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