Re: lowly complexity
Bruno: There exists one dimensional *universal* automata. Yes, but it has many internal states and is not minimal. Also... it does not specify something very important... What is this one-dimensional universal automaton doing? What program is it running? If minimality + universality implies the necessity of 3 dimension, that would be a result vindicating your choice of minimal universal CA Yes, that is the hope. except that, remember UDA, to compute my futur I must necessarily take into account *all* emulations of me done by all possible universal machines because they are all emulated by the UD, or by the MUCA (Minimal Universal Cellular automata). But my goal is not to compute my future. We cannot do that any faster than the Universe itself does it. My goal is only to understand the underlying mechanism... The Program. Joel: And as I said before, The Game of Life itself is almost certainly not minimal, (definitely not reversible) so this would seem to rule it out as The Automaton that runs everything. Bruno: I disagree, for a change. You can write a universal dovetailer as a pattern of the game of life. It will generate your MUCA. Of course if you are patient enough you can write directly an emulator of your MUCA directly as a Game of Life pattern. I agree the Game of Life, like FORTRAN, is not minimal, but You can simulate the MUCA in FORTRAN and you can simulate the MUCA in Game of Life . Yes, this is all true. I do understand all universal computers are equivalent. But again: What program are these machines running? It is becoming clear to me - that is the real question. But from an abstract point of view, it may be difficult to implement a Turing Machine with no ad-hoc assumptions about time and space (e.g. the moving read-write head) and infinite slow-down. Mmmh ... Are you not contradicting yourself. I ask you what does run your MUCA, and you answer me that it exists abstractly. Why should not Turing machine deserve that type of existence? The Turing time and space is akin to the the MUCA time-step and space too. Yes, you may be right. I feel I am contradicting myself a little here. And since this is probably one of the weakest points of my argument, I don't push it too hard. :-) Still... it is easier for me to imagine the cellular automaton, with its discrete time and discrete space. I keep wondering: Exactly how does the Turing Machine read-write head move? What propels it? What is fluid motion? If we try to make discrete the smooth motion of the read-write head, then the one-dimensional Turing Machine becomes a two-dimensional cellular automaton! And then we are back to the original problem... What is it computing? Is it minimal? Does it compute all finite configurations? About the slow-down. If you want no slow-down you should buy QMUCA! (Quantum MUCA). Certainly. Do you have one for sale? How does it work? ;-) But the slow-down can be seen only by some putative absolute 3-observer, the 1-observer inside the universal simulation will not see a slow-down, because, as you agreed, he cannot be aware of delays. Yes, this is true. Again, I try not to stress these points too much. :-) Like Jacques Mallah (on this point) or George Levy (apparantly on all points!) I agree that for fundamental matters the choice of a precise universal representation does not matter. As you should: I don't see how you will escape that point after having answer yes to the ten UDA-question. (More on this in my reply to your answer to question 9 and 10). Yes, I think I agree too. The representation cannot matter. So we agree the universe is a computer. Now what is it running? Which program is it executing? Joel
Re: lowly complexity
Joel: I keep wondering: Exactly how does the Turing Machine read-write head move? What propels it? What is fluid motion? You can conceive a Turing machine as just a table of number controlling an unbounded one dimensional cellular automata. But honestly I see it, either through a simple minded godelian arithmetisation as a (Godel) number, or a second order number naming a computable entity or describing nameable relation among numbers. I'm afraid, Joel, that you are still under the influence of the mermaid's songs. I have also favorised some universal system. My first one was the genetical regulation system (in Escherichia Coli), my second one was Peano Arithmetic, my third one was Z80, then Lambda Calculus, LISP, LOGO, the Curry Combinators, First Order Logic, Higher Order Logic, Post creative sets, Sigma_1 sentences, but also Cellular Automata, Fractran, Games, Surreal Numbers, N body system, ... The most crazy one, I think, are rotations in Hilbert Space! ... Well perhaps my first one was my brain or my body, but I was not aware of the universality at that time, nor was I aware of the universality of myself and ourselves. Certainly. Do you have one [QMUCA]for sale? How does it work? ;-) Unfortunately I don't have a quantum minimal cellular automata to sale. Well, not even to use. Worst: I have not even the time to answer how does it work. Do you know how does quantum computing work in general? The quantity of information you can gather on the net about quantum computing is huge ... But beware the mermaids ... Yes, I think I agree too. The representation cannot matter. So we agree the universe is a computer. So are you. Now what is it running? Which program is it executing? It executes all programs. The apparition of physical appearances is given by an average of (relative) first plural person point of view of sound self referentially correct universal machine. The average is taken on the relative consistent extensions. For that we need to find a measure. (As you know I am not the only one searching a measure in this list). Bruno
Re: lowly complexity
