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

From: Eric Hawthorne <egh.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:36:48 -0800

As I mentioned in an earlier post, titled "quantum computational cosmology"

why don't we assume/guess that the substrate (the fundamental concept of

the

universe or multiverse) is simply a capacity for there to be difference,

but also,

a capacity for all possible differences (and thus necessarily all possible

configurations of differences) to "potentially exist".

If we assume that all possible configurations of differences can

"potentially exist"

and that that unexplained property (i.e. the capacity to manifest any

configuration of

differences) is THE nature of the substrate, then

a computation can just be defined as a sequence of states selected from all

of the potential difference-configurations inherent in the substrate.

I don't even think that this notion of a computation requires energy to

do the

information processing.

My main notion in the earlier post was that some selections of a sequence

of the substrate's "potential states" will corresponds to order-producing

computations (computations which produce emergent structure, systems,

behaviour etc).

Such an order-producing sequence of substrate potential-states might be

considered to be "the observable universe" (because the order generation

in that sequence was adequate to produce complex systems good enough

to be sentient observers of the other parts of that state-sequence).

If we number the states in that selected order-producing sequence of

substrate

states from the first-selected state to the last-selected state, we have

a numbering

which corresponds to the direction of the time arrow in that observable

universe.

My intuition is that the "potential-states" (i.e. potentially existing

configurations of

differences) of the substrate may correspond to quantum states and

configurations

of quantum entanglement, and that "selection" of meaningful or

observable sequences

of potential states corresponds to decoherence of quantum states into

classical

states.

Eric

Stephen Paul King wrote:

*>It is the assumption that the 0's and 1's can exist without some substrate that bothers me. If we insist on making such an assuption, how can we even have a notion of distinguishability between a 0 and a 1?.
*

*> To me, its analogous to claiming that Mody Dick "exists" but there does not exists any copies of it. If we are going to claim that "all possible computations" exists, then why is it problematic to imagine
*

*>
*

*>that "all
*

*>possible implementations of computations" exists as well. Hardware is not an
*

*>"epiphenomena" of software nor software an "epiphenomena" of hardware, they
*

*>are very different and yet interdependent entities.
*

*>
*

Received on Tue Nov 26 2002 - 16:35:48 PST

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:36:48 -0800

As I mentioned in an earlier post, titled "quantum computational cosmology"

why don't we assume/guess that the substrate (the fundamental concept of

the

universe or multiverse) is simply a capacity for there to be difference,

but also,

a capacity for all possible differences (and thus necessarily all possible

configurations of differences) to "potentially exist".

If we assume that all possible configurations of differences can

"potentially exist"

and that that unexplained property (i.e. the capacity to manifest any

configuration of

differences) is THE nature of the substrate, then

a computation can just be defined as a sequence of states selected from all

of the potential difference-configurations inherent in the substrate.

I don't even think that this notion of a computation requires energy to

do the

information processing.

My main notion in the earlier post was that some selections of a sequence

of the substrate's "potential states" will corresponds to order-producing

computations (computations which produce emergent structure, systems,

behaviour etc).

Such an order-producing sequence of substrate potential-states might be

considered to be "the observable universe" (because the order generation

in that sequence was adequate to produce complex systems good enough

to be sentient observers of the other parts of that state-sequence).

If we number the states in that selected order-producing sequence of

substrate

states from the first-selected state to the last-selected state, we have

a numbering

which corresponds to the direction of the time arrow in that observable

universe.

My intuition is that the "potential-states" (i.e. potentially existing

configurations of

differences) of the substrate may correspond to quantum states and

configurations

of quantum entanglement, and that "selection" of meaningful or

observable sequences

of potential states corresponds to decoherence of quantum states into

classical

states.

Eric

Stephen Paul King wrote:

Received on Tue Nov 26 2002 - 16:35:48 PST

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