Transporter exists? - perhaps so.

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:37:10 -0800

I think my model has a rationale for the necessary existence and
functioning of Bruno's substitution mechanism.

I claim in my current model that the Everything and the Nothing if they are
absent information must alternate with each other.

I model the Everything as a pattern of all patterns, each embedded pattern
being repeated an infinite number of times. At each manifestation of the
Everything - since there is no history - the pattern of patterns realized
is a random selection from all possible patterns of patterns.

Each embedded pattern seems computable. They are at most representable by
a countably infinite string of bits.

SAS are embedded in some isomorphisms to some embedded patterns.

So if we equate the level of substitution as the entire Everything [the
only reasonable approach IMO] the alternation between Everything and
Nothing looks like Bruno's substitution mechanism. Further since each
cycle creates a new pattern of patterns it is in effect a transporter of an
isomorphism into a new universe. See more on this below.

Now from here what I focus on is the mechanism of transfer of particular
isomorphisms from imbedded pattern to imbedded pattern. In my model I call
the process a compare. The isomorphism compares nearby embedded patterns
with its set of rules and transfers to an acceptable one. Any SAS can
sense the compare process as alternate possible courses of action. The
rules can have a non deterministic content. Some alternate course of
action choices are then a selection of one undecidable out of several that
were pre assembled by the SAS through the necessary agent of the "do not
care" part of the rules. This allows the accumulation of a sense of self
in the SAS and looks, I think, like the fuzzy conscious state being
discussed. Each manifestation of the Everything is a new pattern of
patterns - a new universe - and stirs the pot so to speak.

I argue for a non deterministic content by attempting to show that
Chaitin's incompleteness forces the issue onto the transfer process. This
can be aided by Godelian incompleteness if the rule set is complex enough.

The transporter also injects a non deterministic aspect to SAS supporting
universes since while the SAS can show that the transporter exists and
functions it is not possible to tell when it has functioned.

Hal

   
Received on Mon Mar 19 2001 - 18:11:14 PST