Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

I seem to have a very abstract and contrary perspective to the traditional view of computation.

Not that I've followed all of the discussions on this, but instead of:

What is computes.

wouldn't it be more appropriate to say:

What is has been computed.

? I realize the difference may sound subtle but if you can grok this it may turn out to be hugely important.

If all of nature, all of what "is", is an amazingly beatiful pattern, perhaps of colors or music, produced from some set of rules, then that which performs the computation would not exist in the pattern of what "is."

My view would be that "what is" is an effect. Human beings and the nature that sourrounds them is an effect of something. And the cause of this effect cannot exist within the effect itself.

What is = something

What computes = nothing, or at least nothing to us, because we are something

It is possible that what is nothing to us, could be something to something that is not something to us.

That might sound like gibberish, but if you read that previous sentence, I think there's some a huge degree of beauty in what that expresses, as undechiperable as it initially seems.

Like I said, it might sound trivial, but as we contemplate computation and its role in the universe it would be a disservice to throw around little slogans that may mislead or convey a message different than what is really meant.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Mike H.: "My view would be that "what is" is an effect. Human beings and the nature that sourrounds them is an effect of something. And the cause of this effect cannot exist within the effect itself."

What you are saying sounds a bit like a one way mapping in Burgin's theory of "named sets" (aka fundamental triads). Read his description of a fundamental triad as simple three part stick on page 9 of his "Unified Foundations for Mathematics" paper [1]. You should be able to understand quite a bit of this paper, but you might need to look up some math terms on the internet math dictionaries/encyclopedias as you read further into the paper.

Do you think that named sets could be somehow non-trivially related with NKS? I haven't tried thinking about this yet. I did read his paper but I cannot tell yet if he is describing something truly fundamental or is just giving a new "name" to some set theoretic ideas, e.g. like translating math concepts from some human language such as English into another language such as French, German or Russian while not actually creating new and non-trivial mathematical constructs or at least further mathematical clarity.


[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/math.lo/0403186

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2004
Posts: 1

@MikeHelland:

[wrote:] "What is = something

What computes = nothing, or at least nothing to us, because we are something"


-Why: 'what computes' = nothing (and not: = something else) ?

-"...,because we are something" ??? <-- is that a reason?

-The following sentence i didn't get:
"It is possible that what is nothing to us, could be something to something that is not something to us." -how do you mean it?

Do you mean all this in a generalist way like 'thing' opposed to 'not thing' or 'worldly' vs 'supernatural'?

By setting (world =) 'what is' := something you imply there is 'something else' un= 'what is'. Something else not from this world.
-That computes how our world progresses? ...a machine God?


At this point we need to ask what we exactly mean by 'what is' or 'world'!
-Is it what we can see and touch?
-What we can imagine?
-Every 'thing' that is out there, or just what we actually perceive with our senses and 'know' is there.

Had we set world := 'everything out there', there'd be no place left for 'what computes'. It'd have no space to exist, unless it was made of some ghostly, supernatural matter.
Or 'it' was what holds our universe together at the innermost...
Like a ghostly force that pulls and pushes and shapes everywhere at the same time, but has no shape, itself. That consists of no matter (then it'd be a part of our world), but still somehow is connected to or hidden inside all matter thus influencing our world.

Whatever it is and whatever more general Everything it is part of, to have an effect in/on our world it needs to be somehow related. Whether direct or indirect, visible (for us) or not, detectable (for us) or not, there has to be some type of relation between 'what computes' and 'what is', for it simply to matter for us.
If 'it' was computing (or forming and planning) for all time but there was no connection whatsoever it would have no consequences and not be of any importance to us!

I personally associate this ghostly matter with information, as it is masterfully described in Steven Pinker's 'How the mind works':
Information (whether hidden in nature or known to us as our thoughts, feelings and dreams) has itself no material form of existence. There is no way to detect information if it didn't had an effect, didn't leave a trace, first. Again: Information without any traces ever would not matter to anyone. Therefore information is inextricably linked to the effect(s) it "creates"/"causes"/"is".

my hypothesis: 'information' =? 'what computes'

in other words: information can not be detected in "pure form", because it doesn't even exist of what we can detect. However it does have real effects in our world, as every student who knows he's having an exam the next day could tell you. In order to exert this effect (e.g. learning, nervousness, getting an excuse from the doc...) information must be inextricably linked to our world.

Now you might ask: 'and what decides how exactly any set of information effects our world?' Admittedly there are several thinkable possibilities of which only one can become reality (either the student participates in the exam or he stays away). The answer again is Information - other or more detailed information (again in form of thoughts, desire, emotions or external influences) would in the end determine the outcome.

Eventually I seem to have arrived at a deterministic point of view.
What i'm trying to get at is, that information might actually be just another name for what is.

Or where is the difference between 'You are reading these here words' (fact) and the information that you'e reading these here words.

P.S. There is no false information, only true! If the information was a sham (e.g. a lie) it is no more equivalent to its original, but has been further processed.

P.S.S. @Charlie Stromeyer jr.
thanks for the link, i'll happily check it out.

__________________
there are two different groups of people in the world, those who divide the people of the world into different groups, and those who do not.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Hello, Spark

Before answering some specifics I thought I'd just mention that I've noticed a strong link between my thoughts here and Taoist (and Monist) understandings of these same concepts.

Comparing the tao to NKS:

The Way = The Rule

The Way/Rule is the cause.

The World = The Pattern

The World/Pattern/Nature is the effect.

Because we exist in the effect and may only experience the effect then only the effect is something.

The cause is not something, at least, it is not something to us.

>-Why: 'what computes' = nothing (and not: = something else) ?
>-"...,because we are something" ??? <-- is that a reason?

Correct.

>-The following sentence i didn't get:
"It is possible that what is nothing to us, could be something to something that is not something to us." -how do you mean it?

I mean it like this:

The cause is not something to us. It is nothing to us.

But nothing to us, maybe something to something that is not something.

Nothing to something may be something to nothing.

It maybe "something else" as you suggest, but this something else is still not something to us, and it is important to understand this. It might take some deep contemplation to figure out though.


>-That computes how our world progresses? ...a machine God?

Perhaps. But "Nothing" is a better name for it though because we know nothing about it and cannot know anything about it.


>At this point we need to ask what we exactly mean by 'what is' or 'world'!
>-Is it what we can see and touch?
>-What we can imagine?
>-Every 'thing' that is out there, or just what we actually perceive with our senses and 'know' is there.

Very good question. It is everything that we may interact with and this is not meant to be vague. It is meant to invoke the funamental forces. The Rule (the cause) is the invisible mechanisms of gravity, electromagnetics, and nuclear interaction, and the result of the rules is nature (the effect) and this result is the information of "what is".


>Had we set world := 'everything out there', there'd be no place left for 'what computes'. It'd have no space to exist, unless it was made of some ghostly, supernatural matter.

Ah! And here it is!

If the world = all information that results from the rule, including matter, space, and time, then you are exactly correct, there can be no "what computes" and thats why it is Nothing!

However, there is one more interesting twist, and this is more subtle and complicated than anything we have discussed thus far.

Perhaps all the information that results from the rule is not all the information everywhere.

What if the information, the effect, is contained in another invisible unexperienced set of information?

What if this larger encompassing set of information has its own matter, space, and time that is different than the matter, space, and time of the smaller subset that is something to us?

This is very vague in this form, but I have described this notion in far more detail and have called it the Multiple Natures Hypothesis:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

I believe that were we to incorporate Quantum Mechanics with these Monistic/Taoistic like philosophies the result is the final grand unified theory of everything that NKS eludes to.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged