|
Author
|
Topic: Questions on Reality Models and automata in Computation Theory
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 27. October 2003 01:41
Ged wrote: "I would point out that it depends upon environmental factors: Most notably a stable gravity, non-moving (relatively) target location, circular distribution of the 'pour' source, and possibly stationarity in the distribution of particle sizes and shape factors."
One can also point out that germination depends on water, the right temperature, oxygen, a period of dormancy and perhaps the correct photoperiod. Does that mean a germinating seed doesnt qualify as self-organizing?
It exhibits structural-coupling, has structure, is self-producing, has -ve and +ve feedback, organizational closure, creative self-organization, has holarchy etc etc.
I am hesistant about the extent to which one can mount the influence of environmental conditions as an objection to self-organization in this case because this would be what we call a thermodynamically open system. So by definition, environmental influences have to exact some influence in the evolution of the system.
The extent to which a sand can be said to be self-organizing is of course, very limited.
About 'self', Self-organization typically refers to a process by which systems organize themselves without external direction, manipulation or control. At least the sand particles being poured can be said to self-assemble to form a geometric shape. The agents (sand particles) interact in a fashion that leads to that shape. We know, from Chaitin's work that there is a random reality at the low(est) level. Indeed, Godel's incompleteness theorem simply proved that even in mathematics, certain things are random and are therefore unprovable. At least per algorithmic complexity. So, from randomness, we get some order...
When talking of self-organizing, 'self' doesn't necessarily entail sentience. I believe that is what you are uncomfortable about. Even in automata, they are supposed to simply 'model' certain systems. Its just an attribute - irrespective of the ontology of whats being examined.
Not taking inputs yet generating outputs would make a system be what we call a white hole I believe. I am a computer programmer - any examples?
Not taking input yet generating output puts an interesting spin to the definition of 'system'. I would like to see examples of these 'semi-closed' systems. In my mind appears conspansion and inertial frames of reference of our galaxy...
As an Information Scientist, the difference between data and information in the first thing I learnt whe I studied data processing many years ago.
I am dropping this whole automata argument because on closer inspection, Langan actually used language in the linguistic sense. The definition he provides are inconsistent with his application of the word 'language'.
Thanks for your participation.
[ 27. October 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 27. October 2003 08:01
Russell
quote:
By defining the universe as the largest possible set, we create a paradox, because the set of all sets is its own power set . Therefore, the cardinality of the set of all sets must be bigger than itself. We could explain the "meta space" as being truly infinite but that creates serious problems also. There is no outside to the universe, so your attempt at visualization of an outside will not work. We cannot Cartesian dualize an n-dimensional perendicular set of axes for an "outside" There is no way to imbedd the riemannian manifolds into a higher dimensional Euclidean space and still have a realistic model.
The CTMU resolves the set of all sets paradox by explaining the universe as a dynamic self including SCSPL language, via a two stage form of self containment. Descriptive/Topological. As Mr. Langan explains, the universe descriptively contains that which topologically contains the universe.
I stated that I was talking about a finite "real universe" or meta-space in my last post, so can we drop the infinite universe strawman?
I did not mention anything "outside" of the real universe, so I am a little mystified by what you could be referring to with "your attempt at visualization of an outside". Does this relate rather to the observable universe? Can you be sure that the observable universe is not a volume or subset in the real universe? The assumption that the real universe and the observable universe are one and the same is, I think, the root of the problem.
From the link you offered:
quote:
According to semantic duality, the predication of the attribute real on the real universe from within the real universe makes reality a self-defining predicate, which is analogous to a self-including set.
I have just pulled out one sentence from a lengthy text, so may be doing it an injustice, but this seems to state that the cardinality of the power set paradox is cleared up by the statement: "Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real." This is convenient, as it was where you started from in your first post.
What is the relevence of the SCSPL to your original claim that the universe is not expanding? Why was this not mentioned in your first post?
The Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 27. October 2003 09:37
quote:
I am dropping this whole automata argument because on closer inspection, Langan actually used language in the linguistic sense. The definition he provides are inconsistent with his application of the word 'language'.
Yes, that is the impression that I get, about internal inconsistencies relating to the word "language". The CTMU document and argument is sufficiently complex to make it difficult to tease out premises or loose constructions of argument that may lead to incorrect conclusions. But I find conclusions that are inconsistent with observation--at least in degree.
The admitted "circularity" of argument in part also gives rise to questions of what are 'premises'. If a point is both a conclusion and a premise, at some point in a "circular" portion of argument, then it is difficult to label a concept as "premise" (though it might be) if it is also "conclusion". Thus any concept that is a portion of the circular part of the argument may even be part of a completely "logical" argument, but one which is simply based upon premises which are not in conformance with real world observation. (Thus one may construct a 'self-consistent' model, though it may or may not conform to observable world.)
Of course science, on whole, tends to have such circular arguments. (Generally not in a given paper, but rather in larger bodies or aggregation of those works.) This is why science is never declared "proof" in the deductive sense, rather such circular arguments are constructed and then must show predictivity of further results. If they are found to have conclusions (somwhere in the "loop") that are inconsistent with observation, then the concept is suspect.
But I still suspect that CTMU model may suffer from failure of self-consistency, and not just inconsistency with observable world.
[ 27. October 2003, 09:45: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 28. October 2003 01:41
quote:
But I still suspect that CTMU model may suffer from failure of self-consistency, and not just inconsistency with observable world.
It is incomplete hence cannot be tautological.
The word unisection has two different meanings in the paper.
And yes, circular arguments abound.
[ 28. October 2003, 01:42: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. October 2003 02:12
quote:
quote:
According to semantic duality, the predication of the attribute real on the real universe from within the real universe makes reality a self-defining predicate, which is analogous to a self-including set.
I have just pulled out one sentence from a lengthy text, so may be doing it an injustice, but this seems to state that the cardinality of the power set paradox is cleared up by the statement: "Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real." This is convenient, as it was where you started from in your first post.
What is the relevence of the SCSPL to your original claim that the universe is not expanding? Why was this not mentioned in your first post?
The paradox is resolved by a dynamic process of self inclusion called conspansion.
Reality contains all that is real as a dynamic process, the mechanics of self inclusion is called conspansion.
Chrisopher M. Langan's CTMU says reality is an SCSPL, a Self Configuring Self Processing Language. The dynamics of SCSPL, resolve the set that is its own power set "paradox".
It seems that you should know that by now Pixie ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 28. October 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 28. October 2003 04:50
Russell
You sort of gave the impression that you had a proof that reality was not (externally) expanding when you said:
quote:
If our universe were to occupy a medium into which it could expand, the medium would be an even more basic form of reality than the universe itself. If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium, the medium would be even more basic. A contradiction. Reality cannot be expanding in any external sense.
This proof appeared to stand on it own, without reference to other parts of CTMU (except the Reality Principle, which was your starting point), and it is this claim that I am trying to explore. How the CTMU overcomes the paradox of the cardinality of a power set though the SCSPL and conspansion seems neither here nor there.
As far as I can tell you have not addressed the issue that they may be two different sorts of universe. The "real universe", or reality, contains everything that is real, and has (we might allow for the sake of argument) constant size. The "observed universe" is a subset of the real universe, and is a volume of space containing galaxies. It may be that the real universe is identical to the observed universe, or it may be that the observed universe is an expanding volume inside the larger real universe, and when we observe galaxies expanding, we are seeing the actual expansion of the observed universe.
In the quote, when you say "our universe" we could equate that to the observed universe, while the "more basic form of reality" would be the real universe. Then you go on to claim that the real universe would have to occupy "such a medium" as well - specifically you say; "If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium...". Why is this so? It seems you believe that the real universe must be contained in a medium if it contains the observed universe, but not if it equals the observed universe.
The Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. October 2003 06:01
quote:
Pixie:
Russell
You sort of gave the impression that you had a proof that reality was not (externally) expanding when you said:
quote:
If our universe were to occupy a medium into which it could expand, the medium would be an even more basic form of reality than the universe itself. If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium, the medium would be even more basic. A contradiction. Reality cannot be expanding in any external sense.
This proof appeared to stand on it own, without reference to other parts of CTMU (except the Reality Principle, which was your starting point), and it is this claim that I am trying to explore. How the CTMU overcomes the paradox of the cardinality of a power set though the SCSPL and conspansion seems neither here nor there.
That quote is something I remember reading in the CTMU writings, so it is probably a paraphrase of an article out there. But to put it into my own words, it becomes "how can there be any type of absolute expansion?" Both the spacetime expansion and material contraction models are correct, if relativity is to be taken seriously.
Paradoxes can be symbolized as [A] = [~A] , where "~" means "not".
That above quote also states the largest set paradox because all you have to do is replace the words basic medium by largest set
If the universe were to occupy a larger set into which it could expand, the larger set would be the largest set and if the largest set were to occupy an even larger set then that set would be the largest, so it never ends. There can be no larger set, because its power set is larger still. You might want to say "well, why can't we just define one set to be the largest and that's it?" It is still a paradox
Now if nothing exists outside the universe, whatever the universe is defined to be, then the properties of nothing must be explained as a type of absence of space and absence of time. The absence of space and time would be a type of massless solid with no extension and no duration. A type of vector quantity on the surface of existence. A fundamental principle for the unified field theory can be based on the "nothingness [quantum vacuum]" universal state vector.
quote:
As far as I can tell you have not addressed the issue that they may be two different sorts of universe. The "real universe", or reality, contains everything that is real, and has (we might allow for the sake of argument) constant size.
Relativity tells us that both explanations are correct depending on your perspective. From a local perspective, we observe intergalactic distances expanding, while matter and forces are constant. From a global perspective matter shrinks. Really, it is a self embedding of spacetime, or repeated nesting of universe within itself. But since there is no outside frame of reference it is not really shrinking or expanding in an absolute sense. It only imbeds itself.
quote:
The "observed universe" is a subset of the real universe, and is a volume of space containing galaxies. It may be that the real universe is identical to the observed universe, or it may be that the observed universe is an expanding volume inside the larger real universe, and when we observe galaxies expanding, we are seeing the actual expansion of the observed universe.
What contains the larger real universe? What happens when the universes contained within this larger Pixie universe continue to expand without limit, but the larger real universe is of finite? size and the expanding sub universes keep expanding?
quote:
In the quote, when you say "our universe" we could equate that to the observed universe, while the "more basic form of reality" would be the real universe.
It seems to be asking the question "where does it stop?" Is there an infinite number of larger and larger containers that never end? Reality contains all and only that which is real by a mechanism. The mechanism of self containment. So the set called real universe cannot be static and unchanging. It must be a dynamic process, right Pix?
quote:
Then you go on to claim that the real universe would have to occupy "such a medium" as well - specifically you say; "If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium...". Why is this so? It seems you believe that the real universe must be contained in a medium if it contains the observed universe, but not if it equals the observed universe.
The Pixie
Think about it Pix. You know how to think, don't you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 28. October 2003 09:06
quote:
The paradox is resolved by a dynamic process of self inclusion called conspansion.
Reality contains all that is real as a dynamic process, the mechanics of self inclusion is called conspansion.
This is not correct. Self inclusion is hology. What you are talking about (mechanics) is endomorphism "whereby things are mapped, generated or replicated within themselves". This is in line with intrinsic determinacy.
quote:
Now if nothing exists outside the universe, whatever the universe is defined to be, then the properties of nothing must be explained as a type of absence of space and absence of time. The absence of space and time would be a type of massless solid with no extension and no duration. A type of vector quantity on the surface of existence. A fundamental principle for the unified field theory can be based on the "nothingness [quantum vacuum]" universal state vector.
This is consistent with the reality concept that was derived from Goddard's Hologic Identity. Its extension into reality bears syndiffeonesis.
The only problem is that these are mental constructs and there is no reason to imagine that the universe must have a physical instance of every mental object as langan argues.
Its simply anthropocentrism.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. October 2003 13:52
quote:
Jacob:
This is not correct. Self inclusion is hology. What you are talking about (mechanics) is endomorphism "whereby things are mapped, generated or replicated within themselves". This is in line with intrinsic determinacy.
Hology an analogue of holography and is a form of self similarity. The dynamics of self inclusion is the process called "conspansion" Jacob.
Critics like Jacob and Pixie seem to be criticizing out of sheer ignorance of the facts?
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU.html
quote:
In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion...
http://www.iomas.com/gina/ultrahiq/mega-society/Teleologic/main.htm
quote:
Hology is a logical analogue of holography characterizing the most general relationship between reality and its contents. It is a form of self-similarity whereby the overall structure of the universe is everywhere distributed within it as accepting and transductive syntax, resulting in a homogeneous syntactic medium.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 28. October 2003 23:12
On previous comments with regard to self-organization, I want to assure the readers that I am virtually complete agreement with Aliet Jacob, and comments were more matters of interest rather than disagreements. (For example, the cone of the sand 'self-organization' of some extent is not perfectly conical--more a reference to my other comments elsewhere about imperfection of description or fuzzy matter of degree. The shape to which it 'self-organizes' is partly self-determined, and the degree of that depends upon what aspects is being studied and what external influence is being considered.)
But the automata concepts still have some interest for me, even if not directly relevant to CTMU.
The quantum computer concept is one in which the quantum wave self-organization provides responses or outputs that potentially outperform normal sequntial computation methods. What I am wondering about is whether in another aspect of consideration, the computability capacity of the quantum computation might exceed that of a Turing machine in some manner?
And what would it mean to consider that quantum computation to be "syntactic"? Especially a more generalized consideration of all quantum situations as computation of their respective responses, rather than having been enforced by design into a view of solving a particular externally specified problem.
But this relates to what an automata might be "modeling" (with regard to point about automata "modeling" some other situation, often real-world configurations). Because some automata are created to model other conceptually derived patterns, as opposed to patterns of other real-world origin. Of course the conceptualization itself is of the real-world of the person having the concept, just its classification could be put of itself in the "model" world. So one "model" is modeling another "model", a slightly different concept from a model modeling the real world. The main point there is that when the model models another model, it is modeling something that may have originally been specified with syntactic representation, while modeling of the real world only depends upon the extent to which the real world is originally considered to be "syntactic" in itself independent of the human description thereof.
[ 28. October 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 29. October 2003 01:56
Just to conclude on conspansion:
There is no paradox to be resolved:
quote:
This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
QED.
A metal bar that expands and contracts does not earn the expression "self-inclusive" by that virtue alone.
Whether Langan or Russel, confuses endomorphism with hology (MU + MAP), self-mapping, self-inclusion, conspansion, homogenity and self-composition really isnt of great concern.
And by the way, hology is not a logical analogue of holography.
I know Langan says it is.
And Langan doesnt specify which holography specifically: Pribrams or Berkensteins.
It seems he means Pribrams and it is wrong.
[ 29. October 2003, 02:11: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 29. October 2003 04:25
Russell
Can we assume that reality or the "real universe" is the basic medium and the largest set. There may be a paradox there, and the CTMU may or may not resolve that paradox. And I will further agree that an expanding universe, where length, time, mass, energy and force are constant is equivalent to a contracting universe in which length, time, mass, energy and force are all changing in step with one another.
quote:
What contains the larger real universe? What happens when the universes contained within this larger Pixie universe continue to expand without limit, but the larger real universe is of finite? size and the expanding sub universes keep expanding?
Your first question is a problem for any finite universe, including the CTMU. If the CTMU can explain it away, why can I not use the same argument for my universe?
I do not know what might happen if the observed universe should become too big for the real universe. Maybe the expansion will slow as it gets close to the limit; maybe it will hit it with an almighty bang. Is ignorance a good logical reason to assume that the observed universe is equal to the real universe.
quote:
It seems to be asking the question "where does it stop?" Is there an infinite number of larger and larger containers that never end? Reality contains all and only that which is real by a mechanism. The mechanism of self containment. So the set called real universe cannot be static and unchanging. It must be a dynamic process, right Pix?
I thought we defined the real universe as the outer most one. Sure they may be any number of universes that contain the observed universe, but all are contained by the real universe. Again, we do not know, and that is a shaky position to base an argument on.
Is self-containment a mechanism? This seems a strange terminology.
And clearly things are changing in our world, so they are changing in the real universe too. Of course the set is changing.
Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. October 2003 05:47
quote:
Russell
Can we assume that reality or the "real universe" is the basic medium and the largest set. There may be a paradox there, and the CTMU may or may not resolve that paradox. And I will further agree that an expanding universe, where length, time, mass, energy and force are constant is equivalent to a contracting universe in which length, time, mass, energy and force are all changing in step with one another.
Yes
quote:
Your first question is a problem for any finite universe, including the CTMU. If the CTMU can explain it away, why can I not use the same argument for my universe?
I do not know what might happen if the observed universe should become too big for the real universe. Maybe the expansion will slow as it gets close to the limit; maybe it will hit it with an almighty bang. Is ignorance a good logical reason to assume that the observed universe is equal to the real universe.
What contains the largest set Pix? It must contain itself, yes?
quote:
Is self-containment a mechanism? This seems a strange terminology.
And clearly things are changing in our world, so they are changing in the real universe too. Of course the set is changing.
Pixie
Conspansion is explained as a process, so that could be a better word to use if you like Pix
Reality contains itself through the process of conspansion.
I seem to recall this quote:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483#000000
quote:
Christopher M. Langan:
Just to clarify: I explained myself as much as should have been necessary. I've had a lot of experience on Internet bulletin boards, and have learned to avoid long-winded posters who consistently pretend that they don't understand what I say. Their interminable demands for clarification become pseudo-dialectical black holes down which infinite time and energy can disappear with 0 return on the investment.
[ 29. October 2003, 05:54: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 29. October 2003 07:23
quote:
What contains the largest set Pix? It must contain itself, yes?
Wrong question. It assumes that the universe is finite.
Are you saying that we pretend that we dont understand what you write?
[ 29. October 2003, 07:48: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. October 2003 14:15
quote:
Aliet:
Wrong question. It assumes that the universe is finite.
Are you saying that we pretend that we dont understand what you write?
All observations seem to point towards the possibility of a finite universe. If the universe is truly infinite as Aliet is implying, that would be great IMHO. But it seems that one of the goals of physics is to find a way to eliminate the infinities, so that finite, sensible answers may be derived.
If the universe is truly infinite, it could expand into itself with no problem, because of the paradoxical nature of infinity:
aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0
According to the axiom of choice, there is a choice function, f, such that for any non-empty subset B of A, f{B} is a member of B. The choice function assigns or "chooses a member from each set B. The problem with the axiom of choice lies in the fact that there may be infinitely many sets B within A.
From the Axiom of choice, the Banach - Tarski paradox may be derived, where a sphere of fixed radius may be decomposed into a finite number of pieces and then reassembled into two spheres, each with the same radius as the original sphere.
So by understanding the nature and mathematics of "paradox", it would be possible to transform paradox into useful mathematics?
Self inclusion is not a static set.
[ 29. October 2003, 14:22: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic