Riffing on Wolfram

2002-11-10 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Any comments? Can anyone point me to similar speculations? Thanks, Eric A collection of thoughts (very much a work in early progress) provoked by chapters 9 and 12 of A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram. --- Caveat: The following was written hastily and in somewhat sloppy,

Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

2002-11-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
As I mentioned in an earlier post, titled quantum computational cosmology why don't we assume/guess that the substrate (the fundamental concept of the universe or multiverse) is simply a capacity for there to be difference, but also, a capacity for all possible differences (and thus necessarily

Re: emergence (or is that re-emergence)

2002-11-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Let me first apologize for not yet reading the mentioned references on the subject, John Mikes wrote: As long as we cannot qualify the steps in a 'process' leading to the emerged new, we call it emergence, later we call it process. Just look back into the cultural past, how many

Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

2002-11-27 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Russell, Neat! I have been thinking of this idea in terms of a very weak anthropic principle and a communication principle. Roughtly these are: All observations by an observer are only those that do not contradict the existence of the observer and any

Is emergence real or just in models?

2002-11-27 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I'm in the camp that thinks that emergent systems are real phenomena, and that eventually, objective criteria would be able to be established that would allow us to say definitively whether an emerged system existed in some time and place in the universe. I think the criteria would have to do

Which is more interesting? Complexity or Simplicity?

2002-11-30 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Wolfram is fascinated by the generation of complexity and randomness from simple rules, and sees this as a fundamental and unexpected observation. (As a long-time programmer, I'm puzzled by his surprise at this. My bugs often have a complex and seemingly random nature, even in programs thought

Quantum Omni-Presents

2002-12-24 Thread Eric Hawthorne
It is well known that a classical Santa Claus is not possible, because, even with the best travelling salesperson algorithm at his disposal, Santa would have to travel faster than the speed of light to deliver presents to every household on Earth on Christmas Eve or morning, even considering the

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

2002-12-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stephen Paul King wrote: it seems to me that if minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine, i.e. compute, what it is like to be a bat or any other classical mind. I see this as implied by the ideas involved in Turing Machines and other Universal classical

Re: The Mind (off topic, but then, is anything off topic on this list?)

2002-12-27 Thread Eric Hawthorne
See response attached as text file: Joao Leao wrote: Both seem to me rather vaccuous statements since we don't really yet have a theory, classical or quantum or whathaveyou , of what a mind is or does. I don't mean an emprirical, or verifiable, or decidable or merely speculative theory! I mean

Re: The Mind (off topic, but then, is anything off topic on this list?)

2002-12-28 Thread Eric Hawthorne
John M wrote: Eric, your proposal sounds like: here I am and here is my mind . What gave you the idea that the two can be thought of as separate entities? The fact that we differentiate between a bowel movement and a thinking process in philosophy ... does not MAKE them separate entities.

More lengthy mind arguments

2002-12-29 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Lengthy response follows: Ignore if not interested. John M wrote: (Some criticisms which I am struggling with genuine effort to understand, independent of attacks on style, which I may have started. Sorry A few factors: 1. BRAINS AND BRAIN SOFTWARE ARE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED AND OPTIMIZED One

Last note to list on mind stuff (I promise)

2002-12-29 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Also you plunge into the 'computer' idea, a machine that thinks using memory. Again, in classical reductionism, as a Ding an Sich a white elephant on its own. The reason that I try to describe thinking that way (in isolation from its incarnation) is so that we can characterize the thinking

Re: Universes infinite in time

2003-01-09 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Bruno Marchal wrote: For example they will correctly infer some standard model particle theory from they high level experimentations, but as soon they will build particle accelerator to verify their theories, discrepancies will appear (just because we have not simulate the society-world at such

Re: Quantum Suicide without suicide

2003-01-09 Thread Eric Hawthorne
George Levy wrote: Conclusions: All this involves really basic probability theory. The first person perspective probability is identical to the probability conditional to the person staying alive. But that first-person probability is not objective, and not valid, and not useful. Consider

Re: Possible Worlds, Logic, and MWI

2003-01-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Re: possible worlds in logic. Logic (and its possible worlds semantics) says nothing (precise) about external reality. Logic only says something about the relationship of symbols in a formal language. Remember that the reason non-sloppy mathematicians use non-meaningful variable-names (i.e.

Re: Possible Worlds, Logic, and MWI

2003-01-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Interleaving... POINT 1 For example, truth is defined in formal logic with respect to, again, formal models with an infinite number of formal symbols in them. It is not defined with respect to some vague correspondence with external reality. Actually, science is just about such

Counter to a simple SWI Fermi argument

2003-01-14 Thread Eric Hawthorne
On the likelihood of detecting alien intelligences: (single-world case) 1. It is an enormously stupid conceit of us to assume that aliens would be broadcasting, or tightbeaming something like analog radio signals, for communication. We ourselves have only being doing that for 100 years, and will

Constraints on everything existing

2003-01-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Finney wrote: the purpose of the list, to discuss the implications of the various ideas that everything exists. Everything we say is implicitly prefaced by the conditional clause, If all whatevers exist, then. I would propose (as I layed out in some detail in a post about 3 months ago)

Re: Constraints on everything existing

2003-01-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
John M wrote: Eric: do I detect in your 'circumstances' some 'anthropocentric/metric/logic' restrictions? is the multiverse exclusively built according to the system we devised on this planet as 'our physical laws'? (your 'factor' #1, although you oincluded in factor #2 the (CLASSICAL

Re: Constraints on everything existing

2003-01-22 Thread Eric Hawthorne
My comment at the bottom of the message. Eric Jean-Michel Veuillen wrote: Eric Hawthorne wrote: Unless a world (i.e. a sequence of information state changes) has produced intelligent observers though, there will be no one around in it to argue whether it exists or not. Then our

Response to R.Hlywka's brain/mind comments

2003-06-05 Thread Eric Hawthorne
R Hlywka wrote: There are so many things we need to take into consideration. Genetics. We are born with a specific preprogramed set of organization and hardware. the way the neurons are preorganized, and the way they go about utilizing and organizing and transfering specific information. We

Re: 2C Mary - Check your concepts at the door

2003-06-04 Thread Eric Hawthorne
My physics is decades-old first-year U level (I'm a computer science type). But if I'm not mistaken, there's no such thing as a 2C speed, or a 2C closing of separation between two objects. All speeds can only be measured from some reference frame that is travelling with one of the objects (say

Re: 2C Mary - How minds perceive things and not things

2003-06-04 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Colin Hales wrote: The real question is the ontological status of the 'nothing' in that last sentence. I am starting to believe that the true nature of the 'fundamental' beneath qualia is not only about the 'stuff', but is actually about all of it. That is, the 'stuff' and the 'not stuff'. So.

Re: Are we in a simulation

2003-06-10 Thread Eric Hawthorne
My corollaries to: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 1. Any sufficiently detailed and correct reality simulation is indistinguishable from reality. 2. Any artificial consciousness which communicates in all circumstances within the range of communication

Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-15 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] Oh, ok. I have my own version of the anthropic principle: The content of a first person reality of an observer is the minimum that is necessary and sufficient for the existence of that observer. I am trying to include observer selection ideas in my

Re: Fw: Something for Platonists

2003-06-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Lennart Nilsson wrote: But in fact, the only thing that privileges the set of all computational operations that we see in nature, is that they are instantiated by the laws of physics. It is only through our knowledge of the physical world that we know of the di.erence between computable

Re: Ideal lamps

2003-10-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This is an IDEAL lamp, capable of INFINITE switching SPEED and using electricity that travels at INFINITE SPEED. Is it pedantic of me to point out that this is an IDEAL lamp, i.e. one which only exists as an idea, and one which, because of its

Re: Ideal lamps

2003-10-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Like I said, in mathematics, there MAY be an answer, depending what mathematical theory you choose. Even within mathematics, there may be questions that don't have an answer, and are ill-formed, and only seem well-formed because they seem to read ok in informal English. Without your extra

Re: multiverse paradox of a number of posts back

2003-10-30 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Someone wrote: The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws. There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-31 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Yes, this is Quantum Immortality in a nutshell. If the MWI is correct, it is impossible to die from a subjective point of view. Hooray! Yes but there can be no communication from one possible world to another (thus no cross-world awareness), because, think about it, if I could communicate

A random collection of questions about info-cosmology

2003-11-02 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Some of these questions may be profound, and some silly. (In fact, they may be sorted in order of profound to silly.) My education is spotty in these areas. I'm most interested in specific references that help answer (or destroy) these questions. 1. What test could determine if a computational

Re: Unsolicited weirdness

2003-11-02 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Could someone please send to the list and/or this lunatic the instructions for unsubscribing from the list. My old machine's disk crashed taking my email archive with it so I don't have the removal instructions. Thanks Eric Frank Flynn wrote: the devil is watching you I put a curse on all of

Social issues with replicated people

2003-11-08 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Readers of this list interested in issues of personal identity in the face of replication might enjoy the Sci-Fi novel Kiln People by David Brin. In the novel, a technology has been discovered that allows a person's soul standing wave (sic) to be copied into a kind of bio-engineered clay

Re: Quantum immortality - pragmatics again.

2003-11-13 Thread Eric Hawthorne
All this talk of quantum immortality seems like anthropocentric wishful thinking to me. You are a process. All physical objects are best understood as slow processes. A life process is a very complex physical pattern, which is an arrangement of matter and energy in space-time, that has

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
In the spirit of this list, one might instead phrase the question as: Why is there everything instead of nothing? As soon as we have that there is everything, then we have that some aspects of everything will mold themselves into observable universes. It is unsatisfying though true to observe

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Norman Samish wrote: ... I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by nothing. By nothing I mean no thing, not even empty space. I think of it this way. 1. Information (a strange and inappropriately anthropocentric word - it

Minor correction

2003-11-16 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I said nothing is a universe in which there is no difference, and thus no structure. i.e. That state of the bitstring has zero entropy, or zero information. So it is truely nothing. I guess you could define a zero-entropy state is having maximum order or simplest structure rather than

Re: Is the universe computable?

2004-01-06 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Frank wrote: Indeed, I've always thought there was a dubious assumption there. There isn't a universal time to pace the clock tics of a simulation. Relativity forbids it. Anyway, time is a subjective illusion. Back to the question: So what happens when the simulation diverges from regularity?

Why no white talking rabbits?

2004-01-08 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Jesse Mazer wrote: Why, out of all possible experiences compatible with my existence, do I only observe the ones that don't violate the assumption that the laws of physics work the same way in all places and at all times? Because a universe whose space-time was subject to different physical

Re: Why no white talking rabbits?

2004-01-09 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Finney wrote: What about a universe whose space-time was subject to all the same physical laws as ours in all regions - except in the vicinity of rabbits? And in those other regions some other laws applied which allow rabbits to behave magically? While this may be possible, we seem to have

Re: Peculiarities of our universe

2004-01-10 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Finney wrote: One is the apparent paucity of life and intelligence in our universe. This was first expressed as the Fermi Paradox, i.e., where are the aliens? As our understanding of technological possibility has grown the problem has become even more acute. It seems likely that our

Re: Why no white talking rabbits?

2004-01-10 Thread Eric Hawthorne
will) and that that's all that we can notice. This part is way too vague though. Jesse Mazer wrote: Eric Hawthorne wrote: So the answer to *why* it is true that our universe conforms to simple regularities and produces complex yet ordered systems governed (at some levels) by simple rules, it's

Computational complexity of running the multiverse

2004-01-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Georges Quenot writes: I do not believe in either case that a simulation with this level of detail can be conducted on any computer that can be built in our universe (I mean a computer able to simulate a universe containing a smaller computer doing the calculation you considered with a

Re: Computational complexity of running the multiverse - errata

2004-01-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Eric Hawthorne wrote: So probably, the extra-universal notion of computing all the universe simulations is not traditional computation at all. I prefer to think of the state of affairs as being that the multiverse substrate is just kind of like a very large, passive qubitstring memory

Re: Tegmark is too physics-centric

2004-01-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Kory Heath wrote: Tegmark goes into some detail on the problems with other than 3+1 dimensional space. Once again, I don't see how these problems apply to 4D CA. His arguments are extremely physics-centric ones having to do with what happens when you tweak quantum-mechanical or

The Facts of Life

2004-01-18 Thread Eric Hawthorne
CMR wrote: Indeed. The constraints to, and requirements for, terrestrial life have had to be revised and extended of late, given thermophiles and the like. Though they obviously share our dimensional requisites, they do serve to highlight the risk of prematurely pronouncing the facts of life.

Re: The Facts of Life and Hard AI

2004-01-18 Thread Eric Hawthorne
CMR wrote: I think it's useful here to note that from the strong AI point of view life as it could be is empahasized as opposed to life as we know it. It's also worth pointing out that the latter is based upon a single data point sample of all possible life, that sample consisting of life that

Re: Are conscious beings always fallible?

2004-01-20 Thread Eric Hawthorne
How would they ever know that I wonder? Well let's see. I'm conscious and I'm not fallible. Therefore ;-) David Barrett-Lennard wrote: I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer that can only generate thoughts which are sentences derivable from some underlying axioms

Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-20 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term paper really? On a few points. I don't believe in the point of view of nihilism because everything will happen in the multiverse, anyway, regardless of what I do.. My reasons are a little vague, but here's a stab at it: 1.

Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-22 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: This sort of argument has been raised many times over the centuries, both by rationalists and by their opponents, but it is based the fundamental error of conflating science with ethics. Science deals with matters of fact; it does not comment on whether these facts

Re: Ethics and morals (brief addendum)

2004-01-22 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Oh and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's not Christianity. That's a successful strategy in game theory.

Re: Ethics and morals (brief addendum)

2004-01-22 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I don't think there's just one successful game theory strategy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. is a kind of a planning-ahead strategy if you believe that others are going to use tit for tat. Maybe? And besides, I'm talking about a strategy that is beneficial to the group (and

Re: naturally selected ethics, and liking chocolate

2004-01-22 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Indeed, you might be able to show that 'the purpose of the ethical principles can be shown to be group success', although I'm sure that someone will be able to think of exceptions. This is an explanation of why societies have certain ethical principles, and perhaps

Re: Is group selection discredited?

2004-01-23 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Unfortunately, disallowing notions of group selection also disallows notions of emergent higher-level-order systems. You must allow for selection effects at all significantly functioning layers/levels of the emergent system, to explain the emergence of these systems adequately. For example, ant

Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

2004-01-24 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Can you explain briefly why the choice of measure is subjective? I haven't read any of the books you mentioned (will try to get to them) but am familiar with computability theory and decision theory. In my favourite interpretation of the multiverse, as a very long (possibly lengthening)

Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

2004-01-24 Thread Eric Hawthorne
John M wrote: I find some inconsistencies in your post: qubitstring containing all of the possible information-states implied in such a long bitstring,... possible, of course, to OUR knowledge (imagination). Anthropomorph thinking about the MW. I'm really talking

Re: Subjective measure and turing machine terminology

2004-01-24 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Wei Dai wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:21:40PM -0800, Eric Hawthorne wrote: Can you explain briefly why the choice of measure is subjective? I haven't read any of the books you mentioned (will try to get to them) but am familiar with computability theory and decision theory

Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

2004-01-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Wei Dai wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:09PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote: But measures aren't just about making decisions about what to *do*, the main argument for a single objective measure is that such a measure could make predictions about what we *see*, like why we see

Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

2004-01-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Wei Dai wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote: Do you think that by choosing a different measure, you could change the actual first-person probabilities of different experiences? Or do you reject the idea of continuity of consciousness and

Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-29 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Take these two statements: (a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Owen) (b) He died in the trenches during WW I from chlorine gas poisoning The former conveys feelings, values, wishes, while the latter conveys facts. The former is not true or false in the

Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-30 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: fact vs. value; formal vs. informal; precise vs. vague; objective vs. subjective; third person vs. first person; computation vs. thought; brain vs. mind; David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness: To me, this dichotomy remains the biggest mystery

