Colin Hales wrote
> ...
>Not really TOE stuff, so I?ll desist for now. I remain ever hopeful that one
>day I?ll be able to understand Bruno?. :-)
Ah! Thanks for that optimistic proposition :-)
Let us forget the AUDA which needs indeed some familiarity with
mathematical logic.
But the UDA? It wo
> Colin Hales wrote:
> > Here is another possible confusion: emergence as a descriptive artefact vs
> > emergence as real layered behaviour in a real system. The wording
> > initially looks as if you think emergence is not real. The emergence is real
> > (whatever we consider real is!). Example
Colin Hales wrote:
> Here is another possible confusion: emergence as a descriptive artefact vs
> emergence as real layered behaviour in a real system. The wording
> initially looks as if you think emergence is not real. The emergence is real
> (whatever we consider real is!). Example: There ar
>> made progress. (I am still wading my way through his tome).
>>
>> ***Isnt the 'algorithmic revolution' really a final acceptance that
there
>> are behaviours in numbers that are simply inaccessible to "closed form"
>> mathematical formulae? -
I don't think I received the first of my two messages written today on
Wolfram, but it made it to the archive. In case anyone missed it I'll
just point to it rather than re-sending. It's available at
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4156.html.
Hal Finney
Hal Finney wrote:
>
> My one concern is that if Wolfram is right and our universe is a random
> program from some set, and if there are much more than on the order
> of 100 bits in the program, we will never be able to find the right
> program. If the nature of the program space is similar to wha
One more point with regard to Wolfram and our list's theme. I think
that implicit in his conception of the underlying rules of the universe
you have to assume some kind of all-universe model. The reason is that
he does not expect our universe's program to be particularly special
or unique. He th
I think there are a couple of things about Wolfram's book which aren't
well understood.
Most importantly, he is not specifically commited to cellular automata.
He does focus on them, especially 1-dimensional, 2-state CAs, as a
particularly simple model of computation, which also has the property
t
my way through his tome).
>
> ***Isnt the 'algorithmic revolution' really a final acceptance that there
> are behaviours in numbers that are simply inaccessible to "closed form"
> mathematical formulae? - That closed-form mathematics cannot traverse the
> compl
les wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have chewed this thread with great interest.
Our main gripe is the issue of emergent behaviour and the mathematical
treatment thereof? Yes? This is the area in which Wolfram claims to
have
made progress. (I am still wading my way through his tome).
***Isnt the 'algor
Hi Folks,
I have chewed this thread with great interest.
Our main gripe is the issue of emergent behaviour and the mathematical
treatment thereof? Yes? This is the area in which Wolfram claims to have
made progress. (I am still wading my way through his tome).
***Isnt the 'algori
George, beautiful.
Maybe I propose a line at the end:
"With a LOT of ego attached"
Best wishes
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Algorithm
When you look at the bottom of the well,
all the way
deep down,
you see yourself staring right back at you.
And right now you look like an algorithm.
Oh well, there was a time when you looked like clockwork
Maybe tomorrow you'll be a brain.
And the day after tomorrow maybe a quantum device.
The u
RS wrote on one level how the algorithmic revolution
was "epistemological". I objected to this partly. let me
quote the dictionary defn of epistemology
epistemology-- the branch of philosophy that deals with
the nature and theory of knowledge.
now in newtons time, science was seen a
At 11/21/02, you wrote:
The clockwork
universe was shown to be wrong with Qunatum Mechanics. My gut feeling
is that the computer universe will also be shown to be wrong.
In my view there are two types of universes. Type 1 have internal rules of
state succession that are like computers - UD's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> RS reformulates/reduces the term "algorithmic revolution" as:
>
> >1. A social revolution..
> >2. A scientific revolution..
> >3. An epistemological revolution..
> >4. A mathematical revolution..
>
> all true
RS reformulates/reduces the term "algorithmic revolution" as:
>1. A social revolution..
>2. A scientific revolution..
>3. An epistemological revolution..
>4. A mathematical revolution..
all true. however, wolfram-fredkin-zuse et al are not merely proposing a
mere "
lution - a paradigm shift that sees reality
cast in terms of a computational or algorithmic metaphor. This is how
Tim May interpreted "algorithmic revolution", as did I.
4. A mathematical revolution - algorithmic information theory has been
explosive since it was founded in the mid-
hi all. re the term "algorithmic revolution" here are a few
more ideas along this thread Id like to point out.
TCM wrote
>My belief is that basic mathematics is much more important than
>computer use, in terms of understanding the cosmos and the nature of
>reality.
ok, fair
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 05:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would take all of TCMs own citations and turn them around in my
favor. I would classify all the following as occurring under
the heading "algorithmic revolution" (not the greatest moniker I
admit..
a provisional
TCM challenges me on the claim that we seem to be living through
an algorithmic revolution or paradigm shift, instead apparently
preferring a big ho, hum, shrug as more apropos.
I dont really know what the disagreement
is yet, it seems to be artificial/manufactured.
in one sense I am referring
Tim wrote:To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:50 AM
SNIP
>...
> I just don't see any such sign of a revolution. No more so than 10
> years ago, 20 years ago. Yes, computers are now more powerful. >Problems
> tend to grow faster in size than computers do, however, and often
> having
some kind
of "algorithmic revolution" that is sweeping across
culture, industry, & scientific fields etc. .. more
on that theme here
I just don't see any such sign of a revolution. No more so than 10
years ago, 20 years ago. Yes, computers are now more powerful. Problems
ten
23 matches
Mail list logo
