UCNC 2019 announcement
http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/ Aim and scope The International Conference on Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation (UCNC) is a meeting where scientists from many different backgrounds are united in their interest in novel forms of computation, human-designed computation inspired by nature, and computational aspects of natural processes. UCNC provides a forum for such scientists to meet and discuss their work. The 18th UCNC will be hosted by the University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo. Topics of InterestPapers and poster presentations were sought in all areas that relate to unconventional computation and natural computation. Both theoretical and experimental papers are welcome. Typical, but not exclusive, topics are: - Molecular (DNA) computing, quantum computing, optical computing, chaos computing, physarum computing, computation in hyperbolic spaces, collision-based computing; - Cellular automata, neural computation, evolutionary computation, swarm intelligence, nature-inspired algorithms, artificial immune systems, artificial life, membrane computing, amorphous computing; - Computational systems biology, genetic networks, protein-protein networks, transport networks, synthetic biology, cellular (in vivo) computing. IMPORTANT DATES - Submisson deadline January 7, 2019 - Deadline for the reviews February 19, 2019 - Notification of acceptance February 26, 2019 - Final version March 11, 2019 - Philip Thrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed
I think that's the question Bruno's proof is designed to answer in the negative, a conclusion of which I have difficulty convincing myself.m.a. - Original Message - From: John Mikes To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:16 AM Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed Marty, how about my weird question: and if 1 is wrong and what he 'sees' as OA is only a replica of the OA and is WRONG? Is 'being a replica' a human priviledge? (Forget it!) John M On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: Bruno, Good to see you back! I have a question with reference to the experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper. If, before the teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the subject that he will find a zero in his envelope, both subjects will expect to find a zero after the procedure, no? The subject who finds the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is in fact a duplicate since he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he were the original (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw in my logic?marty a. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed Hi all, Welcome to fcy Universal Dance Association is quite cute :) A universal dance could be a Universal Dovetailer if digital dance could make sense. UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive. You may look here also for references: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence follows from the Post-Church-Turing thesis. The universal dovetailer argument is an argument which shows that the mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person indeterminacy, and that eventually the laws of both physics and psychology/theology (quanta and qualia) have to be derived from pure number theory/computer science. If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to give some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and useful only to get already quantitative physical information from numbers/computer science (as opposed to UDA which just show that physics has to be given by a first person measure on the computations occurring in the universal dovetailing). Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may take a look at http://www.scitopics.com/The_first_person_computationalist_indeterminacy.html http://www.scitopics.com/Godel_Mind_and_Machine.html Comments are welcomed. I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was very heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread the seven step series (which is about the seventh step of the UDA) before I proceed. I will make a little sum up next week. There has been more than five versions of UDA already send to the list, but I am not sure everyone understand, so please ask questions. All questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, to ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search of a TOE (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person (as opposed to the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only what is observable and third person describable). Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor diagonal proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from N to N (N^N)? Or do you prefer I explain this again in the sum up? On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote: As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms. For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design Associates, and the United Dairymen of Arizona, none of which seem to be what's being discussed here. Thanks in advance, fcy 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http
Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed
Sorry, I misunderstood the premise. Thanks for the quick reply. marty a. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 2:16 AM Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed On 07 Nov 2009, at 01:04, m.a. wrote: Bruno, Good to see you back! I have a question with reference to the experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper. If, before the teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the subject that he will find a zero in his envelope, both subjects will expect to find a zero after the procedure, no? The subject who finds the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is in fact a duplicate since he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he were the original (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw in my logic?marty a. The subject of the experience believe in comp, and knows the protocol of the experience. So he knows the original will be destroyed or annihilated after the scanning procedure. He know in advance that both subject are duplicate, and so I am the duplicate does not make sense. Even if he decides to trust the OA, and then to abandon comp if he is in front of the one in the envelop, he will feel as being the original person (we still assume comp), with the memory that the OA told him that he will find zero, which will make him rightly say for me right now the OA was wrong, whatever I am. The experience here was symmetrical. From the first person perspective it makes no sense at all to say I am the duplicate. We know, and he knows, and the OA knows, in advance, that they are both duplicate. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed Hi all, Welcome to fcy Universal Dance Association is quite cute :) A universal dance could be a Universal Dovetailer if digital dance could make sense. UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive. You may look here also for references: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence follows from the Post-Church-Turing thesis. The universal dovetailer argument is an argument which shows that the mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person indeterminacy, and that eventually the laws of both physics and psychology/theology (quanta and qualia) have to be derived from pure number theory/computer science. If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to give some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and useful only to get already quantitative physical information from numbers/computer science (as opposed to UDA which just show that physics has to be given by a first person measure on the computations occurring in the universal dovetailing). Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may take a look at http://www.scitopics.com/The_first_person_computationalist_indeterminacy.html http://www.scitopics.com/Godel_Mind_and_Machine.html Comments are welcomed. I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was very heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread the seven step series (which is about the seventh step of the UDA) before I proceed. I will make a little sum up next week. There has been more than five versions of UDA already send to the list, but I am not sure everyone understand, so please ask questions. All questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, to ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search of a TOE (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person (as opposed to the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only what is observable and third person describable). Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor diagonal proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from N to N (N^N)? Or do you prefer I explain this again in the sum up? On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote: As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms. For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design Associates, and the United
Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed
Marty, how about my weird question: and if 1 is wrong and what he 'sees' as OA is only a replica of the OA and is WRONG? Is 'being a replica' a human priviledge? (Forget it!) John M On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: Bruno, Good to see you back! I have a question with reference to the experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper. If, before the teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the subject that he will find a zero in his envelope, both subjects will expect to find a zero after the procedure, no? The subject who finds the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is in fact a duplicate since he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he were the original (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw in my logic?marty a. - Original Message - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM *Subject:* Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed Hi all, Welcome to fcy Universal Dance Association is quite cute :) A universal dance could be a Universal Dovetailer if digital dance could make sense. UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive. You may look here also for references: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence follows from the Post-Church-Turing thesis. The universal dovetailer argument is an argument which shows that the mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person indeterminacy, and that eventually the laws of both physics and psychology/theology (quanta and qualia) have to be derived from pure number theory/computer science. If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to give some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and useful only to get already quantitative physical information from numbers/computer science (as opposed to UDA which just show that physics has to be given by a first person measure on the computations occurring in the universal dovetailing). Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may take a look at http://www.scitopics.com/The_first_person_computationalist_indeterminacy.html http://www.scitopics.com/Godel_Mind_and_Machine.html Comments are welcomed. I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was very heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread the seven step series (which is about the seventh step of the UDA) before I proceed. I will make a little sum up next week. There has been more than five versions of UDA already send to the list, but I am not sure everyone understand, so please ask questions. All questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, to ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search of a TOE (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person (as opposed to the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only what is observable and third person describable). Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor diagonal proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from N to N (N^N)? Or do you prefer I explain this again in the sum up? On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote: As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms. For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design Associates, and the United Dairymen of Arizona, none of which seem to be what's being discussed here. Thanks in advance, fcy 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed
On 07 Nov 2009, at 01:04, m.a. wrote: Bruno, Good to see you back! I have a question with reference to the experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper. If, before the teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the subject that he will find a zero in his envelope, both subjects will expect to find a zero after the procedure, no? The subject who finds the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is in fact a duplicate since he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he were the original (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw in my logic?marty a. The subject of the experience believe in comp, and knows the protocol of the experience. So he knows the original will be destroyed or annihilated after the scanning procedure. He know in advance that both subject are duplicate, and so I am the duplicate does not make sense. Even if he decides to trust the OA, and then to abandon comp if he is in front of the one in the envelop, he will feel as being the original person (we still assume comp), with the memory that the OA told him that he will find zero, which will make him rightly say for me right now the OA was wrong, whatever I am. The experience here was symmetrical. From the first person perspective it makes no sense at all to say I am the duplicate. We know, and he knows, and the OA knows, in advance, that they are both duplicate. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series thread will soon be resumed Hi all, Welcome to fcy Universal Dance Association is quite cute :) A universal dance could be a Universal Dovetailer if digital dance could make sense. UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive. You may look here also for references: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence follows from the Post-Church-Turing thesis. The universal dovetailer argument is an argument which shows that the mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person indeterminacy, and that eventually the laws of both physics and psychology/theology (quanta and qualia) have to be derived from pure number theory/computer science. If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to give some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and useful only to get already quantitative physical information from numbers/computer science (as opposed to UDA which just show that physics has to be given by a first person measure on the computations occurring in the universal dovetailing). Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may take a look at http://www.scitopics.com/The_first_person_computationalist_indeterminacy.html http://www.scitopics.com/Godel_Mind_and_Machine.html Comments are welcomed. I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was very heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread the seven step series (which is about the seventh step of the UDA) before I proceed. I will make a little sum up next week. There has been more than five versions of UDA already send to the list, but I am not sure everyone understand, so please ask questions. All questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, to ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search of a TOE (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person (as opposed to the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only what is observable and third person describable). Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor diagonal proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from N to N (N^N)? Or do you prefer I explain this again in the sum up? On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote: As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms. For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design Associates, and the United Dairymen of Arizona, none of which seem to be what's being discussed here. Thanks in advance, fcy 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
Re: Final Announcement
Thank you for telling us, Bruno Le 12-mai-05, à 17:44, Ti Bo a écrit : Final Announcement Data Ecologies 2005 will take place from 9:30 until 16:00 at the Time's Up laboratories in Linz this Friday 13th and Saturday 14th May. Themes include the physics of virtual spaces, whether real space is computed (do we live in a giant computer?) and how to use this for interesting immersive mixed reality spaces. Speakers will be Tom Toffoli Edward Fredkin Juergen Schmidhuber Nik Gaffney Maja Kuzmanovic Daniel Miller Hartwig Thim All the talks will be streamed, so remote participation will be possible and is encouraged. There will be an email address in order to pose questions to the speakers. We look forward to your participation! http://www.timesup.org/laboratory/DataEcologies/ -Tim Boykett TIME'S UP::Research Department \ / Industriezeile 33b A-4020 Linz Austria X+43-732-787804(ph) +43-732-7878043(fx) / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.timesup.org - http://www.timesup.org/fieldresearch/setups/index.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Final Announcement
Final Announcement Data Ecologies 2005 will take place from 9:30 until 16:00 at the Time's Up laboratories in Linz this Friday 13th and Saturday 14th May. Themes include the physics of virtual spaces, whether real space is computed (do we live in a giant computer?) and how to use this for interesting immersive mixed reality spaces. Speakers will be Tom Toffoli Edward Fredkin Juergen Schmidhuber Nik Gaffney Maja Kuzmanovic Daniel Miller Hartwig Thim All the talks will be streamed, so remote participation will be possible and is encouraged. There will be an email address in order to pose questions to the speakers. We look forward to your participation! http://www.timesup.org/laboratory/DataEcologies/ -Tim Boykett TIME'S UP::Research Department \ / Industriezeile 33b A-4020 Linz Austria X+43-732-787804(ph) +43-732-7878043(fx) / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.timesup.org - http://www.timesup.org/fieldresearch/setups/index.html
Announcement
Hello, Note that Juergen Schmidhuber is talking at this event, it might be of interest to a few people on the list. There will be a stream, so you can watch it from a distance. Best, Tim Announcement:: Data Ecologies 05 To whom it may concern, could you please forward this announcement to students and faculty who may be interested in attending. Thanks in advance, Tim Boykett We apologise if you receive duplicates of this. WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT Data Ecologies 05 12 - 14 May 2005 in Linz, Austria 100 years after Einstein published five papers that rocked and then essentially overthrew the then-current physical understanding, the murmurs of discontent are arising. Theories extending, expanding, explaining or just plain overthrowing the tenets of the now-current model(s) are making the rounds. Digital Physics, quantum foam, immersive realistic environments, pregeometry, process Physics, Pattern formation by self-referential algorithms, diagrams of data structures and their spontaneous self-manipulation, tessellation systems and their dynamics, self-perpetuating flaws and defects in processes... the list goes on. We will discuss these themes and the curve that they generate. Topics of interest include, but are in no way limited to the following: - combinatorial invariants of knotted nets - artists investigating the production and perception of space in modern media - the determination of structure from noise as the basis of perception - pregeometries in all flavours - interactive explorations of the nature of space, time and spacetime - the nature of a computational nature what could the universal computer be doing? - experiments to examine the computational nature of the universe - experimental evidence of a preferred frame of ref erence - possible algorithms for our universe - can we harness the computations in which we are seemingly immersed to our practical use? - in what respects is quantum computation different from classical computations, and why? Program: An informal meeting will take place on Thursday 12th May for those travelling to Linz. Please contact us for location details. The lecture program will start at 9:30 on Friday 13th May and will run until Saturday afternoon with a panel discussion to close. This will take place at the Time's Up space at Industriezeile 33b, 4020 Linz. Main speakers are: - Ed Fredkin (digitalphilosophy.org) - Jrgen Schmidhuber (IDSIA, Switzerland) - Tom Toffoli (Boston University) - Maja Kuzmanovic (Foundation oAM, Brussels) - Nik Gaffney (Foundation oAM, Brussels) - Karl Svozil (Technical University of Vienna) - Dan B Miller (Carnegie-Mellon University) While we plan for long discussions, we have some possibilities for a few extra speakers. Please contact the organisers on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fees In order to keep the workshop open to noninstitutional researchers, we charge no fee for this workshop. Please contact us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to register. Contact: TIME'S UP Industriezeile 33b A-4020 Linz Austria +43-732-787804(ph) +43-732-7878043(fx) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.timesup.org/laboratory/DataEcologies This workshop is supported by the EU Culture 2000 Program, LinzKultur, KulturOberoesterreich, BKA.Kunst and the Linzer Hochschulfonds. -Tim Boykett TIME'S UP::Research Department \ / Industriezeile 33b A-4020 Linz Austria X+43-732-787804(ph) +43-732-7878043(fx) / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.timesup.org - http://www.timesup.org/fieldresearch/setups/index.html