George: The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The rest is first person emergent. Yes, this is true. In fact I agree with you. As a matter of practicality, it doesn't matter at all what is at the bottom. Everything is happening, and anything you want to happen WILL happen. And from your point of view in the game, this may be enough George. Your solution is complete. Now you must work towards finding the key to enlightenment, or whatever, and you've won. But for me - in MY game - I am left holding these pieces of a puzzle... 1. the history of modern science is based on the continuum 2. many important advancements have been achieved using such science 3. but many significant problems loom on the horizon 4. along comes the computer, and the discovery of complexity from simplicity 5. everyone seems to have overlooked the simple discrete, deterministic machines as theories of everything 6. my friend on the net notices that some simple automata are capable of Everything 7. we lie on the verge of unimaginable achievements including: free energy, the elimination of disease and suffering, the solving of many ancient mysteries, establishment of relationships with extraterrestrial intelligences, the engineering of human immortality, etc. I could go on and on. But for me - in my game - the situation is flawless. The timing is perfect for a cultural and scientific revolution to make it all happen... within my lifetime. I would say that it's too good to be true, but I know better. Virtual Reality can easily make all of this happen. It's exactly as I would have designed it! Therefore, I conclude: It's all just a game. A game we can't lose! So... At this time - under these circumstances - within this simulation - it appears that the idea of the minimal cellular automaton is a novel and powerful idea. So I go on playing the game. Putting the pieces together as best as I can. If I ever find a better idea, I'll fight for that! George, I like your idea. Is there any way to study/make use of the Zen non-computer? Where's the mouse keyboard? How can we explore the plentitude? Joel
Re: lowly complexity
Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: I do understand all universal computers are equivalent. But again: What program are these machines running? It is becoming clear to me - that is the real question. They are running COBOL version 5.3. This language has been, and will remain with us for ever. ;-) George: The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The rest is first person emergent. Yes, this is true. In fact I agree with you. As a matter of practicality, it doesn't matter at all what is at the bottom. Everything is happening, and anything you want to happen WILL happen. And from your point of view in the game, this may be enough George. Your solution is complete. Now you must work towards finding the key to enlightenment, or whatever, and you've won. But for me - in MY game - I am left holding these pieces of a puzzle... 1. the history of modern science is based on the continuum 2. many important advancements have been achieved using such science 3. but many significant problems loom on the horizon 4. along comes the computer, and the discovery of complexity from simplicity 5. everyone seems to have overlooked the simple discrete, deterministic machines as theories of everything 6. my friend on the net notices that some simple automata are capable of Everything 7. we lie on the verge of unimaginable achievements including: free energy, the elimination of disease and suffering, the solving of many ancient mysteries, establishment of relationships with extraterrestrial intelligences, the engineering of human immortality, etc. I could go on and on. But for me - in my game - the situation is flawless. The timing is perfect for a cultural and scientific revolution to make it all happen... within my lifetime. I would say that it's too good to be true, but I know better. Virtual Reality can easily make all of this happen. It's exactly as I would have designed it! Therefore, I conclude: It's all just a game. A game we can't lose! So... At this time - under these circumstances - within this simulation - it appears that the idea of the minimal cellular automaton is a novel and powerful idea. So I go on playing the game. Putting the pieces together as best as I can. If I ever find a better idea, I'll fight for that! OK, OK, OK go for it somewhere someplace in the plenitude your universe is certainly run on a cellular automaton. The question is what is underneath THAT automaton? Another one? And then another one? Just like the turtles supporting the world Applying the first person to the Plenitude means that there is no need for any physical implement which is nice. (If there was a physical implement then it would be begging for an explanation!) We can imagine the states in the Plenitude to be static. The transition from one state to another IS consiousness. These transitions are anthropically filtered (i.e., filtered by consciousness). Transitions are not real... They are only in the mind of the beholderNothing is real.except the selfIt is the anchor on which everything else depends. I could make a fortune selling those Zen computers. Imagine! No production cost and infinitely small and fast! :-) George, I like your idea. Is there any way to study/make use of the Zen non-computer? Where's the mouse keyboard? How can we explore the plentitude? You are exploring the Plenitude right now. Except that your perspective is only a small slice of it. George
Re: lowly complexity
Jacques: You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest. Why not? The set of all is the simplest possibility, rather than choosing one simple program. (Joel's 3 dimensional cellular automata are particularly ridiculous to me. How could he think the 3-d is not anthropically chosen?) I struggle very much with the reasons why the automaton should be three-dimensional. And at this time, I have no adequate answer for you. Perhaps it is not. But... let me say this: We do not claim that this magic automaton needs to be three- dimensional. We only claim that it is minimal (generates all finite configurations) and computationally universal (can perform any computation). It is the latter part (computational universality) that may require three dimensions. But honestly this is just a hunch. At this time, none of the elementary one-dimensional minimal cellular automata appear capable of universal computation. Certainly it would seem that there might be a two-dimensional automaton that is both minimal (generates all configurations) and also computationally universal. But what if there isn't? Most computer scientists seem to agree that computational universality requires crossing signals paths - to get information from one place to another without disrupting the flow of other information streams. Maybe three dimensions is the minimum needed to do this successfully. ? Note: Some of you will point to the Game of Life as an example of a two-dimensional universal computer - using gliders as information channels. But it is not clear to me that such an automaton could actually be made to compute the workings of a minimal celllar automaton (one that generates all configurations). Yes, I have seen the examples of the Game of Life working as a Turing Machine. But let me just say I'm not convinced it will work for infinite computational processes like the minimal CA. And as I said before, The Game of Life itself is almost certainly not minimal, (definitely not reversible) so this would seem to rule it out as The Automaton that runs everything. What we need is something that is minimal (generates all configurations) AND computationally universal (capable of performing any computation)... thus generating ALL programs. Maybe three dimensions is the only way to do this. ? I don't know. But I do know this... We'll never know if we don't look!! =) All possible algorithms should exist: TMs, CAs, etc. As we know, from a computational point of view, Turing Machines are equivalent to cellular automata. But from an abstract point of view, it may be difficult to implement a Turing Machine with no ad-hoc assumptions about time and space (e.g. the moving read-write head) and infinite slow-down. The typical machine on the bottom should therefore be of huge dimension, with a huge number of states, etc. That's going to be a very difficult thing to study. But let me look at your paper, as this is new to me. Joel
Re: lowly complexity
Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: Jacques: You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest. I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But if we must choose one, there is a way to pick the simplest: No real computer at all. Just the illusion of one is sufficient. In fact, for the same virtual zero cost, we could have the illusion of all possible virtual computers! What we need is something that is minimal (generates all configurations) AND computationally universal (capable of performing any computation)... thus generating ALL programs. Joel Let me elaborate on the use of the Zen non-computer. But this requires the concept of first person... something that Marchal is in the process of explaining... and which is not universally accepted in this list. Let's start with a Plenitude of all possible states. Some of those states may happen to be logically connected AS IF they were sequentially ordered computer states. No real links join those states... just virtual links. It seems pretty obvious that whether a real computer follows those links or a virtual one, is irrelevant. We could imagine the set of all possible virtual computers generating the set of all possible virtual links joining those states. Are we, as observer, going to observe all those possible states linked by all those virtual computers? Of course not! Anthropic filtering restricts the set of states to those consistent with the psyche of the observer. The important thing is that they are linked from the point of view of the first person observer in a manner consistent with the psyche of the observer. The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The rest is first person emergent. George
lowly complexity
From: Joel Dobrzelewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this may seem academic really, since we all know that any universal computer is as good as any other. [...] But there MAY be some reasons to want to know exactly which algorithm is really being run on the bottom... You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest. So much for zero information. I have tolerated the talk of UDs because it's about equivalent to saying that all programs should be run. But I have always advocated the latter. The set of all is the simplest possibility, rather than choosing one simple program. (Joel's 3 dimensional cellular automata are particularly ridiculous to me. How could he think the 3-d is not anthropically chosen?) I'll expand that to include hardware (i.e. the bottom algorithm). All possible algorithms should exist: TMs, CAs, etc. The typical machine on the bottom should therefore be of huge dimension, with a huge number of states, etc. As usual, most programs are junk but some will implement universes, or in this case, I should say that most parts of a typical computer are junk but some are useful. I don't think this solves the measure problem (which is the real issue), but is it possible that the measure distribution of computations implemented (see my page Plank Syposium paper if you don't know what I mean by that) by these infinitely varied bottom machines is somehow independent of the way the machines themselves are described? - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
