On Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:55:18 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
A state with more than one governor is perhaps best described
as a civil war. And you can only have one pilot on a boat.
In short, any living entity can only have one pilot or decision maker.
...one decision maker *at a time*.
If monads can all make decisions and follow decisions within the fullness
of time. Monads are experiences through time.
Craig
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-02-02, 06:19:12
*Subject:* Re: Big Bang is the simplest possible state?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Stephen P. King
step...@charter.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 1/27/2013 6:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stephen P. King
step...@charter.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 1/27/2013 6:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Dear Bruno and Stephen,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King
step...@charter.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long
and deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that
the
big bang is not the beginning.
Dear Bruno,
� � I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang
per observer.
Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state?
Hi Telmo,
�� Yes, if I can add ...that a collection of observers can agree upon
but that this simplest possible state is uniquely in the past for all
observers (that can communicate with each other) should not be just
postulated to be the case. It demands an explanation.
It's uniquely in the past for all complex observers
Hi Telmo,
� I would partition up all possible observers into mutually
communicating sets. Not all observers can communicate with each other and
it is mutual communication that, I believe, contains the complexity of
one's universe.
That makes sense to me.
�
Basically my reasoning forllows Wheeler's *It from Bit* idea.
because:
- It cannot contain a complex observer
�� How do we know this? We are, after all, speculating about what we can
only infer about given what we observe now.
Isn't it just a tautology? I don't know how to justify it any further.
It's like saying that an empty glass does not contain water.
�
- It is so simple that it is coherent with any history
�� Simplicity alone does not induce consistency, AFAIK...
I'm thinking in the following terms: imagine a CA which has an initial
state where a single cell is on. For any super-complex state that you find
down the line, the initial simple step is always a consistent predecessor.
�
�
That doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely
predecessor to any other state.
�� The word predecessor' worries me, it assumes some way to determine
causality even when measurements are impossible. Sure, we can just
stipulate monotonicity of states, but what
would be the gain?
I mean predecessor in the sense that there are plausible sequences of
transformations that it's at the root of. These transformations include
world branching, of course.
�� I am playing around with the possibility that monotonicity should not
be assumed. After all, observables in QM are complex valued and the real
numbers that QM predicts (as probabilities of outcomes) only obtain when a
basis is chosen and a squaring operation is performed. Basically, that *is*
is not something that has any particular ordering to it. Here I am going
against the arguments of many people, including Julian Barbour.
Ok, this also makes sense to me. But can you accept that there is
quantifiable similarity between states? In this case we can still build a
state graph from which we can extract timelines without requiring ordering.
�
�
The more complex a state is, the smaller the number of states that it
is likely to be a predecessor of.
�� Sure, what measure of complexity do you like? There are many and if
we allow physical laws to vary, infinitely so... I like the Blum and
Kolmogorov measures, but they are still weak...
I had Kolmogorv in mind and it's the best I can offer. I agree, it's
still week and that's a bummer.
�� Maybe we should drop the desiderata of a measure and focus on the
locality of observers and its requirements.
I don't think I understand what you mean here.
�
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit
