Friam

alternative response

Classic

List

Threaded

166 messages Options

1 ... 6789

jon zingale

Re: alternative response

Glen, that is amazing/cringe-worthy! Google returned to me some articles on
the heart chakra. Perhaps what EricS meant is undecidable, or ancient
Chinese secret.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

>> read the code. Read the code! READ THE DAMNED CODE!
> gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha

I feel a "snow crash" coming on!

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Ok, so what I think I like about Gisin's model is that he is presenting
a constructivist physics. Important to the model Gisin constructs is
that his alternative physics preserves the integrable dynamics of
standard dynamics. There are still a number of points I am unclear on:

Gisin commits to the holographic principle for his model, from which
it follows that a finite volume of space contains at most finite
information. He summarizes the Bekenstein bound:

"In brief, any storage of a bit of information requires some energy and
large enough energy densities trigger black holes".

He further summarizes by requiring units of information densities to be
limited by Landauer’s Information is physical assumption.

He continues: "Consequently, assuming that information has always to be
encoded in some physical stuff, a finite volume of space cannot contain
more than a finite amount of information. At least, this is a very
reasonable assumption".

Here I am not sure how the underlying topos that follows from the
Bekenstein bound liberates position from the clutches of arbitrary
assignment along the real line. Does anyone on the list know what
underlying topos will suffice, a Fotini topos perhaps? To what extent

does this unnamed topos allow Gisin to further assert:

"One may object that this view is arbitrary as there is no natural bit
number where the transition from determined to random bits takes place.
This is correct, though not important in practice as long as this
transition is far away down the bit series."

In the case of discrete dynamical systems, there is a natural topos
where we can speak meaningfully about the distance some propositional
state is from being true, and those states which are far from true
is sent to false. It seems that in whatever topos he imagines, there is
a far from true, but I am not sure whether it is treated the same as
I have stated above. Somehow, I suspect there is a connection to

automata theory through observability and realizability.

If simply it is the case that we construct a physics without the reals,
this is probably reasonably untestable. I can't help but notice, though,
that Gisin's model appears to make no room for non-algebraic numbers,
such as those that arise when solving for the roots of larger than 4th
degree polynomials, a la Galois theory. What then are the implications
for computing arbitrary Fourier transforms? Does the validation of such
a theory explain the unreasonable effectiveness of Pade approximates?

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: alternative response

This post was updated on .

Nope, the non-algebraic numbers we care about are fine. Nevermind†.
I relate with SteveS here, it was a *snow crash* coming on. Still, I should
probably track down whether the connection to observability-realizability
is an interesting one.

†) I probably should have quit while I was ahead††. The roots of
polynomials with algebraic coefficients are *all* algebraic, not
non-algebraic. I am pretty sure the concerns with Fourier analysis
evaporate just as easily.

††) The only reasonably non-computable number I managed to grab was the
number one constructs the fifth time you follow Cantor's diagonal
argument, say.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Eric Charles-2

Free will - restart

In reply to this post by jon zingale

So... this is going to be a bit trollish... but I think fair....

I read a few incredibly long threads about free will over the last week, and they mostly seem to be examples of the problem I was talking about during the virtual-meeting last week: Arguments where we can't tell what's a disagreement about words vs a disagreement about ideas. It's like someone with a stick drew some chicken scratch in the sand spelling out "Eff are eee eee <space> double-uew eye el el" and then everyone lined up to mark their territory, and say a few words while they were doing it.

At no point were the various functions of the terms broken out and resolved, at no point were new words introduced for the concepts at play so the territory-marking could stop.

There has to be some good way to break out of those conversations. We should be able to identify those situations more readily, and resolve them more readily. What are the ideas at play (however they are being labeled)? Of those ideas, which, if any, are actually in dispute? Why are different positions in that dispute held?

Or do we just want to fight over what a word should refer to? That is also a fine conversation to have. But there has got to be a better way to have it than waiting to see who has the bigger bladder.

---------------------

Here are some of the issues in that particular argument:

1) Historically and at present "free will" is a morally charged issue. Most normal people were/are interested in it because of its role in moral reasoning. This is not to say it is a religious issue. "Free will' is the difference between murder and manslaughter, it is central to parental discipline and social mockery. That concept of free will is something several people have argued we could do away with completely. (I recommend "Beyond Freedom and Dignity".)

2) Like many old-fashioned concepts, there are those who have tried to retreat "free will" into physics. It is unclear what the function of "free will" is in such an argument, and why we would care if it existed (i.e., unclear why we care if we are not trying to prop up its role in moral reasoning).

3) The retreat into physics can go a "systems" route or a "quantum" route. The system route starts to talk about up-causation, down-causation, circular-causation, dynamic systems theory, control theory, etc. The quantum route starts talking about indeterminacy at ridiculously small levels. However, while it is clear those discussions are looking for something, it is almost never clear how that something relates to anything that would have been understood as "free will' at any point in human history before the last half-century or so.

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Free will - restart

Indeed your "trollish" post is a fair one. I think the ability/discipline to outline and attack this problem has, as I alluded to for myself, more to do with human behavior and less with lack of ability. I believe most human actions are motivated by the old "carrot or stick" idea, that we expend effort on something in order to either gain some advantage or avoid some pain. Informal lists like this, largely populated with folks for whom have already obtained all the carrots they want, and don't see much pain to be endured from writing rambling stream-of-consciousness posts, are unwilling to put out the effort to do the organization necessary. I don't mean that as a criticism of anyone, just my perspective (mostly applied to myself). Herding cats :-) Cheers!

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:51 AM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:

So... this is going to be a bit trollish... but I think fair....

I read a few incredibly long threads about free will over the last week, and they mostly seem to be examples of the problem I was talking about during the virtual-meeting last week: Arguments where we can't tell what's a disagreement about words vs a disagreement about ideas. It's like someone with a stick drew some chicken scratch in the sand spelling out "Eff are eee eee <space> double-uew eye el el" and then everyone lined up to mark their territory, and say a few words while they were doing it.

At no point were the various functions of the terms broken out and resolved, at no point were new words introduced for the concepts at play so the territory-marking could stop.

There has to be some good way to break out of those conversations. We should be able to identify those situations more readily, and resolve them more readily. What are the ideas at play (however they are being labeled)? Of those ideas, which, if any, are actually in dispute? Why are different positions in that dispute held?

Or do we just want to fight over what a word should refer to? That is also a fine conversation to have. But there has got to be a better way to have it than waiting to see who has the bigger bladder.

---------------------

Here are some of the issues in that particular argument:

1) Historically and at present "free will" is a morally charged issue. Most normal people were/are interested in it because of its role in moral reasoning. This is not to say it is a religious issue. "Free will' is the difference between murder and manslaughter, it is central to parental discipline and social mockery. That concept of free will is something several people have argued we could do away with completely. (I recommend "Beyond Freedom and Dignity".)
2) Like many old-fashioned concepts, there are those who have tried to retreat "free will" into physics. It is unclear what the function of "free will" is in such an argument, and why we would care if it existed (i.e., unclear why we care if we are not trying to prop up its role in moral reasoning).
3) The retreat into physics can go a "systems" route or a "quantum" route. The system route starts to talk about up-causation, down-causation, circular-causation, dynamic systems theory, control theory, etc. The quantum route starts talking about indeterminacy at ridiculously small levels. However, while it is clear those discussions are looking for something, it is almost never clear how that something relates to anything that would have been understood as "free will' at any point in human history before the last half-century or so.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

1 ... 6789