality to infinite sets and uncomputables, the answer must be NO,
since if uncomputable numbers are objectively real (strong platonism)
they are 'things' and therefore 'part of the universe' which are by
definition not computable.

But if by 'universe' you just mean 'physical reality' or 'discrete
mathematics' or you refuse to grant platonic reality to uncomputables
or infinite sets (anti-platonism or weaker platonism) then the answer
could be YES, the universe is a computer.

Cheers!


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