Everything is a computation
That was the message, or should I say thesis of tonight’s first class. The antithesis is that I have a soul, and the suggested synthesis is the seashell, specifically the Cone shell. We will be discussing this dielectric triad in Rudy’s class. And this is the title of Rudy’s new book.
I really enjoyed the class, and it looks like an interesting crew, though there are very few us. Hopefully, small numbers will not cancel the class. One option for the class project is to do a blog on my reflections from the class. This is the first such entry. At the beginning of class, Rudy went over what we, the students, had to do, and how he would grade the class. I had one moment of “oh no not grades!” I had not even thought about being graded. The last time I took a class where I was graded was 15 years ago when I took a grad class in operating systems… I got over it quickly, realizing that I would not have a problem getting a good, grade, that I didn’t care what grade I got, and that a little bit of tension might be good for the effort.
Big words for the evening
Ontology: Rudy’s def “the study of what is” Babylon’s is “metaphysical branch of study which is concerned with existence and the nature of being.” From the Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary, “The theory of being as such, i.e., of ultimate reality.” Rudy made a distinction between “an ontology” and “ontology.” “An ontology is a particular belief system about existence.
Automaton. Hmm, I didn’t write this definition down. So this is what I got, “A finite set of states in N dimensions, where the next value for a given state is calculated based on the state’s value and all of its nearest neighbors based on some function f(cell, and all neighbors).” The idea is that this kind of “computation” can generate non-trivial phenomena, e.g. the cone shell, and maybe the soul.
I’m having a problem with the definition of computation. I think the definition that was given is the definition for algorithm. However, I think a computation is different than an algorithm. Specifically, I think a computation implicitly or explicitly must include a definition of the computer. E.g. 2 terabytes of memory, etc. Maybe the amount of memory is the only critical difference between algorithm and computation. At the end of the class, I asked about the calculation of all of the primes, if it was a computation. I think that it is not because it requires infinite memory. Rudy says he will think about it. The key point is that “a computation obeys finitely discernable rules.” I don’t think this holds if the “computer” is a Turing Machine with an infinitely long tape that we can say it has finitely discernable rules. I.e. I think the introduction of infinite anything into the problem has to “unbound” the rules. I’m not sure how one would go about proving this though. Maybe Gödel has something to say about it?
I suspect that everything is a computation is just an approximation, and not a reality because I think there are real infinities in the universe, and I think that this means that we don’t get this nice property, complex, gnarly, computations that Rudy and his bud think explain the phenomena. Instead, the binding, the inseparability that we witness is a direct result of the infinities, and therefore the continuities, that exist. Not that I know exactly where to look for these infinities.
It is interesting to me that the man who convinced me, in Infinity and the Mind, that infinity was an either or proposition maybe does not see this as central an issue as I do. I don’t actually remember why that belief came about though. The way I see it infinities vs. not is a fundamental philosophical dividing line. This is because as Rudy shows, in Infinity and the Mind, it is hard to keep “God” out if you allow infinities in.
A bit of wild ass speculation: I have been struggling with the inseparability problem in quantum physics (not mathematically but philosophically and with limited real understanding), more specifically how to think about the observer; I have had the thought for a while that the seeming unexplained ambiguity in the collapse of the wave equation would go away if there was only one observer. I had the thought as I left class tonight that awareness is an emergent property of the whole universe (i.e. all that is). Could this be a way of reducing the wave equation unambiguously? That is, observation cannot be separated any more than the spin of the particle being measured can be separated from its sister. Therefore, the observers in different parts of the universe are in fact, one inseparable observer. They would never have been different observers. Of course, I have to somehow explain the common human belief that we are separate observers. Ironically, everything is a computation may come to the rescue, or maybe I realize this is the connection that I have been looking for - this could be why the thought came somewhat unbidden. In the “everything is computation” view at that first moment of this universe, laying aside where it might have come from, doesn’t picking a single universe define a single observer? Why would there ever be more than one observer? Or more correctly would every observation be connected to that observer though computation?
I can see that this class is going to be rich for me. I see I will not be able to complete many of the thoughts. I will be trying to fill out these thoughts in the days that follow.
The prof says pictures would be good. I suppose some pictures of gnarly computations in the world might be interesting. Since I don’t generally carry a camera except for my phone I’m not sure this will work for me. Maybe I’ll go out and get some pictures and then come back and edit the blog.
I really enjoyed the class, and it looks like an interesting crew, though there are very few us. Hopefully, small numbers will not cancel the class. One option for the class project is to do a blog on my reflections from the class. This is the first such entry. At the beginning of class, Rudy went over what we, the students, had to do, and how he would grade the class. I had one moment of “oh no not grades!” I had not even thought about being graded. The last time I took a class where I was graded was 15 years ago when I took a grad class in operating systems… I got over it quickly, realizing that I would not have a problem getting a good, grade, that I didn’t care what grade I got, and that a little bit of tension might be good for the effort.
Big words for the evening
Ontology: Rudy’s def “the study of what is” Babylon’s is “metaphysical branch of study which is concerned with existence and the nature of being.” From the Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary, “The theory of being as such, i.e., of ultimate reality.” Rudy made a distinction between “an ontology” and “ontology.” “An ontology is a particular belief system about existence.
Automaton. Hmm, I didn’t write this definition down. So this is what I got, “A finite set of states in N dimensions, where the next value for a given state is calculated based on the state’s value and all of its nearest neighbors based on some function f(cell, and all neighbors).” The idea is that this kind of “computation” can generate non-trivial phenomena, e.g. the cone shell, and maybe the soul.
I’m having a problem with the definition of computation. I think the definition that was given is the definition for algorithm. However, I think a computation is different than an algorithm. Specifically, I think a computation implicitly or explicitly must include a definition of the computer. E.g. 2 terabytes of memory, etc. Maybe the amount of memory is the only critical difference between algorithm and computation. At the end of the class, I asked about the calculation of all of the primes, if it was a computation. I think that it is not because it requires infinite memory. Rudy says he will think about it. The key point is that “a computation obeys finitely discernable rules.” I don’t think this holds if the “computer” is a Turing Machine with an infinitely long tape that we can say it has finitely discernable rules. I.e. I think the introduction of infinite anything into the problem has to “unbound” the rules. I’m not sure how one would go about proving this though. Maybe Gödel has something to say about it?
I suspect that everything is a computation is just an approximation, and not a reality because I think there are real infinities in the universe, and I think that this means that we don’t get this nice property, complex, gnarly, computations that Rudy and his bud think explain the phenomena. Instead, the binding, the inseparability that we witness is a direct result of the infinities, and therefore the continuities, that exist. Not that I know exactly where to look for these infinities.
It is interesting to me that the man who convinced me, in Infinity and the Mind, that infinity was an either or proposition maybe does not see this as central an issue as I do. I don’t actually remember why that belief came about though. The way I see it infinities vs. not is a fundamental philosophical dividing line. This is because as Rudy shows, in Infinity and the Mind, it is hard to keep “God” out if you allow infinities in.
A bit of wild ass speculation: I have been struggling with the inseparability problem in quantum physics (not mathematically but philosophically and with limited real understanding), more specifically how to think about the observer; I have had the thought for a while that the seeming unexplained ambiguity in the collapse of the wave equation would go away if there was only one observer. I had the thought as I left class tonight that awareness is an emergent property of the whole universe (i.e. all that is). Could this be a way of reducing the wave equation unambiguously? That is, observation cannot be separated any more than the spin of the particle being measured can be separated from its sister. Therefore, the observers in different parts of the universe are in fact, one inseparable observer. They would never have been different observers. Of course, I have to somehow explain the common human belief that we are separate observers. Ironically, everything is a computation may come to the rescue, or maybe I realize this is the connection that I have been looking for - this could be why the thought came somewhat unbidden. In the “everything is computation” view at that first moment of this universe, laying aside where it might have come from, doesn’t picking a single universe define a single observer? Why would there ever be more than one observer? Or more correctly would every observation be connected to that observer though computation?
I can see that this class is going to be rich for me. I see I will not be able to complete many of the thoughts. I will be trying to fill out these thoughts in the days that follow.
The prof says pictures would be good. I suppose some pictures of gnarly computations in the world might be interesting. Since I don’t generally carry a camera except for my phone I’m not sure this will work for me. Maybe I’ll go out and get some pictures and then come back and edit the blog.