Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 19

Proceeding from the premise that NKS is correct, and may one day provide the most basic and ultimate model or imitation of nature, i would like to consider some things about ourselves.

If it is true that Wolfram's rule for the universe exists, and that indeed we are all subject to this rule, what does it mean that we are ourselves (living proof) capable of discovering such a rule? I am kind of thinking of russian dolls here.

What could this mean for those who are searching for the rule? How could this help us find the rule?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

I briefly pointed this out in another thread but there are good reasons to believe (Incompleteness Theorem for one) that we will never discover "the Rule."

That said, I'm largely in the camp of Karl Popper, one thing that we may do, whether for practical use but more likely for the pleasure of finding things out, is make conjectures as to what the rule may be and offer criticisms to determine what conjecture cannot be.

Thats the process of the critical rationalist, some would even call it the only real scientific method, and I would agree.

I like the Russian Dolls image though. A rule that is capable of discovering itself must produce a set that is capable of discovering itself, ect. This is way I suggest that the Incompleteness Theorem prohibits us from proving that we've found the rule, much the same way science doesn't "prove" anything. It only makes creative conjectures and removes the inadequate ones through criticism and refinement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

Why do I sort of "feel" the urge to add a level of abstraction when I consider systems which are reproducing themselves (reminiscent of recursion)?

In other words I always become more attracted to, not the self replicating rule, but to the mysterious "ether" (for lack of better word) in which this rule is existing and in which it is allowed to step to the next state... The rule may have it's magical properties but the "algorithmic ether" in which it is capable of having its existence-- well that "ether" seems to grasp my attention more often than not.

Recursion and self replication is fun but what is this "thing" in which these are allowed to "live"....?

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Philip,

Your question is also interesting, and I believe I have a compelling answer for you.

Lets assume that nature is the result the rule and within nature is matter, space, and time.

This is slightly different than our current intuition where we think that the information of nature occurs in matter, space, and time and not the other way around.

In any case, the "rule" then, that produces the information of nature is the "ether" as you suggest. I have developed a hypothesis that describes this "ether" as something called "fundamental nature" where there is not just "ether" but there is "fundamental matter", "fundamental space", and "fundamental time."

If you enjoy the abstractions implied by "the rule", you will surely enjoy this paper:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

Looking forward to your comments.

PS, it is not my intention to hijack everythread in this forum. However, many of these messages seem directly related to my ideas so I happily join the discussion, and would happlily contemplate any criticisms of my idea. I just needed to make that clear. Thanks.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 69

Mike:

Re. the following:

What exactly is an observation? There are not many technical definitions of this term so I will define an observation for the purpose of this paper as an interaction between an observer and it's environment where information about the environment is relayed over some distance to the observer.

Comment:

At first glance, the "over some distance" bit seems to introduce "absolute space" into the argument.

Gunnar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Gunnar,

It does. Read on.

(Hint: absolute space, or what I call fundamental space, is the space in which the model exists. If we build a model of nature it exists in nature, so the model exists in space. But the model of nature also contains information and when observed from within information itself - in other words, when the information creates a creature that may observe the information - then a new concept of space emerges. And this space is different than the fundamental space in which the model exists. The thinking I have applied to space applies to matter and time as well.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 19

It would seem to me that a model of the universe based on NKS would implicitly be more interesting, ie implicitly more complex, than a model based on traditional mathematics.

But maybe this isn't quite right. Perhaps a model based on mathematics could be as complex but would not be as elegant. A mathematical model may contain the same information as a NKS model, but I do not believe that any mathematical model could be fundamental.

What I'm trying to get at here is that mathematics seems to be emergent, not eternal. When the universe was just beginning, when it's ability to contain information was relatively low, what could the universe have known of mathematics.

As Wolfram explains in the section dealing with attributes of molluscs, his purpose was not to model every feature that describes "molluscs". That would be rather difficult and time consuming- if not impossible for the time being. What I find important is that features can be approximated at all.

To me this implies that, yes, reality may be modelled. Perhaps it is true that our computing power is limited but as Wolfram says over and over again in his book, simple programs seem capable of producing seemingly abitrarily complex behaviour. And often this behaviour is seen within only a few iriterations of a given rule.
If the rule for the universe is similar the fundamental complexities that we call universal constants may arise relatively quickly from the rule's initiation.

In this case the computing power contained in a relatively small region of space may be adequate to model the essential features of the universe. I personally think that this in born out in the fact that parts of the universe are usefully algorithmically compressible.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

"If it is true that Wolfram's rule for the universe exists, and that indeed we are all subject to this rule"

This is a massively huge assumption which IMHO should be considered first before contemplating the nature of those who might discover the rule. If we are all subject to some underlying Wolfram-like rule then it should first be able to explain the following which we know for certain have existed:

1) Extreme altruism. We have all heard of extreme sports but I define "extreme altruism" as the act of risking one's own life to save others even though there seems to be no immediate or likely reward. As a great illustrative example of this reality, the Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara defied his government to protest Japan's brutal treatment of the Chinese during the 1930s. Then in the early 1940s, he defied three orders from Emporer Hirihito's brutal regime in order to successfully save thousands of Jews who were fleeing the Nazis. As a "reward", Sugihara and his family were then imprisoned in a Soviet concentration camp which they managed to survive, and for many years later he was neglected by the Japanese people even though he had done what we would consider to be morally right.

2) Works of creative or theoretical genius such as the music of Beethoven or Thelonius Monk, the art of Picasso, the mathematics of Gauss, the theories of Einstein etc.

3) Why it is that very few if any of the greatest geniuses throughout human history were not very corrupt or evil. People such as Jesus, Newton, Fermi, von Neumann, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Pasteur etc. could have wreaked some major havoc if they were inclined to be like or to work for someone like Hitler or Stalin.


Try answering these type of questions before presuming that there is a simple rule underlying everything.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 17

Concerning "the rule" consider a game like Go, the rules are simple but the game is not.

"Games are normally based on definite rules, but are set up so that at each step they involve choosing one of many possibilities, either by skill or randomness. The game of Go, which originated before 500 BC and perhaps as early as 2300 BC, is a case where particularly simple rules manage to allow remarkably complex patterns of play to occur. (Go involves putting black and white stones on a grid, making it visually similar to a cellular automaton.)"

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text

Concerning the ethical question:

How do you know what you want?

Any naive answer might be nothing more but an effect of manipulation.

Kant proposed to ask whether ones answer would still be acceptable if everybody would answer like yourself. Maybe this explains why free thinking which achieves progress is rare among people who play for money, power or fame without considering the rest of the world.

http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/...s-of-morals.txt

There is a site offering 30 exercises:

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/ms/kant--00.htm

__________________
Michael Schreiber
-_-
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/NegligibleSenescenceScenario/

Last edited by Michael Schreiber on 05-06-2004 at 07:18 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 167

Charlie, you raised a few incidents of human history before challenging:

Try answering these type of questions before presuming that there is a simple rule underlying everything.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Last edited by Tony Smith on 05-03-2004 at 02:01 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Michael, you remind me of an amusingly simple gedanken which I mentioned to my brother last week because he has played the game of Go before. I suspect someone else must have thought of this or something better before because people who are interested in computer science, math or AI have examined Go.

Place the pieces on the board 'randomly' and take a photo of the board each time. Have some beginning Go players play a few rounds and then photograph the board, and repeat this enough times. Then do the same with expert players.

Show these randomly sorted photos to players of differing ability and see how often the great Go masters can correctly sort the photos into the three classes.

A rule like 110 appears to generate complicated behavior in a way that is intrinsic, whereas the complexity in Go is continually trying to be managed by human intelligence. So how would you interpret the results of the experiment in terms of NKS.

Also, your own (slight) moral failings have reminded me of my very favorite paradox from the mathematics of set theory which I call the Groucho Marx Paradox: Why would I want to be a member of some organization, class or set if this organization's standards are so low that the organization would invite me to be a member? :-)

Tony, I agree that the study of complexity/emergence in biology is important but, in terms of NKS, I haven't looked at the Wolfram Atlas yet and so I don't know if the cartography of the world of simple programs is now developed sufficiently.

Anyways, what is "biology"? People have thought that the genome determined the phenome instead of vice versa but perhaps this causality will become more complicated and difficult to discern. For instance, in principle at least and with the ongoing advent of biotechnology, I could attempt to do whatever I want to my own genome (although I might not survive the experience - this is probably one of those "do not try this at home" science projects).

Given its name, we should expect "entropy" to be a lazy couch potato but instead it seems to be operating almost anywhere we look. This is a foundation of my hypothesis that the universe is infinitely recursive but that the basis for the recursion is irony because irony is the quintessential nature of G-d's sense of humor :-)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Note that the following is relevant for NKS in the sense of implying questions about whether NKS might even be relevant for moral philosophy, theodicy etc.

Tony: "Charlie, you raised a few incidents of human history"

These are more than merely historical incidents because they have been persistent traits of the human condition. For example, there was a former U.S. soldier who worked in finance at the World Trade Center. On the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he successfully got many people out the collapsing tower even though he perished himself. This hero acted in this manner not because of an expectation of quick financial compensation but simply because he felt it was the right thing to do.

I will now resist making a crack about how you Aussies in the Land Down Under are mostly descended from criminals and drunkards and so what would you know of such noble behavior :-) I am just kidding, of course, but seriously, it may be that Michael is correct in that there is a simple underlying rule or principle underlying true 'morality' which is best not cluttered by theological or selfish concerns etc., which I personally believe is related to the Judaic and ultimate hope I mentioned earlier, i.e. that G_d allowed Evil to exist in this world so that it too could be redeemed.

(One could argue that the Jews have been historically and theologically naive about the nature and extent of Evil in this world which is why e.g. many of them boarded the trains to the death camps like blind sheep being led to the slaughter. However, note that the Jews have persevered for 6,000 years or more, whereas in contrast, the Third Reich only lasted for 10 years. Perhaps the Jews and their various influence upon the rest of us have drawn strength from the Jew's historical and theological refusal to acknowledge the independent autonomy and power of Evil (aka Satan etc.))

If you study both Judaic theology/spirituality and the history of the development of the atomic bomb then you will find many intriguing 'coincidences'. Can NKS explain away these 'coincidences' as some kind of intrinsically random and emergent flukes/behavior?

Finally, although Michael might be correct that true 'morality' may be based upon some simple rule or guidance, I doubt that this truth is realizable via mere words and I don't even know if it would somehow be 'computable'. Instead, it seems to me that this truth to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do is realized by surrendering one's self to its truth without selfish regard or worrying about whether some provincial minds might not approve.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 167

Charlie, I do think it is important we understand something of where our discussion partners are coming from, especially in terms of the prejudices we each bring to the table, but we also need to keep the purposes of this forum in mind while we are doing that.

(...) true 'morality' may be based upon some simple rule or guidance, I doubt that this truth is realizable via mere words and I don't even know if it would somehow be 'computable'.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

"Charlie, I do think it is important we understand something of where our discussion partners are coming from, especially in terms of the prejudices we each bring to the table, but we also need to keep the purposes of this forum in mind while we are doing that."

If the ANKS book is what it would have us believe then all current maths and sciences should be subsumed by NKS. This would raise the question of whether there are any other ways of thinking or phenomena, e.g. philosophy, ethics, who will win "American Idol" etc. can also be subsumed by NKS which is the point I was making.

"BTW, I am also convinced that this is a stronger optimism than the optimism claimed by purveyors of Judaic religions, or "desert religions" as I prefer to call them."

Here you are labeling too many different people with the same brush. As a counter-example, Einstein was a Jew who believed in G_d but it was not necessarily the same kind of God that you might be thinking of. Also, Isaac Newton actually spent more total time studying theology, religion and alchemy than he did with math or physics, and he even rediscovered some long forgotten beliefs and practices of the ancient Hebrews, such as one group who believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

However, Newton's huge amount of time spent pursuing alchemy was a waste, and some believe that Einstein wasted the last half of his life on a fruitless and stubborn quest for a unified field theory, driven by his overly perfectionistic ego. Hey, no one is perfect, but if you can find any geniuses like Newton or Einstein then I would be curious to see what they have done or written.

Furthermore, if someone says e.g. that they believe in Jesus then this does not necessarily imply that they believe in the same kind of Jesus that the Church has previously tried to impress upon too many people. Yes, I know that you were also shocked to have once discovered gambling in Casablanca :-) Btw, don't tell your fellow Aussie, Mel Gibson, that Jesus was actually a Jew or Mel's dear old dad might have a heart attack :-)

Returning to the consideration of NKS, do you think it has any potential for explaining emergent phenomena in human history? Instead of the human origins of religious thought and the difficulties of theological arguments, try an indisputable fact as a case test:

The great physicists Meitner, Segre, Fermi, Einstein and Oppenheimer were each Jews and so were some of the others involved in the development of nuclear technology and the atomic bomb. Originally, at least Meitner and Segre had wanted to stay in Germany and Italy, respectively, and Segre IIRC held the world's first patents for nuclear technology. Before WWII, Segre wanted to help his country by giving his technology to Mussolini, but Mussolini was anti-semitic and so he sent Segre packing.

If the facists' had not treated these physicists with anti-semitism then perhaps the Axis powers would have obtained the A-bomb before the Allies did and you might be Down Under, eating sheep mutton for the rest of your life if you should be so fortunate :-). I personally suspect that this is an example of how G_d's will turned the Evil (the anti-semitism) of the facists into a good (a redemptive act), and since the development of the a-bomb there has never been another major and violent world war. However, I am patiently and tolerantly waiting to entertain your NKS-based model of how these events unfolded :-) Once your model works, we can then see if your model can handle plenty of 'unusual' coincidences involved with these particular events.

However, there is a hypothetical way to make philosophical or religious thinking more 'universal' which would be to meet different species of intelligent ETs and see which of our notions are held in common and to what degree, but good luck trying to hail one who just happens to be passing by :-)

Finally, I do agree with you that the Wolfram Atlas should be the heart of NKS because then we will have a wide ranging collection to survey for different kinds of functioning and properties, and because many of Wolfram's speculations will probably seem at least premature without a useful cartography of simple programs.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 167

If the ANKS book is what it would have us believe then all current maths and sciences should be subsumed by NKS.

__________________
Tony Smith
Complex Systems Analyst
TransForum developer
Local organiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged