Dear Mindaugas Indriunas
(this reply wsas sitting half-way written in my DRAFTS box. Excuse the
delay, please)
I feel we get entangled into more than what we want to.
As I translate (to my mind) your words, a 'consequence' should be viewed as
'connected' to its originating (you said: cause), while I keep it more open
that an 'entailer' can have different entailments,
according to the total interconnectedness and the changings. of the
totality. ((since many variants from diverse parts play into the process))
So the 'originating point may be "ONE" of the outcomeS of that "cause(-es we
regognized so far)".
I like to view 'process' linked to all changes in the totality - not the
'snapshots' which science likes to study (states? equilibria?).
So I am not so sure about "CAUSE", in most cases it is a model-view: we
select a portion of the totality for our observation (=model) and find IN IT
a momentum that can be picked in the entailment of the object. WE call it
'cause', while the totality interferes with other effects as well, maybe
beyond our model, maybe others are not even discovered yet, and a cumulative
outcome is the 'object' we assign to that ONE "cause" within the limited
model we observed.
This is the way I 'separate' the process of our universe FROM - what you
called (not my word) "originating point" in the (model view) called
'universe'. (ours, that is, among unlimited and different others.)
*
I see a dynamic interactive process, not 'rules', which are extracted from a
selection (model) of observations as accounted for "most" occurring.
(People call that 'statistical'). Physical law is such, cellular automata
are sub-models - in this view, deduced rules change.
I think it is time to get over the conventional prejudices based on a
primitive explanatory mindset upon superficial observations, I say
'superficial' because we are not (yet as well) capable of applying FULL
informative understanding to our observations.
That resuloted historically in the 'primitive material worldview' and the
quantized edifice of the physical views.
I cannot tell what is the right stance but hope in progressing into a better
understanding.
Most "advanced" poisitions of today still anchor in the old views. We CANNOT
do better. I condone it as a possibiloity of stepping forward.
You as part of the new generation may get further.
John Mikes
On 3/13/07, $BL.domain.name.hidden(B < meiteki.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> I feel I understand your view and distinction of "origination point"
> and "origination".
> "Origination" is entailment of "origination point". "Origination
> point" is part of our world ("the item to be originated"). Is that
> correct?
>
> Now, my opinion is that there is no "origination" of the "origination
> point", because whatever it may be, it is connected to the item to be
> originated through causality. What I mean is, if we were to find some
> relatively simple rule generating our world, then we could actually
> try to reduce it to some even simpler rule.
>
> It is now thought of that some rules governing cellular automata are
> irreducible, since there seem to be no simpler rule to produce the
> patterns they some cellular automata produce, however, suppose that
> our world is governed by some relatively simple rule. In this case,
> there is a rule to reduce most if not all of the cellular automata
> rules, since it actually produces all the cellular automata that we
> know :-). Analogically, if we find that our world is some cellular
> automata with the initial state that we do not know, we could try to
> find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually
> produces the initial state of our world.
>
> Mindaugas Indriunas
>
> On 3/8/07, John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I feel a misunderstanding here:
> >
> > "origination point" IMO is part of the item to be originated, the
> pertinent
> > 'point' (within and for) the evolving total to grow out from.
> > As I used 'origination" refers to the entailment producing such "point"
> - if
> > we use a 'point' to start with.
> > Such 'point' is the limit we can go back to, not further to 'its'
> entailing
> > circumstgances we have no access to.
> > I tried to adjust to a vocabulary I responded to, not my own and
> preferred
> > one. Hence the misunderstandability. Sorry.
> >
> > John Mikes
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: $BL.domain.name.hidden(B
> > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: JOINING post
> >
> > Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the
> > same as the word 'origination-point'.
> >
> > You said: (1)
> >
> > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> > >
> >
> > And you also said: (2)
> >
> > > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever
> it
> > may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely).
> > >
> >
> > From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items
> later
> > or equal to origination-point."
> >
> > I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.
> >
> >
> > Mindaugas Indriunas
> >
> >
> > On 3/5/07, John M < jamikes.domain.name.hidden > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
> > > what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use
> > >
> > > in our speculations only our present cognitive
> > > inventory of our existing mind.
> > > No information from super(extra)natural sources
> > > included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier
> > > items than the origination-point (whatever it may be)
> > > of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite
> > > precisely).
> > > Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg
> > > cannot 'generate' information about ' no information'
> > > topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence
> > > items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion.
> > > What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the
> > > conventionally outlined "scientific method".
> > >
> > > John M
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- $BL.domain.name.hidden(B < meiteki.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear John Mikes.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
> > > > to 1 part of your
> > > > letter:
> > > >
> > > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does
> > > > produce the data that
> > > > we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to
> > > > (with some certainty)
> > > > know it. Even the cellular automaton that is
> > > > equivalent to universal turing
> > > > machine, has its beginning.
> > > >
> > > > Mindaugas Indriunas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Mar 29 2007 - 08:03:35 PDT