From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 23:21:21 BST
Hi Ian,
In answer to your question, no I would not have any less reservations. My
reservations were specified in the rest of my post.
Andy
> 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
>
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 - 23:22:01 BST