Registered: Mar 2004
Thank you for correcting me on that. I wont claim to have intended that notion in the first place because really it's much, much clearer now.
I guess I let my post hang a bit with odd conclusions about law/constraint. They came across my mind while reading this thread in the form of questions, but by the time I had finished stating the questions, I had developed it a bit more and should of continued.
I would not be suprised if there is some logical flaw in the reasoning in my previous post, but as of now, i don't know how to argue otherwise.
Coming from Richards second post, saying that:
"perhaps there is no such thing as 'the real world' at all. all there is in a practical sense, are those 'things' that our brain (mind is devoid of meaning) is capable of dealing with. "
and Gunnar's comment:
"I suspect that the 'dilemma' consists in the imprecision of language since the dawn of the modern scientific revolution whereby observed regularities in the field of physical phenomena are labeled 'laws' once they have been given precise mathematical form."
The question I first asked myself was:
"If there are laws for us, what about physical processes?"
So, I gave my definition of law and concluded that a system must be universal to percieve law/constraint, and then therefore for any non universal system, there are no laws.
What I did not include in the post is this:
If our universe works anything like a mobile automaton / casual network, then it follows that any universal system, whether it be rule 110, a universal cyclic tag system, or some universal turing machine that is in effect being emulated directly by our universe rule would indeed look *exactly* the same to any system within that universe, being you and me.
And following from that, then the question arises:
How can we, as systems of this universe, be able to witness all this diverse phenomena which has behavior consistent enough for us to generalize it with traditional mathematics in the form of "laws", if the systems that are responsible for such behavior do not necessarily have to be universal?
In other words, since our universe rule most likely operates like a mobile antomaton / casual network, meaning that uderlying form of fundamental processes are undetectable, the patterns of behavior generated (programs emulated) by a our universe rule would seem to have infinite computational power / capabilities.
If thats true, then how can there be all these percieved limitations in behavior?
If I haven't missed something so far, then I see only but a few ways to explain this.
First, there's the possibility that all existing phenomena have some sort of special infinite capabilities that reside within their, seemingly constrained forms ( a unified version of this statement is that the universe has some sort of infinite/irreducible computation that is in effect unseen by all systems that are in it ).
Second, there is no indefinite power that exclusively fabricates constraint. But instead, there is in effect universal systems that for whatever reason, by whatever means, constrain themselves and behave appropriately within their own constraints ( again, a unified way of saying this is that the universe is in effect built up off of all possible (near all?) constraints that can be computed by our rule ). This, I believe, Leads to fairly definite entities that persist over time but are in great diversity of appearance, all reflections of eachother, shadows of the same thing (sound familiar?).
The third, I suppose would be if I am incorrect in some way, and that systems need not constrain themselves to be diffirent. However, even if this has a more palatable flavor, the concept does not appeal to me for some reason. It seems arguable, and in some wau just philosophically unsound, but at present I just dont know what to do with it.
Kind of like what most of this post is about!!
*sigh*, well now I've got myself going in vertical loops. Better close.
I guess the relevancy of all this is in that when you try to explain "how to do" inquiry, what you're really trying to explain is yourself -- because thats what we do. You're trying to explain everything.
Trying to explain everything is hard!
(p.s., I wrote this post last night and am now copying it to the forum in verbatim, despite my implulse to heavily revise it with a wakeful mind.
Please, if you feel like saying a thing or two about it, go ahead and dice it up to pieces. I want to unravel this ball of twine. Perhaps another thread would be appropriate. Well anyways, like I said, have at it.)
Last edited by Jesse Nochella on 08-21-2004 at 05:51 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged