- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Colin Geoffrey Hales <c.hales.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:11:29 +1000 (EST)

*>
*

*>
*

*> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
*

*>> Well, I think I have a better understanding now of the ideas leading me
*

to start this thread - thanks to Bruno, Quentin and the other

*>> contributors. Moreover, I am leaning towards fundamentally changing my
*

views on the implementation problem: if computationalism is true, then

it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that computations are

implemented as a result of physical processes, even if a separate

physical reality did exist. It may yet be the case that consciousness

is

*>> only the result of special physical processes, perhaps brains and
*

digital computers but not rocks or the mere existence of computations

as

*>> mathematical objects, but then this would entail giving up
*

*>> computationalism. Putting constraints on which computations contribute
*

to the measure of consciousness, as I understood Jesse Mazer's

*>> suggestion to be, may also be true, but it is debatable whether this
*

preserves computationalism either.

*>> Stathis Papaioannou
*

*>
*

*> There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
*

*> not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
*

*> require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be physical
*

*> implemented by a wide variety of systems)
*

*>
*

*>
*

The distractions of language in this are so subtle. The word 'physical' is

so laden with preconceived notions. I wish I could think of a better word

but I can't. Perhaps a better way of couching it would help:

*whatever the universe is we are part of it, made of it, not separably 'in

it'.

*the rest of the universe that is not 'us' behave in a way with respect to

us that we label 'physical'

*the entire thing could be called a computational domain but based on

computing done with 'objects' that are nothing like the idea of number we

are used to. A particular 'number' in our universe could be

colin.brain.cell.molecule.atom.proton.quark.a.s.d.f........etc. There need

be no 'next' or 'previous' number in the sense we are used to - that comes

from our thinking. The number is actually an organisational hierarchy

only.

Pick up a pencil, hold it. Say to yourself "The universe has computed a

pencil".

These numbers interact with each other according to whatever is

computationally adjacent (this has nothing to do with space or what we

would call physically adjacent...space can be what it looks like when you

are in it).. for example 'adding' three of these (above) numbers involves

creating the right context of adjacency and voila... a 'proton' (plus some

remainder rubbish which can go away and do something else...) Basically

the gigantic cellular automata.

The computations done with these 'numbers' is what we are. For the sake of

a name call the numbers 'entropy numbers'.

'AS-IF' COMPUTATION

What we can do is arrange this 'intrinsic computation with entropy

numbers' to behave 'as-if' idealised numbers existed and obey rules

according to the idealised domain of those numbers, if it actually existed

(presumably in the legendary platonia). Nowhere in any of this 'as-if'

computation does any of the structural 'entropy numbers' have any clue as

to what it is doing. The manipuluated 'symbols' are just patterns in the

adjacency of the numbers.

'VIRTUAL MATTER'

Imagine this huge cellular automata - a computation performed by simple

adjacency of entities in an organisational hierarchy - the numbers in it

that represent the organisation of me and you is what we call matter. As

computation it is actually derived from an axiomatic initial conditions

and a set of logical rules, forming a massively parallel calculus.

if 'number a' (a cell in the CA) is matter it is a proof in this calculus

if 'number b' (a cell in the CA) is matter it is a proof in this calculus

then what is the status within the CA the 'difference' between two cells

in the CA? The difference has been computed just as exquisitely

accurately, but no computational proof exists in the sense that a and b

were proven. It is 'as if' the computation was performed...but it was not

actually performed. Therefore if a is matter, b is matter, then (a_to_b)

is 'as-if' matter - virtual matter.

You can see this in any of the CAs Stephen Wolfram's book. Each cell is

actually computed. The _difference_ between any two cells is not computed

explicity but is as perfectly proven. These are godellian unproven truths

in their squintillions.

Now ask yourself the one question Stephen Wolfram didn'k himself:

Q. "Under what conditions can it be like something to 'be' an object in a

CA?"

A. When the object in the CA behaves 'as-if' it is interacting with some

other part of the CA.

Under these circumstances the unproven truths - the virtual matter

riddling the CA can be used to paint a computational picture of any other

part of the CA. The trick is that the numbers in the CA have to do it...

no act as-if'.

But the machine that does the 'as-if' symbolic computation throws away all

the virtual matter in the process of manipulating symbols only meaningful

to a third person...

does this smake any sense? It seems really obvious to me!

Colin Hales

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

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

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 18:13:39 PDT

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:11:29 +1000 (EST)

to start this thread - thanks to Bruno, Quentin and the other

views on the implementation problem: if computationalism is true, then

it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that computations are

implemented as a result of physical processes, even if a separate

physical reality did exist. It may yet be the case that consciousness

is

digital computers but not rocks or the mere existence of computations

as

to the measure of consciousness, as I understood Jesse Mazer's

preserves computationalism either.

The distractions of language in this are so subtle. The word 'physical' is

so laden with preconceived notions. I wish I could think of a better word

but I can't. Perhaps a better way of couching it would help:

*whatever the universe is we are part of it, made of it, not separably 'in

it'.

*the rest of the universe that is not 'us' behave in a way with respect to

us that we label 'physical'

*the entire thing could be called a computational domain but based on

computing done with 'objects' that are nothing like the idea of number we

are used to. A particular 'number' in our universe could be

colin.brain.cell.molecule.atom.proton.quark.a.s.d.f........etc. There need

be no 'next' or 'previous' number in the sense we are used to - that comes

from our thinking. The number is actually an organisational hierarchy

only.

Pick up a pencil, hold it. Say to yourself "The universe has computed a

pencil".

These numbers interact with each other according to whatever is

computationally adjacent (this has nothing to do with space or what we

would call physically adjacent...space can be what it looks like when you

are in it).. for example 'adding' three of these (above) numbers involves

creating the right context of adjacency and voila... a 'proton' (plus some

remainder rubbish which can go away and do something else...) Basically

the gigantic cellular automata.

The computations done with these 'numbers' is what we are. For the sake of

a name call the numbers 'entropy numbers'.

'AS-IF' COMPUTATION

What we can do is arrange this 'intrinsic computation with entropy

numbers' to behave 'as-if' idealised numbers existed and obey rules

according to the idealised domain of those numbers, if it actually existed

(presumably in the legendary platonia). Nowhere in any of this 'as-if'

computation does any of the structural 'entropy numbers' have any clue as

to what it is doing. The manipuluated 'symbols' are just patterns in the

adjacency of the numbers.

'VIRTUAL MATTER'

Imagine this huge cellular automata - a computation performed by simple

adjacency of entities in an organisational hierarchy - the numbers in it

that represent the organisation of me and you is what we call matter. As

computation it is actually derived from an axiomatic initial conditions

and a set of logical rules, forming a massively parallel calculus.

if 'number a' (a cell in the CA) is matter it is a proof in this calculus

if 'number b' (a cell in the CA) is matter it is a proof in this calculus

then what is the status within the CA the 'difference' between two cells

in the CA? The difference has been computed just as exquisitely

accurately, but no computational proof exists in the sense that a and b

were proven. It is 'as if' the computation was performed...but it was not

actually performed. Therefore if a is matter, b is matter, then (a_to_b)

is 'as-if' matter - virtual matter.

You can see this in any of the CAs Stephen Wolfram's book. Each cell is

actually computed. The _difference_ between any two cells is not computed

explicity but is as perfectly proven. These are godellian unproven truths

in their squintillions.

Now ask yourself the one question Stephen Wolfram didn'k himself:

Q. "Under what conditions can it be like something to 'be' an object in a

CA?"

A. When the object in the CA behaves 'as-if' it is interacting with some

other part of the CA.

Under these circumstances the unproven truths - the virtual matter

riddling the CA can be used to paint a computational picture of any other

part of the CA. The trick is that the numbers in the CA have to do it...

no act as-if'.

But the machine that does the 'as-if' symbolic computation throws away all

the virtual matter in the process of manipulating symbols only meaningful

to a third person...

does this smake any sense? It seems really obvious to me!

Colin Hales

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

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

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 18:13:39 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST
*