|
Author
|
Topic: Questions on Reality Models and automata in Computation Theory
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 18. October 2003 05:54
Many have argued (either knowingly or unknowingly) that Langan confuses Language with what it describes in construction of the CTMU. I have used the same argument myself especially when it comes to his M=R argument and his principle of linguistic reducibility. But I am re-examining that critique because of the Computational meaning of language and because there are many variations of this language=>reality argument:
1. Language is isomorphic to reality. (Everything spoken of must be perceptual/cognitive and grammar and cognitive-perceptual syntax are equivalent to the laws of physics).
2. Reality is logical. Because reality allows us to distinguish that which and that which is not, is autologically contains or exhibits sentential logic (Aristotelian logic) and is thus syntactically comprehensive and reflexive.
3. The mind equals reality because they are both reductively the same and are hologically contained in the same syntactic and ontological medium.
4. (Reality) Theory equals universe. Perception is the senory intersect between mind and reality. Thus a reality theory (cognitive construct) of the universe is equivalent to its perceptual content (reality).
You check the link to see my take on these issues (especially the last 7 pages). I am more concerned with Infocognitive monism which is a stratified form of panpsychism. It refers to the "distributed generalized self-perception and self-cognition of reality".
Whats tricky about infocognitive monism and language=reality arguments is the idea that they are based, in a way (by dint of extension), on computational theory. Langan attempts to 'retool' a number of concepts (he uses their explanatory inadequacy and inability to resolve certain paradoxes as his reason for extending them) by extending both Information theory, logic and principles like the superposition principle of QM, the Anthropic principle and tautologies to come up with CTMU and the Telic principle.
(The construction and conceptualization of Telesis remains totally arbitrary however and is either done via a thaumaturgical feat of extended superlogical leaps or pure genius)
This is where and why I need fresh perspectives because my neuronal RAM is almost full and I am running out of virtual memory. After ploughing through momenergy, homology and holography, I seem to be slowing down.
Now, SCSPL is based on concepts cybernetics, automata and extension of communication models (Shannon's) to come up with Telic Feedback and mechanisms of employing the so-called generalized utility to achieve maximal cosmic self-realization and refinement.
Put simply, computation is used to model discrete systems and in doing this, one has to study membership, subsets, unions, intersections, complement, difference relations, symmetric differences. boolean algebra, Venn diagrams, self-similarity (especially when looking at fractal systems) etc.
These are concepts Langan heavily uses in constructing the CTMU and principles like MAP, syndiffeonesis, unisections, MU and others come to mind.
Under automation, when one looks at context-free languages in comparison to Langan's arguments concerning 'emergence' like when it comes to the idea of telic - ie pre-informational, pre-nomological and pre-syntactical phase of reality and the idea of reality emerging from the UBT.
About protocomputationability and about constraints emerging from a realm that is free of them etc, there seems to be a link especially considering self-organization of cellular automata from initially 'disordered' states.
Is Langan's poor construction of the Super Copernican principle based on an unexplained link to quantum-dot cellular automata (from which quantum logic circuits can 'keep' memory)?
Is it any wonder, then that Langans attempt to link Wheeler's delayed choice experiment exhibits total explanatory failure?
To what extent can we validly inject concepts of cybernetics into non-locality and (universal) memory to regard the universe as infocognitive?
Stephen Wolfram's work on cellular automation seems to show that complex systems can emerge from 'disordered' states.
Based on an extension of these computational and Complex Systems principles, isn't it valid for Langan to posit the UBT?
(Rememeber, Langan extends maths, logic, physics, computation, the superposition principle, the anthropic principle etc etc)
I also note that based on ideas of cellular automation, the place of evolution in the generation of complex life forms, remains secure.
I would appreciate it if someone who has a good grasp of cellular automata and the concept of language in computation theory, and who perhaps has read the CTMU, to comment on the above question. And also comment on my remarks above because my knowledge on cellular automata is wanting.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 18. October 2003 15:00
quote:
Based on an extension of these computational and Complex Systems principles, isn't it valid for Langan to posit the UBT?
