RE: MD Pirsig, Falck, and Wolfram

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 22:53:24 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD Rorty"

    Andy

    About Wolfram, you said you ...
    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.

    If I prefixed "universe" with "known or knowable", would you have less
    reservations ?

    Ian Glendinning

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of abahn@comcast.net
    Sent: 16 August 2003 22:07
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: RE: MD Pirsig, Falck, and Wolfram

    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

    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 - 22:57:25 BST