Re: Pre-established harmony ? Computers programs exhibit pre-established harmony.

2013-11-22 Thread LizR
My programmer husband respectfully points out that the harmony - such as it
is - wasn't pre-established, but put together by a load of software
engineers.


On 22 November 2013 23:59, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Pre-established harmony ? Computers programs exhibit pre-established
 harmony.


  Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
 See my Leibniz site at
  http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

 --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Pre-established harmony comp in relation to Platonia and Contingia

2012-09-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Thanks for the very interesting video.

Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we introduce
natural selection, the only well know creative process.

The world of Platonia, in terms of natural selection, is the peak of the
fitness landscape (FT).  The FT is the point of perfection from which the
living form, or the living behaviour can not be improved.   Contingia is
the world of extinction by random, imprevisible events. When contingia
enters,the most filnely adapted beings perish due to their specialization,
and gives the world to generalists, good in nothing, bacterias, fungi and
  adapted of fortune that casually are adapted to the disaster scenario:
scavengers, tunnel diggers, shallow water habitants etc.  None of them are
beatiful.  But extinction gives a opportunity to new perfect forms that are
better than the former. If there would be no extinction, we would still be
bacterias.

This creative destruction appears also in the market, (That is a controlled
darwinian process under State laws). and in general in any creative process.

The perfect forms inhabit our mind because we have to measure ourselves
against the ideal. Beauty is a measure of closeness to the ideal. I´m
persuaded for example that the beauty of movements of a dancer is related
with the use of energy for a given movement. the less energy the dancer
use, the more beautiful is the movement. And we perceive this use of energy
as smooth and beatiful movement because to mate or to be a friend of a good
 user of his energies (by a good neurocoordination) has been crucial for
survial. A good dancer is in the peak of fitness landscape in energy usage,
so he exhibit it. And Platonia in our mind know it.

There are evolutonary explanations for many others notons of beauty.

As Penrose said the motor of this process of evolution and life  is the
gradient of entropy. The photosyntesis is a capture of energy that requires
the building of a chemical (and phisical) infrastructure that requires
information processing, from genes to phenotype building programs to
reproduction and so on.   And only in a positive gradient of entrophy this
processing is 
possiblehttp://www.google.es/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CC8QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fagcorona1%2Farrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-lifeei=kz1oUNjjIJCxhAesjIDgAgusg=AFQjCNGhgf10g4gWWodpK-QwcKptsdCWTwsig2=LEWaQzY5cTrUV1I8wkA7bQfor
living beings.



 I would also like to suggest that the pre-established harmony (PEH)
 of Leibniz is more complex but still acts as Leibniz intended,
 while one might apply traditional cosmological concepts to it.
 Perhaps someone with more physics (and brains) than I
 could use this to roughly specify what the PEH is.
 In the traditional understanding it would simply be the
 decay of order into disorder. Note that Penrose has
 looked recently into the issue of how large the entropy
 can get. See the series starting at

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-D5AUGVcI

 I believe that entropy begins to eventually
 diminish as gravity.

 It may be that comp and the Turing machine have analogous
 behaviors.




 Have received the following content -
 Sender: Roger Clough
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-09-29, 04:18:28
 Subject: Platonia and Contingia



 Platonia and Contingia

 We are all somewhat familiar with Platonia,
 the Platonic source of order in the world.

 I suggest that there must also be Contingia,
 that being our contingent, everyday world, which,
 following Boltzmann and the concept of entropy,
 is the source of disorder.

 I would also like to suggest that Platonic causation
 is goal-oriented, also referred to by Aristotle as end causation,
 and favors life, while in Contingia, causation is that of
 everyday determinism, which tends to create disorder,
 entropy, decay and death.

 Then there will always be two opposing forces, one
 of order (Platonia) and one of disorder or entropy (Contingia).




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 9/29/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

 --
 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.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: Pre-established harmony comp in relation to Platonia and Contingia

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King

On 9/30/2012 8:43 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Thanks for the very interesting video.


Hi Alberto,

I agree. Roger Penrose is one of my favorite theorists.



Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we 
introduce natural selection, the only well know creative process.


The world of Platonia, in terms of natural selection, is the peak of 
the fitness landscape (FT).  The FT is the point of perfection from 
which the living form, or the living behaviour can not be improved.   
Contingia is the world of extinction by random, imprevisible events. 
When contingia enters,the most filnely adapted beings perish due to 
their specialization, and gives the world to generalists, good in 
nothing, bacterias, fungi and   adapted of fortune that casually are 
adapted to the disaster scenario: scavengers, tunnel diggers, shallow 
water habitants etc.  None of them are beatiful.  But extinction gives 
a opportunity to new perfect forms that are better than the former. If 
there would be no extinction, we would still be bacterias.


A very good point! One of my constant complaints is that the 
Selection aspect of evolution is grossly neglected in discussions of it.




This creative destruction appears also in the market, (That is a 
controlled darwinian process under State laws). and in general in any 
creative process.


Yes, it is the tendency to select an outcome from a domain of 
many possible outcomes. Mathematically, it resembles a many-to-one 
mapping function. Mutation, in evolutionary models, can be seen 
mathematically as a one-to-many mapping function. It is interesting to 
me that these two mapping functions are the inverse or dual of each 
other. I think that this feature can be used to mathematically model 
evolution.




The perfect forms inhabit our mind because we have to measure 
ourselves against the ideal. Beauty is a measure of closeness to the 
ideal. I´m persuaded for example that the beauty of movements of a 
dancer is related with the use of energy for a given movement. the 
less energy the dancer use, the more beautiful is the movement. And we 
perceive this use of energy as smooth and beatiful movement because to 
mate or to be a friend of a good  user of his energies (by a good 
neurocoordination) has been crucial for survial. A good dancer is in 
the peak of fitness landscape in energy usage, so he exhibit it. And 
Platonia in our mind know it.


There are evolutonary explanations for many others notons of beauty.

As Penrose said the motor of this process of evolution and life  is 
the gradient of entropy. The photosyntesis is a capture of energy that 
requires the building of a chemical (and phisical) infrastructure that 
requires information processing, from genes to phenotype building 
programs to reproduction and so on. And only in a positive gradient of 
entrophy this processing is possible 
http://www.google.es/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CC8QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fagcorona1%2Farrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-lifeei=kz1oUNjjIJCxhAesjIDgAgusg=AFQjCNGhgf10g4gWWodpK-QwcKptsdCWTwsig2=LEWaQzY5cTrUV1I8wkA7bQ 
for living beings.


It might be that living being are, as an equivalence class, all 
the possible structures that can process gradients of entropy for the 
purpose of generated their structure.






 I would also like to suggest that the pre-established harmony (PEH)
 of Leibniz is more complex but still acts as Leibniz intended,
 while one might apply traditional cosmological concepts to it.
 Perhaps someone with more physics (and brains) than I
 could use this to roughly specify what the PEH is.
 In the traditional understanding it would simply be the
 decay of order into disorder. Note that Penrose has
 looked recently into the issue of how large the entropy
 can get. See the series starting at

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-D5AUGVcI

 I believe that entropy begins to eventually
 diminish as gravity.

 It may be that comp and the Turing machine have analogous
 behaviors.



snip



--
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 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: pre-established harmony

2012-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Roger wrote:




By ontologically primitive entity do you mean substance ?


Well, if by substance you mean ontologically primitive. I can be OK.  
But I prefer to avoid the term substance, as many interpret it in  
the material sense.



Bruno





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-14, 15:02:45
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony

Dear Roger,

It was not Bruno that wrote what you are attributing to him  
below. It was me. I think that he might appreciate that you make  
attributions correctly. Let me fix the attributions.



On 8/14/2012 7:36 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Stephen P. King:  This musical score, does it require work of  
some kind to be created itself?


ROGER:  A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be  
able to see the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that.  So it could not  
create itself.


It does not locally create itself, but it does participate in  
the process that does create it, thus in a sense it does indeed  
create itself. This is the most important point of Bruno's work, as  
he hows us a proof of concept of a theory that allows us to  
understand that the physical world is not an ontologically primitive  
entity.


Stephen P. King:  I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH)  
requires solving an NP-Complete computational problem that has an  
infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to  
maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate  
system. Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict  
mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting  
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would  
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the  
Universe. This is absurd! How can the existence of something have a  
beginning if it requires an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,

BRUNO: That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by  
resources, as put in this way, people might think you mean  
primitively physical resource.



Stephen P. King:
and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim  
access to the information that would be in the solution that the  
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this  
problem the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the truth of  
the solution gives it existence, but the fact that some  
mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior  
sense) does not allow it to be considered as accessible for use  
for other things. For example, we could make valid claims about  
the content of a meteor that no one has examined but we cannot  
have any certainty about those claims unless we actually crack  
open the rock and physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was  
not exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the  
synchronization of the simple actions of the Monads. It was a  
coordination of the percepts that make up the monads such that,  
for example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also  
live in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a  
world that I also live in such that we can be said to have this  
email chat. Remember, Monads (as defined in the Monadology) have  
no windows and cannot be considered to either exchange  
substances nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange  
excitations. The entire common world of appearances emerges from  
and could be said to supervene upon the synchronization of  
internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.


I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP- 
Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe  
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is  
the computer that is finding the solution. snip


BRUNO:
Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.

ROGER:  Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not  
sure.


It is just a conjecture. It works only if it can explain  
features and phenomena in a way that is better than other  
alternative ontological theories.



 ROGER:
But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a  
physics
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that  
overlooks

intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.

To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa.


I agree! Our experience of a world is itself a miracle. It is  
sad that it is taken for granted.




Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony

Re: Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-17 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno,

By ontologically primitive entity do you mean substance ?

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-14, 15:02:45
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony


Dear Roger,

It was not Bruno that wrote what you are attributing to him below. It was 
me. I think that he might appreciate that you make attributions correctly. Let 
me fix the attributions.


On 8/14/2012 7:36 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Stephen P. King:  This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be 
created itself? 

ROGER:  A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be able to see 
the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that.  So it could not create 
itself.

It does not locally create itself, but it does participate in the process 
that does create it, thus in a sense it does indeed create itself. This is the 
most important point of Bruno's work, as he hows us a proof of concept of a 
theory that allows us to understand that the physical world is not an 
ontologically primitive entity.


Stephen P. King:  I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires 
solving an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of 
variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize more than 
one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we are going to grant God the 
ability to contradict mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to 
granting violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would 
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This 
is absurd! How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires 
an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run, 


BRUNO: That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as 
put in this way, people might think you mean primitively physical resource.




Stephen P. King:

and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to the 
information that would be in the solution that the computation would generate. 
WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno does by stipulating 
that the truth of the solution gives it existence, but the fact that some 
mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does 
not allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things. For 
example, we could make valid claims about the content of a meteor that no one 
has examined but we cannot have any certainty about those claims unless we 
actually crack open the rock and physically examine its contents. 
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not exactly 
what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the simple actions 
of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that make up the monads 
such that, for example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also 
live in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a world that I also 
live in such that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as 
defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be considered to either 
exchange substances nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange 
excitations. The entire common world of appearances emerges from and could be 
said to supervene upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic 
actions.

I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP-Complete 
problem is to make the creation of the universe simulataneous with the 
computations so that the universe itself is the computer that is finding the 
solution. snip


BRUNO:
Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem. 


ROGER:  Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not sure.

It is just a conjecture. It works only if it can explain features and 
phenomena in a way that is better than other alternative ontological theories.


 ROGER: 

But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a physics 
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that overlooks
intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.

To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa. 


I agree! Our experience of a world is itself a miracle. It is sad that it 
is taken for granted.



Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony




On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Aug 2012, at 21:09, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/15/2012 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. The ontological primary medium is given by any universal  
system. I have chosen arithmetic to fix the thing.


OK, you chose arithmetic. But my claim is that is only one of an  
infinite number of possible primitives that can act as labels of  
partitioned pieces of the medium, stated crudely.


That is what I was saying. But they are all equivalent. The physics  
derived from any of them will be the same. Same for the theology.



One must assume a mereology (whole-part relational scheme) in any  
ontological theory or else there is no way to explain or communicate  
it or about it.


That is exactly what I told you. Any universal system has a mereology.  
But your existence theory has not, as you disallow properties for your  
neutral existence. So you are making my point here. Numbers have a  
rich mereology, actually infinitely many.








This is exactly why I argue that a physical world (that is a  
common delusion of a mutually non-contradictory collection of  
1p's) is and must be considered to be on the same ontological  
plane as the combinators.


That does not make any sense to me.


The components (parts) have to be distinguished from each other  
and the whole. Combinators or any other valuation acts as a means to  
label the parts so that they are different from each other.


Components of what? Which whole? This is unclear.






Since the physical worlds cannot be considered to be  
ontologically primitive (since they require the UD*) then neither  
can the combinators, as they have no distinguishably (or  
availability for truth valuations), be considered to be  
ontologically primitive.


If you don't have them, you can't build them. I will use the  
abbreviation 'numbers for numbers OR combinators or Fortran program  
or lambda terms or game of life pattern or ...


Yes, and this is exactly my point! There is no unique canonical  
labeling set of entities. There is (at least!) an uncountable  
infinite equivalence class of them. Labels and valuations cannot be  
considered as separable from the entities that they act on as  
valuation. Therefore we cannot think of them as uniquely  
ontologically primitive.


? Proof?








What I say is that without 'numbers, you will never have 'numbers.  
We cannot define 'numbers from less.


I do not dispute that. The numbers must be irreducible, or  
simple in Leibniz' definition. But their particular value is not  
inherent in them such  that the can be considered to have a  
particular set of properties when considered in isolation from all  
else. The value of 1 or 2 or 3 or ... is derived uniquely from its  
relations to all other numbers that are in its class. A 1 does not  
have inherent value outside of that relational scheme.


Unclear, and the relevance is unclear too. It looks again like you are  
arguing against any theory.








Both have to be considered as existing on the same ontological  
level. Your proposition that we can have a consistent immaterial  
basis for all existence is simply inconsistent and thus wrong.


You have to show the inconsistency.


I am doing exactly that. I am trying to explain why  
immaterialism fails


This contradict the small amount of what I thought to understand from  
your theory.




and thus why it cannot be considered to be a coherent ontological  
theory. In fact the entire class of immaterial ontology theories  
fails on this: the induced epiphenomena of physical objects and the  
physical world. Your statement that COMP reduces the mind-body  
problem to just a body problem *is* the fatal flaw.


It is the last sentence of a proof. To say that a formula is flawed  
does not work in science. You must find the guilty error leading to  
that formula.
If not we are doing philosophy, and this is very confusing when doing  
science on traditional philosophical notions.




It simply cannot explain interactions between bodies.


That is not relevant in the UDA proofs. If you are right, then there  
is an 9th step in UDA, and UDA1-9 would prove that comp wrong. But  
then write that 9th step.




Additionally it ahs severe problem explaining the necessity of the  
appearance of change that we experience.


It has a billion more problems. The point is that such problems are  
entirely transformed into arithmetical formula.













Does the subset have to be representable as a Boolean algebra?

[BM]
This is ambiguous. I would say yes if by subset you mean the  
initial segment of UD*.


We can only make a claim that the sentence that is making that  
claim is true if and only if that subset can be identified in  
contradistinction with the rest of the UD*. This is equivalent to  
locating a single number within an infinite class of numbers.  
Given that it is a fact that the integers have a measure of zero  
in 2^aleph_0,


There is no additive measure. If you are 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-16 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

[SPK] You do not have an explanation of interactions in COMP

[BM]
I have only the quantum logic. This does not change the vaility of the 
reasoning. You reason like that, Darwin theory fail to predict the 
mass of the boson, and string theory ignore the problem of how doing a 
tasting pizza, so those theories are flawed. Comp explains already the 
quanta and the qualia, but not yet time, space, real numbers, nor 
pizza and boson. Works for next generations.



Dear Bruno,

Your example of Darwin's theory is deeply flawed, if only because 
Darwin's theory does not implicitly or explicitly make claims about the 
ontological status of entities. Yours does! You claim that you don't 
need to postulate a physical world and yet the presentation of the 
theory itself requires a physical world, at least to communicate it 
between our minds. A physical world provides the means to communicate 
between us, without it nothing occurs. There are no interactions 
definable without it and therefore comp's explanations are void and 
muted by your insistence that matter and physicality has to be primitive 
to be involved.
I am only asking you to consider the possibility that both matter 
and numbers are on the same (non-primitive) level.


--
Onward!

Stephen

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon


--
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: pre-established harmony

2012-08-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Aug 2012, at 20:55, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/14/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Aug 2012, at 07:26, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:



snip


Does the measure cover an infinite or finite subset of the  
universals?


[BM]
It covers the whole UD* (the entire execution of the UD, contained  
in a tiny constructive part of arithmetical truth). It is infinite.  
This follows easily from the first person indeterminacy invariance  
(cf step seven).




Dear Bruno,

Please think about what I am writing here. My words might be  
wrong, but please try to understand what I am saying.


I am.





OK, the UD* would span all of time (the partly ordered  
sequence of events that are 1p content) is implied by that tiny  
constructable part of arithmetically true statements (not truth!  
Truth is not an object that is accessible nor should be considered  
or inferred or implied to be). This makes the UD* an eternal process  
that can be considered to by operating the combinators (or numbers  
to state is crudely) over and over and over again in a concurrent  
fashion. The 1p indeterminacy emerges from the span of this process,  
the UD*. We cannot consistently argue that it is not available in  
its entirety for any one piece of the UD for the purpose of  
assigning truth valuations, unless we are going consider the medium  
on which the UD is running is co-existent with the UD.


OK. The ontological primary medium is given by any universal system. I  
have chosen arithmetic to fix the thing.




This is exactly why I argue that a physical world (that is a common  
delusion of a mutually non-contradictory collection of 1p's) is and  
must be considered to be on the same ontological plane as the  
combinators.


That does not make any sense to me.



Since the physical worlds cannot be considered to be  
ontologically primitive (since they require the UD*) then neither  
can the combinators, as they have no distinguishably (or  
availability for truth valuations), be considered to be  
ontologically primitive.


If you don't have them, you can't build them. I will use the  
abbreviation 'numbers for numbers OR combinators or Fortran program or  
lambda terms or game of life pattern or ...


What I say is that without 'numbers, youwill never have 'numbers. We  
cannot define 'numbers from less.




Both have to be considered as existing on the same ontological  
level. Your proposition that we can have a consistent immaterial  
basis for all existence is simply inconsistent and thus wrong.


You have to show the inconsistency.









Does the subset have to be representable as a Boolean algebra?

[BM]
This is ambiguous. I would say yes if by subset you mean the  
initial segment of UD*.


We can only make a claim that the sentence that is making that  
claim is true if and only if that subset can be identified in  
contradistinction with the rest of the UD*. This is equivalent to  
locating a single number within an infinite class of numbers. Given  
that it is a fact that the integers have a measure of zero in  
2^aleph_0,


There is no additive measure. If you are using a non additive measure,  
then it depends on the choice of the measure, there are many. Anyway,  
comp makes the measure problem bearing on infinite computations, some  
including oracles, not the numbers.




then it follows that the initial segment of the UD* has a measure of  
zero as well. A measure simply does not exist that would select the  
correct segment and thus we cannot make that claim. It is only as  
you wrote initially, this is ambiguous. An ambiguous sentence is  
not the same as a true (or false!) statement. My claim is that the  
Boolean Representation criterion is true if and only if there exist  
a physical implementation of the segment of the UD*.


Define physical implementation in your theory (or idea).









A physical state might be one that maximally exists

[BM]
... from the local first person points of view, of those dropping  
the apple and trying to predict what they will feel. But there is  
no physical state, only physical experience, which are not  
definable in any third person point of view. A physical state, with  
comp, is not an object.


There is no 3p unless there is a Boolean Representation


This not logically valid, although I agree, with the usual classical  
comp.




and there cannot be a Boolean Representation without a collection of  
mutually non-contradictory 1p observations.


Now, that is idealism. With comp that is true for the physical  
reality, not for the arithmetical one, which we postulate.




The 1p indeterminacy must have room to put all of the copies out  
first and then compared to each other (solving the NP-Complete  
problem)


I just feel compassionate for your misleading obsession on NP.



and then and only then can we say that there is a true 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Aug 2012, at 07:26, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is  
analogous to

a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go  
too far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind  
to be created itself?




This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that  
intelligence

could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires  
solving an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite  
number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize  
or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system.  
Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict  
mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting  
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would  
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the  
Universe. This is absurd! How can the existence of something have  
a beginning if it requires an an infinite problem to be solved  
first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources,  
as put in this way, people might think you mean primitively  
physical resource.


Dear Bruno,

A bounded Turing machine has been used to model specific  
computations using the number of state transitions and alphabet size  
to quantify the computational effort required to solve a particular  
problem. Let us supposed that the states are physical as defined in  
your resent post:


This define already a realm in which all universal number  
exists, and all their behavior is accessible from that simple  
theory: it is sigma_1 complete, that is the arithmetical version of  
Turing-complete. Note that such a theory is very weak, it has no  
negation, and cannot prove that 0 ≠ 1, for example. Of course, it  
is consistent and can't prove that 0 = 1 either. yet it emulates a  
UD through the fact that all the numbers representing proofs can be  
proved to exist in that theory.
Now, in that realm, due to the first person indeterminacy, you  
are multiplied into infinity. More precisely, your actual relative  
computational state appears to be proved to exist relatively to  
basically all universal numbers (and some non universal numbers  
too), and this infinitely often.
So when you decide to do an experience of physics, dropping an  
apple, for example, the first person indeterminacy dictates that  
what you will  feel to be experienced is given by a statistic on all  
computations (provably existing in the theory above) defined with  
respect to all universal numbers.
So if comp is correct, and if some physical law is correct (like  
'dropped apples fall'), it can only mean that the vast majority of  
computation going in your actual comp state compute a state of  
affair where you see the apple falling. If you want, the reason why  
apple fall is that it happens in the majority of your computational  
extensions, and this has to be verified in the space of all  
computations. Everett confirms this very weird self-multiplication  
(weird with respect to the idea that we are unique and are living in  
a unique reality). This translated the problem of why physical  
laws into a problem of statistics in computer science, or in number  
theory.


And you also wrote:

...from the first person points of view, it does look like many  
universal system get relatively more important role. Some can be  
geographical, like the local chemical situation on earth (a very  
special universal system), or your parents, but the point is that  
their stability must be justified by the winning universal system  
emerging from the competition of all universal numbers going through  
your actual state. The apparent winner seems to be the quantum one,  
and it has already the shape of a universal system which manage to  
eliminate abnormal computations by a process of destructive  
interferences. But to solve the mind body problem we have to justify  
this destructive interference processes through the solution of the  
arithmetical or combinatorial measure problem.


Does the measure cover an infinite or finite subset of the  
universals?



It covers the whole UD* (the entire execution of the UD, contained in  
a tiny constructive part of arithmetical truth). It is infinite. This  
follows easily from the first person indeterminacy invariance (cf step  
seven).





Does the subset have to be 

Re: Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal 

BRUNO:  This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be created 
itself? 

ROGER:  A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be able to see 
the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that.  So it could not create 
itself.

BRUNO:  I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving an 
NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of variables. 
Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable 
in a multivariate system. Unless we are going to grant God the ability to 
contradict mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting 
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run 
an eternal computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! 
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an 
infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run, 


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as put in 
this way, people might think you mean primitively physical resource.






and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to the 
information that would be in the solution that the computation would generate. 
WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno does by stipulating 
that the truth of the solution gives it existence, but the fact that some 
mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does 
not allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things. For 
example, we could make valid claims about the content of a meteor that no one 
has examined but we cannot have any certainty about those claims unless we 
actually crack open the rock and physically examine its contents. 
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not exactly 
what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the simple actions 
of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that make up the monads 
such that, for example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also 
live in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a world that I also 
live in such that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as 
defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be considered to either 
exchange substances nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange 
excitations. The entire common world of appearances emerges from and could be 
said to supervene upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic 
actions.

I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP-Complete 
problem is to make the creation of the universe simulataneous with the 
computations so that the universe itself is the computer that is finding the 
solution. snip




Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem. 


ROGER:  Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not sure.

But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a physics 
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that overlooks
intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.

To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa. 

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony




On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as 
composer/conductor.

Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go too far. 
This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be created itself? 



This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.

I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving an 
NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of variables. 
Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable 
in a multivariate system. Unless we are going to grant God the ability to 
contradict mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting 
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run 
an eternal computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! 
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an 
infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run, 


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Aug 2012, at 13:36, Roger wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

BRUNO:  This musical score, does it require work of some kind to  
be created itself?


? I did not write this.





ROGER:  A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be  
able to see the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that.  So it could not  
create itself.


A Turing machine is not a tape with holes in them.
When you say cannot create itself, I am not sure if anything can  
create itself. But amoeba and Turing machine can reproduce itself.






BRUNO:  I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires  
solving an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite  
number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or  
optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we  
are going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical facts,  
which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis  
rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal  
computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd!  
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires  
an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


Here you are quoting Stephen, not me.





That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources,  
as put in this way, people might think you mean primitively  
physical resource.


Yes, that's from me.






and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim  
access to the information that would be in the solution that the  
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem  
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the truth of the  
solution gives it existence, but the fact that some mathematical  
statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does not  
allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things.  
For example, we could make valid claims about the content of a  
meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty  
about those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and  
physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not  
exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of  
the simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the  
percepts that make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic  
percept of living in a world that you also live in is synchronized  
with your monadic view of living in a world that I also live in  
such that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads  
(as defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be  
considered to either exchange substances nor are embedded in a  
common medium that can exchange excitations. The entire common  
world of appearances emerges from and could be said to supervene  
upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.


I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP- 
Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe  
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is  
the computer that is finding the solution. snip



Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.

ROGER:  Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not  
sure.


If comp is true, nothing is created. All there is comes from the  
consequence of addition and multiplication of numbers, and what is  
psychological, physical, theological are numbers dreams. But such  
dreams obeys laws constrained by computer science.






But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a  
physics
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that  
overlooks

intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.


With comp even matter is not physical. This is still mainly ignore,  
so you might be interested in reading my papers on my URL.





To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa.


Miracle might exist, from inside arithmetic, at the epistemological  
level, but to invoke them when searching an explanation is not  
convincing if you don't explain them too.


Bruno





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous  
to

a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go  
too far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to  
be created itself?




This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Stephen P. King

Dear Roger,

It was not Bruno that wrote what you are attributing to him below. 
It was me. I think that he might appreciate that you make attributions 
correctly. Let me fix the attributions.



On 8/14/2012 7:36 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
Stephen P. King:  This musical score, does it require work of some 
kind to be created itself?
ROGER:  A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be able 
to see the future,
only intuition and other abilities might do that.  So it could not 
create itself.


It does not locally create itself, but it does participate in the 
process that does create it, thus in a sense it does indeed create 
itself. This is the most important point of Bruno's work, as he hows us 
a proof of concept of a theory that allows us to understand that the 
physical world is not an ontologically primitive entity.


Stephen P. King:  I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) 
requires solving anNP-Complete computational problem 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems that has 
an infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to 
maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system 
http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf. 
Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict 
mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting 
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would 
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the 
Universe. This is absurd! How can the existence of something have a 
beginning if it requires an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,

BRUNO: That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by 
resources, as put in this way, people might think you mean 
primitively physical resource.



Stephen P. King:
and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim 
access to the information that would be in the solution that the 
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem 
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the truth of the 
solution gives it existence, but the fact that some mathematical 
statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does not 
allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things. For 
example, we could make valid claims about the content of a meteor 
that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty about those 
claims unless we actually crack open the rock and physically examine 
its contents.
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not 
exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of 
the simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the 
percepts that make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic 
percept of living in a world that you also live in is synchronized 
with your monadic view of living in a world that I also live in such 
that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as 
defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be considered 
to either exchange substances nor are embedded in a common medium 
that can exchange excitations. The entire common world of 
appearances emerges from and could be said to supervene upon the 
synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.


I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the 
NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe 
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is 
the computer that is finding the solution. snip


BRUNO:
Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.

ROGER:  Your idea of incremental creation could possibly work, not sure.


It is just a conjecture. It works only if it can explain features 
and phenomena in a way that is better than other alternative ontological 
theories.



ROGER:
But at least to my mind, the universe has to be a miracle from a physics
(deterministic) point of view. No first physical cause. But that overlooks
intelligence, which to my mind is nonphysical.
To me, life is also a mirtacle as was painting the Mona Lisa.


I agree! Our experience of a world is itself a miracle. It is sad 
that it is taken for granted.



Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-13, 09:19:40
*Subject:* Re: pre-established harmony


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is
analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go  
too far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to  
be created itself?




This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving  
an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of  
variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize  
more than one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we are going  
to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical facts, which, I  
argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis rules of  
non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal computation  
prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! How can the  
existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an  
infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as  
put in this way, people might think you mean primitively physical  
resource.




and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim  
access to the information that would be in the solution that the  
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem  
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the truth of the  
solution gives it existence, but the fact that some mathematical  
statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does not  
allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things.  
For example, we could make valid claims about the content of a  
meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty  
about those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and  
physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was  
not exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization  
of the simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the  
percepts that make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic  
percept of living in a world that you also live in is synchronized  
with your monadic view of living in a world that I also live in such  
that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as  
defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be considered  
to either exchange substances nor are embedded in a common medium  
that can exchange excitations. The entire common world of  
appearances emerges from and could be said to supervene upon the  
synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.


I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the  
NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe  
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is  
the computer that is finding the solution.   snip



Even some non universal machine can solve NP-complete problem.

Bruno


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: pre-established harmony

2012-08-13 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
When this cowboy has to write a score, there are always the constraints of
what client/audience expect; even if they expect breaking a set of
conventions.

But the actual writing, the 1p experience of it, is out of my control. If I
am afforded conditions to be allowed to be open for surprise, this control
loss is ecstatic and overwhelming, in the sense that I can't keep up with
the seemingly foreign?! streams of notes and melodies filling my head.
Kind of like, when you start dreaming and you're sort of conscious that
you're dreaming pre-sleep, then complex imagery/thought starts to unfold
automatically without our control, at a rate much higher and denser than
we would ever be able to code in real time, with interfaces available to us
today. Mahler said to Bauer Lechner upon conducting his symphonies later in
life: I don't feel like I wrote the damned things. I feel like I'm
conducting somebody else's score. And although I can't write anything
close to a Mahler symphony, I feel the same towards my own scores.

The craft part, tools of formal music theory and so on, are only useful
after this generation phase; serving merely to organize, make
presentable, to perfume, polish and make palatable the highly dense strings
of musical info passing through us all the time (if I remain quiet and
thoughtless enough, and my local universe doesn't interrupt, including my
analytical thinking, I'll begin to hear it). Contrary to Tom Waits, who is
a much better song writer than yours truly, I do not believe that the muse
just happens to strike you when you get lucky. For this cowboy, it's more
a problem, to create the conditions that make surprise possible: for me
when my analytical faculties are weakened sufficiently.

Yes, I would subscribe to every symphony/song exists outside of time or
is pre-established. But they are infinite. And they fork infinitely into
new songs. I want my musical redundancy pure and free and the problem is
all the functional, analytical noise, and biological need's stuff in the
way ;)

After I've gone fishing, then the formal theory and craft becomes central;
and you discover: Funny, I did that, would've never crossed my mind...

I've never solved a NP-Complete problem though :)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:

  Hi Roger,

 I will interleave some remarks.

 On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
 a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
 composer/conductor.


 Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go too
 far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be created
 itself?


 This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
 all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
 Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
 could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


 I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving 
 anNP-Complete computational 
 problemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problemsthat has an 
 infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not
 possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate
 systemhttp://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf.
 Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical
 facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis
 rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal
 computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! How can
 the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an infinite
 problem to be solved first?
 Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


 That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as put
 in this way, people might think you mean primitively physical resource.



 and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to
 the information that would be in the solution that the computation would
 generate. WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno does
 by stipulating that the truth of the solution gives it existence, but the
 fact that some mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the
 prior sense) does not allow it to be considered as accessible for use for
 other things. For example, we could make valid claims about the content of
 a meteor that no one has examined but we cannot have any certainty about
 those claims unless we actually crack open the rock and physically examine
 its contents.
 The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not
 exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the
 simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that
 make up the monads such 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

When this cowboy has to write a score, there are always the  
constraints of what client/audience expect; even if they expect  
breaking a set of conventions.


But the actual writing, the 1p experience of it, is out of my  
control. If I am afforded conditions to be allowed to be open for  
surprise, this control loss is ecstatic and overwhelming, in the  
sense that I can't keep up with the seemingly foreign?! streams of  
notes and melodies filling my head. Kind of like, when you start  
dreaming and you're sort of conscious that you're dreaming pre- 
sleep, then complex imagery/thought starts to unfold automatically  
without our control, at a rate much higher and denser than we would  
ever be able to code in real time, with interfaces available to us  
today. Mahler said to Bauer Lechner upon conducting his symphonies  
later in life: I don't feel like I wrote the damned things. I feel  
like I'm conducting somebody else's score. And although I can't  
write anything close to a Mahler symphony, I feel the same towards  
my own scores.


The craft part, tools of formal music theory and so on, are only  
useful after this generation phase; serving merely to organize,  
make presentable, to perfume, polish and make palatable the highly  
dense strings of musical info passing through us all the time (if I  
remain quiet and thoughtless enough, and my local universe doesn't  
interrupt, including my analytical thinking, I'll begin to hear it).  
Contrary to Tom Waits, who is a much better song writer than yours  
truly, I do not believe that the muse just happens to strike you  
when you get lucky. For this cowboy, it's more a problem, to create  
the conditions that make surprise possible: for me when my  
analytical faculties are weakened sufficiently.


Yes, I would subscribe to every symphony/song exists outside of  
time or is pre-established. But they are infinite.


Yes.


And they fork infinitely into new songs. I want my musical  
redundancy pure and free and the problem is all the functional,  
analytical noise, and biological need's stuff in the way ;)


:)



After I've gone fishing, then the formal theory and craft becomes  
central; and you discover: Funny, I did that, would've never  
crossed my mind...


OK.




I've never solved a NP-Complete problem though :)


The classical satisfiability problem of propositional logic is NP  
complete, so I am pretty sure you did solve some of them. When looking  
if p - (q - p) is a tautology, you do solve a NP-complete problem  
instantiation. There are two variables, p and q, so you will need 2^2  
lines in the truth table. So that truth table algorithm is intractable  
if the number of variable is too big. With 64 variables you would need  
2^64 lines.
NP problem are algorithmically solvable, but not necessarily  
tractable, and necessarily non tractable in case P ≠ NP, as almost  
everyone believe, but it is still a major open problem in computer  
science.


Bruno






On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous  
to

a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go  
too far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to  
be created itself?




This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that  
intelligence

could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving  
an NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of  
variables. Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize  
more than one variable in a multivariate system. Unless we are  
going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical facts,  
which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis  
rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal  
computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd!  
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires  
an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources,  
as put in this way, people might think you mean primitively  
physical resource.




and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim  
access to the information that would be in the solution that the  
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this problem  
the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the truth 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-13 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go 
too far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to 
be created itself?



This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving 
anNP-Complete computational problem 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems that has 
an infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to 
maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system 
http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf. 
Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict 
mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting 
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would 
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the 
Universe. This is absurd! How can the existence of something have a 
beginning if it requires an an infinite problem to be solved first?

Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,


That makes sense, but you should define what you mean by resources, as 
put in this way, people might think you mean primitively physical 
resource.


Dear Bruno,

A bounded Turing machine has been used to model specific 
computations using the number of state transitions and alphabet size to 
quantify the computational effort required to solve a particular problem 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_resource. Let us supposed 
that the states are physical as defined in your resent post:


This define already a realm in which all universal number exists, 
and all their behavior is accessible from that simple theory: it is 
sigma_1 complete, that is the arithmetical version of Turing-complete. 
Note that such a theory is very weak, it has no negation, and cannot 
prove that 0 ? 1, for example. Of course, it is consistent and can't 
prove that 0 = 1 either. yet it emulates a UD through the fact that all 
the numbers representing proofs can be proved to exist in that theory.
Now, in that realm, due to the first person indeterminacy, you are 
multiplied into infinity. More precisely, your actual relative 
computational state appears to be proved to exist relatively to 
basically all universal numbers (and some non universal numbers too), 
and this infinitely often.
So when you decide to do an experience of physics, dropping an 
apple, for example, the first person indeterminacy dictates that what 
you will  feel to be experienced is given by a statistic on all 
computations (provably existing in the theory above) defined with 
respect to all universal numbers.
So if comp is correct, and if some physical law is correct (like 
'dropped apples fall'), it can only mean that the vast majority of 
computation going in your actual comp state compute a state of affair 
where you see the apple falling. If you want, the reason why apple fall 
is that it happens in the majority of your computational extensions, and 
this has to be verified in the space of all computations. Everett 
confirms this very weird self-multiplication (weird with respect to the 
idea that we are unique and are living in a unique reality). This 
translated the problem of why physical laws into a problem of 
statistics in computer science, or in number theory.


And you also wrote:

...from the first person points of view, it does look like many 
universal system get relatively more important role. Some can be 
geographical, like the local chemical situation on earth (a very special 
universal system), or your parents, but the point is that their 
stability must be justified by the winning universal system emerging 
from the competition of all universal numbers going through your actual 
state. The apparent winner seems to be the quantum one, and it has 
already the shape of a universal system which manage to eliminate 
abnormal computations by a process of destructive interferences. But to 
solve the mind body problem we have to justify this destructive 
interference processes through the solution of the arithmetical or 
combinatorial measure problem.


Does the measure cover an infinite or finite subset of the 
universals? Does the subset have to be representable as a Boolean 
algebra? A physical state might be one that maximally exists in 
universal numbers, but this does not really answer anything. The 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-12 Thread Stephen P. King

Hi Roger,

I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.


Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go too 
far. This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be 
created itself?



This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.


I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving 
anNP-Complete computational problem 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems that has an 
infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not possible to 
maximize or optimize more than one variable in a multivariate system 
http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf. 
Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict mathematical 
facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting violations of the basis 
rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run an eternal 
computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! How 
can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an 
infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run, and if 
resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to the 
information that would be in the solution that the computation would 
generate. WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno 
does by stipulating that the truth of the solution gives it existence, 
but the fact that some mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is 
true (in the prior sense) does not allow it to be considered as 
accessible for use for other things. For example, we could make valid 
claims about the content of a meteor that no one has examined but we 
cannot have any certainty about those claims unless we actually crack 
open the rock and physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as moving harmoniously together was not 
exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the 
simple actions of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that 
make up the monads such that, for example, my monadic percept of living 
in a world that you also live in is synchronized with your monadic view 
of living in a world that I also live in such that we can be said to 
have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as defined in the Monadology) 
have no windows and cannot be considered to either exchange substances 
nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange excitations. The 
entire common world of appearances emerges from and could be said to 
supervene upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic 
actions.


I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the 
NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe 
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is the 
computer that is finding the solution. This idea is discussed by several 
people including David Deutsch, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose and Stuart 
Kaufman in their books. This implies that God's creative act is not a 
singular event but an eternal process.



I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's belief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the best possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.


Yes.


  Hence
Voltaire's  foolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how
could  the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?


Voltair was a poor fool that could not understand the simple idea 
that only one variable can be maximized. Perhaps he was not a fool and 
knew the facts but wanted to discredit Leibniz's superior ideas.



Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.


Indeed. One might even argue that the existence of evil in the 
world is a consequence of choice; that only in a world completely devoid 
of choice might it be possible for crap to never occur. But this can be 
shown to have a vanishingly small probability or even zero chance of 
actually occurring, as 1) the NP-Complete problem would have to first be 
solved and 2) there would have to be a very happy accident where no 
one ever happen to be doing the actions which would lead them to see 
evil - given that evil is a valuation that occurs in our minds and is 
not an actual extant state of the world.



* As a related and possibly explanatory point, L's universe
completely is nonlocal.


Indeed! I argue that L's monadology almost exactly anticipated the 
concept of a quantum mechanical system, since a QM system by definition 
is a windowless monad that never exchanges substances 

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-11 Thread Jason Resch
As I understand it, the Leibniz's rational for advocating the
pre-established harmony idea was Newton's discovery of conservation of
momentum.  Descartes knew that energy was conserved, but not momentum.
 This would have permitted a non-physical mind to alter the trajectories of
particles in the mind so long as the speed of the particles remained
unchanged.  Newton's revelation however was that in order for the motion of
one particle to be changed, another physical particle must have an equal
and opposite change in momentum.  This does not permit a non physical force
to change the motion of particles, and hence Leibniz concluded that the
mental world does not affect the physical word, or vice versa.  Rather,
they were made to agree beforehand (you might think of it as a bunch of
souls watching a pre-recorded movie of the physical world, but this
pre-recorded movie also agrees with the intentions of the souls watching
it).

 In *Monadology*, published in 1714, Leibniz wrote “Descartes recognized
that souls cannot impart any force to bodies, because there is always the
same quantity of force in matter. Nevertheless he was of opinion that the
soul could change the direction of bodies. But that is because in his time
it was not known that there is a law of nature which affirms also the
conservation of the same total direction in matter. Had Descartes noticed
this he would have come upon my system of pre-established harmony.”

Jason

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King

 As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
 a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
 composer/conductor.

 This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
 all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
 Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
 could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.

 I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's belief that God,
 whoc is good, constructed the best possible world where
 as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.  Hence
 Voltaire's  foolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how
 could  the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
 part of the most perfect world ?

 Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.

 * As a related and possibly explanatory point, L's universe
 completely is nonlocal.

 Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
 8/11/2012

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
 *Subject:* Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of
 stuff ?

   Hi Roger,

 I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about
 Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?


 On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote:

 Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say
 contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your
 monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling
 agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and
 neurophilosophy.



 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

 Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
 ~ Francis Bacon

  --
 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.


-- 
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.