Re: Incompleteness and Knowledge - errata

2004-01-31 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Corrections inserted here to the following paragraph of my previous post. (Apologies for the sloppiness.) Eric Hawthorne wrote: so truth itself, as a relationship between representative symbols and that which is (possibly) represented, is probably a limited concept, and the limitation has

Re: More on qualia of consciousness and occam's razor

2004-02-01 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ; you might even be able to read the brain, scanning for neuronal activity and deducing correctly that the subject sees a red flash. However, it is impossible to know what it feels like to see a red flash unless you have the actual experience yourself. So I

Re: More on qualia of consciousness and occam's razor - tiny addendum

2004-02-01 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Eric Hawthorne wrote: 6. Such an organised religion structure, or god-empowered government structure, if it succeeds in organizing people for an extended period of time, as it seems they did, would naturally tend to take on a life of its own, a self-reinforcing aspect, an autopoietic function

Flaw in denial of group selection principle in evolution discovered?

2004-02-01 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Blast from the recent past. This is pertinent to the previous discussions on evolution as a special case of emergent-system emergence. It was argued that group selection effects have been discredited in evolutionary biology. I counterargued that denying the possibility of a selection effect at

Re: measure and observer moments

2004-02-06 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Given temporal proximity of two states (e.g. observer-moments), increasing difference between the states will lead to dramatically lower measure/probability for the co-occurrence as observer-moments of the same observer (or co-occurrence in the same universe, is that maybe equivalent?) .

Continuation of group selection and emergence discussion

2004-02-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Tianran Chen wrote (in private reply to my earlier post, but I thought this discussion generally interesting, hope that's ok Tianran): i do agree that many very valuable point of view had been criticised unfairly due to their 'group selection' nature. however, i am quite convinced that

Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?

2004-02-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced physics education. But here goes anyway. Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an all-directional flux of inverse gravitons? These would be particles which: 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform

Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?

2004-02-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Finney wrote: Again, this is not really a multiverse question. I hate to be negative, but there are other forums for exploring nonstandard physics concepts. Alright I take your chastisement somewhat, while also grumbling a bit about list-fascism. For one thing it's possible that such a

Re: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?

2004-02-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Eric Cavalcanti wrote: But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia... Ok but let's say (for fun) that the iGravitons were all

Re:The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
How does a human differ in kind from a rock? -Well both are well modelled as being slow processes (i.e. localized states and events) in spacetime. - A process is a particular kind of pattern of organization of some subregion of spacetime. - We share being made of similar kinds of matter

Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Finney wrote: How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're living in one of them? Or does that require an elderly mathematician, a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in order for us to be here? It seems to me that mathematics

Re: The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Hal Ruhl wrote: I see nothing in the rest of your post that makes my believe there is a difference of kind between rocks and humans. I believe it is a mistake to concentrate only on the reductionist theory of the very small, and to assume that there is nothing else interesting about systems

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
What Jesse and Saibal write is the key, I think. While all successor states are possible, only very few are experiencable and memorable by a coherent brain (computer) and mind (software decision path in your brain). I think that the only factor that makes these anything can happen/is

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I saw the documentary movie Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion the other day. In one scene, a group of monks is sitting around in a circle, and the Dalai Llama is overseeing. The monks are industriously and methodically placing individual tiny coloured beads (there are maybe 4 or 5 colours) around

More on mandalas

2004-05-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
The other thing to note about mandalas is that there can be more than one possible pattern that would maintain order and recursive complexity as it expands outward (i.e. forward in time). However, an observer subpattern embedded in one mandala (and created by ITS rules of order) can only see

Re: Definitation of Observers

2004-04-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
An observer is a pattern in space-time (a physical process) which engages in the processing and storage of information about its surroundings in space-time. Its information processing is such that the observer creates abstracted, isomorphic, representative symbolic models of the structures and

Re: Definitation of Observers

2004-04-27 Thread Eric Hawthorne
a pattern that computes and stores information about its surroundings? Eric Brent Meeker wrote: Eric Hawthorne wrote An observer is a pattern in space-time (a physical process) which engages in the processing and storage of information about its surrounding