From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 22:07:27 BST
Hello Lars,
You asked:
“My question concerns Stephen Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science.' Do those of you
who are familiar with Mr.Wolfram's work feel that its philosophical implications
are MOQ-compatible or not? I am not sufficiently familiar with Wolfram's work to
make a full judgment, but I was struck by his suggestion that his 'principle of
computational equivalence' indicates that thought, will and intentionality may
be present in all aspects of the universe, which seemed to me to recall a strain
of animism in Mr.Pirsig's writing- particularly in 'Lila.' Again, apologies if
this has already been discussed or is not deemed interesting. “
Andy:
I brought up Wolfram a few months ago, but I received only limited responses. I
was struck by Wolframs lack of concise definitions for such important terms for
his “New Kind Of Science” as complexity and randomness. In the end he concludes
that our powers of perception are our most reliable measures of random, complex
and simple. Our eyes know before we can define each condition. At best, our
mathematics can only confirm what we already know by looking at his pictures.
This reminded me of ZMM and the quest to define quality – something we all
recognize, but cannot quite put our finger on.
I greatly admire Wolfram, but I have some reservations about his “principle of
computational equivalence”(PCE) and especially the suggestion that this
indicates that “thought, will and intentionality may be present in all aspects
of the universe. Wolfram’s PCE relies on the concept of a universal machine.
What he does is he proves that a very simple program is universal. Just a few
lines of code. The Turing machine was proved to be universal long ago, but the
Turing machine is very compex and involves too many rules. Wolfram wants to
show that a much simpler program can be universal and in his book he succeeds.
Once a machine is universal it is capable of performing any computation in the
universe. It can simulate all machines including the human brain or any
computer, … This is an amazing proof he has undertaken and he suggests that
most programs and systems, beyond the most simple ones, are capable of being
universal. However, there is a glaring deficiency in his suggestion that this
means thought will and intentionality might be present…
In an early chapter in the NKS (chapter 4, Systems based on numbers), Wolfram
describes the limitations of modern mathematics. You have an input, you perform
a calculation, and an output (solution) is spit out. He spends a great deal of
effort convincing us that much is lost by not examining the details of the
computation. In his pictures you can see the complexity that results when he
demonstrates the details of a computation. Even simple computations like
additions and subtraction. The lesson is that the details of a computation are
important. However, when the PCE is introduced later in the book, the details
are no longer important. All that matters is whether or not the system is
capable of universal computation. If it is, and Wolfram suspects that the
majority of systems are, then it is computationally equivalent. However, the
qualities of each system and how computations are performed by each system vary
dramatically as well as the efficiency of the computations. I would suggest
that intentionality, will and thought are properties of how a computation are
performed and not of universality or equivalence.
Platt said:
“I don't think we've ever discussed Wolfram's work here. But if he says thought,
will and intentionality may be present in all aspects of the universe, then his
connection to the MOQ is strong indeed. What strikes me most about Wolfram is
his belief that nature uses simple programs to create all the complexities we
see. But they can't be just any old programs. They must be programs that start
with the right pattern and proceed according to the right rules. "Right," of
course, is what the MOQ is all about.”
Andy:
Right is another one of those words we will never fully grasp. We talk around
it. But, right (along with truth and knowledge) differs from quality,
complexity, and randomness, because it is not a quality of perception by our
senses, but is rather socially defined. I disagree that “Right” is what the MOQ
is all about. Rather, “Right” is what Platt is all about.
Thanks,
Andy
And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by wars and
victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence,
and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of
its own free will, “We break the sword,” and will smash its entire military
establishment down to its lowest foundations… Rather perish than hate and fear,
and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared – this must some day
become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 22:11:56 BST