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

From: Joel Dobrzelewski <dobrzele.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:55:25 -0400

Thanks for your reply, Bruno...

*> All this for reasons similar to those made by Everett in his many
*

*> world papers. Have you read Everett ? (or at least Tegmark? or
*

*> Deutsch?)
*

Just Tegmark. I'm looking into the others...

*> Is it more impressioning than the (binary) counting algorithm, which
*

*> just counts: 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, etc. It generates (after the
*

*> first 1) every strings too. And you can implement it in a reversible
*

*> way with a reversible universal turing machine.
*

Well, there may be some reasons to think that cellular automata are more

fundamental, computationally speaking, than even Turing Machines. For

instance, a Turing Machine has a "moving" part (the read/write head) and

usually a complicated state transition table, perhaps requiring a physics

all its own. While the cellular automaton has no moving parts at all - just

two states and the transition rule.

And consider the economy of its description. Suppose you needed to send a

computer program to an alien civilization. Describing the workings of a

Turing Machine might be a little tricky, while a few simple pictures can

convey the idea of a cellular automaton and its initial configuration.

Since CA can do everything TMs can do, and because of their simple

implementation, I tend to prefer them.

*>> But the advantage here is that we can more easily envision the
*

*>> existence of such a miraculous object like a minimal cellular
*

*>> automaton than, say, a Universal Turing Machine. Cellular automata
*

*>> naturally implement physical universes without any interpretation.
*

*>
*

*> How? Implementations are interpretations.
*

Yes, I suppose so. I simply mean that that the cellular automaton has a

direct mapping to 3D physical space. It's just easier for me to envision.

*>> The bits merely exist... and we can see them with our digital eyes
*

*>> - and the patterns they generate.
*

*>
*

*> Where?
*

Well I suppose I was trying to be poetic. :) The cellular automaton, I

believe, exists in "Platonic Heaven" as you described it. It really doesn't

matter.

*> It is not the solution. It is the problem. Your type of approach
*

*> like Schmidhuber's one is based on a naive association between the
*

*> first person view and some third person description (brain, machine,
*

*> automata). See http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1726.html for
*

*> an attempt to explain how non trivial the "mind body" problem becomes
*

*> when the computationalist hypothesis is taken seriously.
*

Wow, that is quite some post. =) It's almost overwhelming.

Can you try to describe, in simple terms: what is the mind/body problem?

And how does it relate to cellular automata?

I always assumed that the automaton merely exists... and we (our minds and

bodies) simply emerge from the bits.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Joel

Received on Thu Jun 14 2001 - 12:55:16 PDT

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:55:25 -0400

Thanks for your reply, Bruno...

Just Tegmark. I'm looking into the others...

Well, there may be some reasons to think that cellular automata are more

fundamental, computationally speaking, than even Turing Machines. For

instance, a Turing Machine has a "moving" part (the read/write head) and

usually a complicated state transition table, perhaps requiring a physics

all its own. While the cellular automaton has no moving parts at all - just

two states and the transition rule.

And consider the economy of its description. Suppose you needed to send a

computer program to an alien civilization. Describing the workings of a

Turing Machine might be a little tricky, while a few simple pictures can

convey the idea of a cellular automaton and its initial configuration.

Since CA can do everything TMs can do, and because of their simple

implementation, I tend to prefer them.

Yes, I suppose so. I simply mean that that the cellular automaton has a

direct mapping to 3D physical space. It's just easier for me to envision.

Well I suppose I was trying to be poetic. :) The cellular automaton, I

believe, exists in "Platonic Heaven" as you described it. It really doesn't

matter.

Wow, that is quite some post. =) It's almost overwhelming.

Can you try to describe, in simple terms: what is the mind/body problem?

And how does it relate to cellular automata?

I always assumed that the automaton merely exists... and we (our minds and

bodies) simply emerge from the bits.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Joel

Received on Thu Jun 14 2001 - 12:55:16 PDT

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