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

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:11:28 -0700

*>> Jacques Mallah wrote:
*

*>>> If b was random, the continutation r will
*

*>>> probably also be random, but now we lose the
*

*>>> specific information about the exact specification
*

*>>> of b. If b was simple, the continuation will
*

*>>> probably also be simple.
*

I'm a unclear about the example of a Turing machine and its tape. I assume

this is not meant literally, but only as a way of quantifying information. But

is the information being quantified a description of the universe's laws; as

might be represented by some initial finite program on an infinite tape which

is blank except for the part describing the universe's laws and initial

conditions. And then the running of the Turing machine corresponds to working

out all the consequences of these laws and initial conditions - i.e. computing

the universe.

But then what does a segment of tape which is random correspond

to? I assume it is in part of the infinite tape which did not encode the laws

and initial conditions - the part I supposed to be blank above. The

computation is taking place in a mathematically consistent way (I suppose

that's the point of imagining a Turing computation). So the 'random' part goes

into the computation. Hence it must represent some other laws or initial

conditions. Now depending on the program, some or all of this extra stuff on

the tape might have no effect. For example the Turing machine might overwrite

those particular bits without reading them. But in general, i.e. with high

probability, they will have some effect. Is this effect a 'wabbit'?, i.e. an

exception to law-like progress of the universe? Well in the sense that it is

a change from the initial 'laws' I thought of as being encoded on the tape they

are exceptions. But from a consistent viewpoint, isn't the totallity of the

data on the tape a consistent set of laws and initial conditions. The fact

that the Turing machine processes them in a certain order need not imply

anything about the order of events in the universe - so the 'exceptional' part

may be first in 'universe-time'.

I guess my confusion is that I don't see any logical way to distinguish a

'random' part.

Brent Meeker

Received on Sun May 21 2000 - 20:15:20 PDT

Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:11:28 -0700

I'm a unclear about the example of a Turing machine and its tape. I assume

this is not meant literally, but only as a way of quantifying information. But

is the information being quantified a description of the universe's laws; as

might be represented by some initial finite program on an infinite tape which

is blank except for the part describing the universe's laws and initial

conditions. And then the running of the Turing machine corresponds to working

out all the consequences of these laws and initial conditions - i.e. computing

the universe.

But then what does a segment of tape which is random correspond

to? I assume it is in part of the infinite tape which did not encode the laws

and initial conditions - the part I supposed to be blank above. The

computation is taking place in a mathematically consistent way (I suppose

that's the point of imagining a Turing computation). So the 'random' part goes

into the computation. Hence it must represent some other laws or initial

conditions. Now depending on the program, some or all of this extra stuff on

the tape might have no effect. For example the Turing machine might overwrite

those particular bits without reading them. But in general, i.e. with high

probability, they will have some effect. Is this effect a 'wabbit'?, i.e. an

exception to law-like progress of the universe? Well in the sense that it is

a change from the initial 'laws' I thought of as being encoded on the tape they

are exceptions. But from a consistent viewpoint, isn't the totallity of the

data on the tape a consistent set of laws and initial conditions. The fact

that the Turing machine processes them in a certain order need not imply

anything about the order of events in the universe - so the 'exceptional' part

may be first in 'universe-time'.

I guess my confusion is that I don't see any logical way to distinguish a

'random' part.

Brent Meeker

Received on Sun May 21 2000 - 20:15:20 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*