Re: lowly complexity

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:10:08 -0700

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:

> I do understand all universal computers are
> equivalent. But again: What program are these machines running? It is
> becoming clear to me - that is the real question.

They are running COBOL version 5.3. This language has been, and will remain with
us for ever. ;-)

> George:
>
> > The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can
> > observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The
> > rest is first person emergent.
>
> Yes, this is true. In fact I agree with you.
>
> As a matter of practicality, it doesn't matter at all "what is at the
> bottom". Everything is happening, and anything you want to happen WILL
> happen.
>
> And from your point of view in the game, this may be enough George. Your
> solution is complete. Now you must work towards finding the key to
> enlightenment, or whatever, and you've won.
>
> But for me - in MY game - I am left holding these pieces of a puzzle...
>
> 1. the history of modern science is based on the continuum
>
> 2. many important advancements have been achieved using such science
>
> 3. but many significant problems loom on the horizon
>
> 4. along comes the computer, and the discovery of complexity from simplicity
>
> 5. everyone seems to have overlooked the simple discrete, deterministic
> machines as theories of everything
>
> 6. my friend on the net notices that some simple automata are capable of
> Everything
>
> 7. we lie on the verge of unimaginable achievements including: free energy,
> the elimination of disease and suffering, the solving of many ancient
> mysteries, establishment of relationships with extraterrestrial
> intelligences, the engineering of human immortality, etc.
>
> I could go on and on. But for me - in my game - the situation is flawless.
> The timing is perfect for a cultural and scientific revolution to make it
> all happen... within my lifetime. I would say that it's too good to be
> true, but I know better. Virtual Reality can easily make all of this
> happen. It's exactly as I would have designed it! Therefore, I conclude:
> It's all just a game. A game we can't lose!
>
> So...
>
> At this time - under these circumstances - within this simulation - it
> appears that the idea of the minimal cellular automaton is a novel and
> powerful idea. So I go on playing the game. Putting the pieces together as
> best as I can. If I ever find a better idea, I'll fight for that!

OK, OK, OK go for it.... somewhere someplace in the plenitude your universe is
certainly run on a cellular automaton. The question is what is underneath THAT
automaton? Another one? And then another one? Just like the turtles supporting
the world....

Applying the first person to the Plenitude means that there is no need for any
physical implement which is nice. (If there was a physical implement then it
would be begging for an explanation!) We can imagine the states in the Plenitude
to be static. The transition from one state to another IS consiousness. These
transitions are anthropically filtered (i.e., filtered by consciousness).
Transitions are not real... They are only in the mind of the beholder....Nothing
is real.....except the self....It is the anchor on which everything else
depends.

I could make a fortune selling those Zen computers. Imagine! No production cost
and infinitely small and fast! :-)

> George, I like your idea. Is there any way to study/make use of the Zen
> non-computer? Where's the mouse & keyboard? How can we explore the
> plentitude?

You are exploring the Plenitude right now. Except that your perspective is only
a small slice of it.

George
Received on Mon Jul 02 2001 - 11:14:24 PDT