Refutation of UBT:
[UBT], and perceptual reality [BT], are explained by Mr. Langan in previous brainstorm posts, to be two different forms of the same "thing" ...telesis.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000363-p-3
quote:
Christopher M. Langan:
No, UBT and SCSPL are not defined as "two separate things", any more than a chunk of ice floating in a pond is a "separate thing" from the water in the pond. The water in the pond is where the chunk of ice came from and what it is essentially composed of, but the crystalline lattice structure of the ice does not distribute over the pond, and the water in the pond is not distributively bound by this structure. The molecules in the liquid-phase H20 have more degrees of freedom than those in the ice; they are less constrained, and less bound. All that you need do in order to apply this analogy is to take it to its logical conclusion while generalizing your usual idea of containment, replacing ice with SCSPL, the pond and its molecules of liquid water with UBT, and the crystalline molecular lattice of the ice with an SCSPL logic lattice, and to relax your grip on the tidy little picture of a chunk of ice with extrinsic measure bobbing around "in" the water. Any metric imputed to UBT must be intrinsically derivable within SCSPL domains (e.g., by intrinsic mutual exclusion).
Since they are different, yet the same, it is an invariance principle that applies to both UBT and BT. Therefore, UBT is not the most general form of existence, since there is a symmetry principle that holds for both.
UBT is refuted?
Therefore
CTMU is refuted? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
My refutation is probably? incorrect though. There is still more to learn about the ...UBT
According to the CTMU, a general theory of reality must explain reality strictly in terms of reality itself.
Reality is defined as:
Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real
The reality principle is tautologically true, therefore it is irrefutable.
Yet, the tautology is a symmetry principle, so, the reality principle is not really based on 2V logic but it is based on invariance.
The CTMU explains: 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. Thus, the real universe inwardly creates its own scales of extension and duration. The reality principle also agrees with the background independence of general relativity i.e curvature is intrinsic, so there is no higher dimensional space that can serve as a fixed background. Since curvature is intrinsic to the manifold it is invariant.
Following the CTMU principles, the best model for an inward evolution is that of a language. It is explained that a language evolves by a process in which specific elements are substituted for more general elements.
The highest most general elements contain the more specific elements. The starting symbol is the "Telic Principle"
[Telic Principle = TP]
[TP[[sentenial relations]]TP]
[TP[[[[[evolving language]]]]]TP]
The inward evolution of reality is a process called "conspansion", which consists of two complementary operations, inner expansion and re-quantization:
The evolving language, via the process of conspansion, can be depicted as the intersection and union of Venn diagrams, where circles[really spheres-light cones] represent events. The circles inner expand and their intersect represents the re-quantization phase. Every event inner expands again. As the inner events expand, the locality principle applies between events and not within them. So the history of an event is contained within its own lightcone.
The Extended Superposition Principle[ESP] allows for the wave function collapse to be determined by higher order teleological functions spanning the successive layers of spacetime.
I find myself in agreement with Gedankin though. The term "wave function collapse" is a useful fiction but it does not actually correspond to what is really happening!
There must exist something called a real world not necessarily represented by a wave function. We realize that Mr. Langan's reality principle must also apply to his CTMU "ESP Principle"
[ 18. October 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 21. October 2003 02:31
Russel,
quote:
According to the CTMU, a general theory of reality must explain reality strictly in terms of reality itself.
What do you understand by the term " 'unreal' definition of reality"?
quote:
Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real
The reality principle is tautologically true, therefore it is irrefutable.
Reality principle also defines the abstract as "a syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax"
Dragons and black roses and an inverse of a matrix have no physical instances.
Expansion does not create potential. Potential is intrinsic.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 21. October 2003 03:20
quote:
What do you understand by the term " 'unreal' definition of reality"?
It is part of a general statement.
quote:
Reality principle also defines the abstract as "a syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax"
Dragons and black roses and an inverse of a matrix have no physical instances.
Expansion does not create potential. Potential is intrinsic.
Reality is defined to be a language, and as a language, semantics must conform to syntax. Therefore syntax takes priority. That means life is a process of evolution. Imagined life forms cannot "pop" into existence instantaneously. Where do dragons and black roses fit into the evolutionary food chain?
Potential is defined in the various CTMU writings as an infinite number of possibilities, while probability is greater than zero and, less than, or equal to, one, if, my interpretation is correct
Potential is filtered as added constraints[natural laws] evolve. UBT is a form of potential with zero constraints. Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a challenge
[ 21. October 2003, 03:32: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 21. October 2003 08:48
Unreal definition of reality is not some simple general statement.
Its a claim to the existence of nonreality /nonexistence.
Based on two-valued logic, Langan argues that unreality must exist as a complement of reality.
Ponder the implications of that.
But the idea refutes your earlier statement:
'a general theory of reality must explain reality strictly in terms of reality itself'
Rememeber, Langan states that CTMU is a work in progress. Can an incomplete theory be tautological?
Its important to be careful about these statements you are throwing about Russel.
You did not respond to my earlier statement. Regarding black roses and the inverse of a 3X3 Matrix, I was challenging the idea that the abstract is "a syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax".
Do you agree with the statement quoted in the light of the above two examples?
Russel, does nothing(ness) exist? Are you aware that the UBT is another name for nothingness?
Let me quote Langan in full:
quote:
In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.
Ponder the implications of that.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 21. October 2003 09:00
quote:
1. Language is isomorphic to reality. (Everything spoken of must be perceptual/cognitive and grammar and cognitive-perceptual syntax are equivalent to the laws of physics).
I hope you understand the confusion on the part of some of your readers. Statements like the above seem so distant from the way such terms are usually taken in language. For example when I speak of unicorns, I have spoken of unicorns, I have formed sentences with grammar--where is the unicorn?
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 21. October 2003 09:42
Ged,
I understand if there is any confusion (was that directed at me or Langan?). But you have asked a simple question.
I will provide a simple answer.
Horns exist. Horses also exist.
Horse + Horn = Unicorn
So the abstract image of a unicorn is actually made up of physical instances distributed in reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 21. October 2003 09:43
But of course, you can make the question complex.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 21. October 2003 10:31
So no language element can ever occur that does not have some basis in a "real" object? (In other words you are making a statement about how our imaginations are constrained, and how our human methods of language construction are constrained. That might be testable! Or you may be thusly defining what it means for an element of language to exist.)
But what I find most interesting is how so many statements that come from a CTMU orientation seem to demonstrate the impossibility of other statements coming from the ID perspective. For example among ID enthusiasts there are many claims about abilities of human thought (or at least implicit assumptions), such as claims of human thought being able to go beyond limitations of computation. This argument here seems to contradict that.
Then other statements (found in Mr. Langan's CTMU document, for example) discuss ID concepts like "irreducible complexity". But of course if these notions here have relevance, then the expansion or configuration steps of the "IC" object must have taken place by incremental steps grounded in aspects of physical reality. In other words the lack of a physical pathway to the final event cannot be correct, if the assumptions here have relevance--a seeming contradiction.
(But my comment with quote was directed specifically at the quote and thus thread as presented here. You'll have to tell me if you are spealking as in another's voice, and perhaps answer in same.)
Oh, another question: Where is the mathematically "straight line"? -- Ah, (after reading above) question withdrawn! If "unreality", having now entered 'language' is thus part of "reality"--I think this is a sufficient conundrum. I'll leave it at that for questions.
But I will point out that in another thread we discussed how humans could seemingly get beyond computability theory limitations, by fuzzy or not necessarily crisp inferences. (Not necessarily according to any particular multi-valued "logic", mind, just rather by not requiring complete crisp decidability. We do appear to reason using neural-network like systems, which appear to make certain types of calculation in matters of degree.) I also pointed out that a hologram cannot image itself (and by that I meant as a sub-image, in full accuracy). This is related to the computability-theoretic version of Godel's theorem or concept. I think we can combine these concepts to say that humans might go beyond strict computability theory in that the human 'recognizer' state is not the crisp end state demanded in a computability theoretic "recognition state". Thus the human can 'image' an (even recursive) description of reality (not necessarily completely accurately) which does a fairly good job of relating to very complex processes or situations of 'reality'. And this might actually serve as a partial defense of some aspect of CTMU, if I am not mistaken, but does not seem to support Mr. Langan's comments on emergence (once again if I am not mistaken).
[ 21. October 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 21. October 2003 14:15
quote:
Gedankin:
Oh, another question: Where is the mathematically "straight line"?
According to the CTMU writings, the laws of mathematics distribute over the laws of physics but a mathematical ideal such as a perfectly straight line does not actually exist. Objects such as unicorns and mathematical ideals don't have a physical existence. Then again, the law of conservation of momentum-energy is exact as far as anyone can tell. Total energy for closed a system is a constant. So it can be explained as the tetahedronal relationship the boundary of a boundary is zero Mathematical[abstract] straight lines, that correspond TO the real world as self cancelling quantities.
Jacob I answered your questions:
The inner expansion phase of conspansion creates a layer of potential on which events may be actualized. The layer of potential is spatiotemporally stratified, containing its own hologically replicable programming and telic recursive machinery whereby succsessive layers of spacetime are analogous to how a monocromatic filter blocks certain frequencies of light. The "constructive-filtrative" duality.
Yes, Mr. Langan explains the unreality/reality complementarization exists within, or is intrinsic to ...perceptual reality. Yet again, the UBT is ultimately independent of perceptual reality in that freedom really needs no complement.
[Freedom [freedom/constraint] ]
[ 21. October 2003, 14:19: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 22. October 2003 03:07
Ged stated: But my comment with quote was directed specifically at the quote and thus thread as presented here. You'll have to tell me if you are spealking as in another's voice, and perhaps answer in same.
The ideas presented (as numbered in the OP) are Langan's ideas. I disagree with just about all of them.
I agree with your comments about fuzzyness, crispness and holograms.
The inner expansion phase of conspansion creates a layer of potential on which events may be actualized.
No, expansion creates space within a restricted domain (and you need to be clear if by 'space', you mean 'free space' or otherwise).
If you increase the space that contains a boy and a coin, the boy will grow but not the coin.
The space does not create the potential for growth.
Potential is intrinsic and is not created by space. The boy has within him, what is needed for growth.
Space might make some things possible, but not create latent ability.
Can you provide mathematical models (equations) that express the relationship between space and potential?
Please define space and distinguish it from distance and 'free space' before we discuss conspansion further.
quote:
Yes, Mr. Langan explains the unreality/reality complementarization exists within, or is intrinsic to ...perceptual reality.
Please quote Mr. Langan in full. Otherwise, withdraw this claim.
[Freedom [freedom/constraint] ]?
What about:
[Constraint [Freedom [UBT] Freedom] Constraint]
Remember, Langan says that when we peel constraints off reality, we will remain with the UBT.
[ 22. October 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. October 2003 03:46
quote:
Remember, Langan says that when we peel constraints off reality, we will remain with the UBT.
Right.
Reality is explained to be conspanding in the CTMU Jacob. Material contraction qua spatial expansion. The oldest layers of reality would then be the "outer layers". I thought you were reading that paper, studying it real good? I guess not...
UBT approximates the structure of nothingness, so it is the outside of reality, which is what remains after the nested constraints are peeled away.
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 22. October 2003 04:14
Russel,
Please provide an example of unreality in our universe since you have said unreality exists in our universe (not that I agree).
Please cite the relevant section(s) CTMU of the CTMU paper that is consistent with the following claim otherwise withdraw it:
quote:
The oldest layers of reality would then be the "outer layers".
I would like to inform you that you have the model backwards. Conspansion, as expressed in the venn diagram, is among circles not within the circles themselves.
Conspansion asserts the the size of the universe is constant. Is that consistent with astronomical data and known physical models of the universe?
The statement "outside reality" is not consistent with the assertions you have been making.
Remember, if there is something outside reality, it becomes part of reality (our universe).
Unless you too, hold that the universe is sealed?
And oh, nothingness has no 'structure' in any meaningful sense of the word. Does nothingness have weight? If not, why? What is the structure made of? How do you detect the presence of structure in nothingness?
We have linear, volume and area expansion (at least, under thermal expansion).
A length of change m will occur when an object of original length L and expansion coefficient e * 10^p/C (alpha) when the original temperature if O and final temperature is T (delta).
Expressed as:
m = L * alpha * delta
Can conspansion be expressed using a mathematical model?
Consider a young fish in a pond.
When the fish grows big (material expansion), which part of the pond contracts (the air bubbles)? (since the fish is expanding)
Or, which part of the universe contracts as a result?
Material expansion via spatial contraction, as a phenomenon in the evolution of the universe implies that materials only expand when space contracts.
If the word 'only' does not apply, then conspansion is not universal (like the laws of physics and per the cosmological principle).
If its not universal, its irrelevant in modeling reality.
If the word applies, then it must be applicable in every instance of material expansion.
Apply conspansion in the 'growing fish' example. Or use an erupting volcano as an example of expanding material. Then provide the corresponding contracting space and link it to the material expansion.
[ 22. October 2003, 05:19: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. October 2003 06:00
quote:
I would like to inform you that you have the model backwards. Conspansion, as expressed in the venn diagram, is among circles not within the circles themselves.
Jacob is an ...expert?
Here is a quote from an online introduction:
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU.html
quote:
An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process. No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation. In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion). When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism). On the present level of discourse, this inward self-inclusion is the conspansive basis of what we call spacetime.
[...]
The Principle of Conspansive Duality then says that what appears as cosmic expansion from an interior (local) viewpoint appears as material and temporal contraction from a global viewpoint. Because metric concepts like "size" and "duration" are undefined with respect to the universe as a whole, the spacetime metric is defined strictly intrinsically, and the usual limit of cosmological regress, a pointlike cosmic singularity, becomes the closed spacetime algebra already identified as SCSPL.
[ 22. October 2003, 06:03: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 22. October 2003 07:03
Thanks, Aliet, I more or less figured that out after reading (distributed) comments in context, but I was not certain.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic