Re: virus: MEME UPDATE: To Censor Or Not?
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:14:07 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:

> At 01:08 16/12/96 -0600, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:


> >It isn't. I'm currently studying both Quantum Mechanics and General
> >Relativity on the side, and computational difficulties abound.
> So what d'you think? Are we getting close to the powers of information
> processing which exist as a PART of the universe, to describe the MECHANICS
> of the universe?

The stall in the progress in this area indicates some sort of blatant
oversight. I prefer more rationalistic terminology for this concept.


> >> > Badly posed Differential Equations. [Nonunique solutions to
> >> >problems can just ruin the determinists' day, even in a classical
> >> >universe.] "You need to learn Diff Eq so this doesn't happen: you
> >> >design the space probe for Venus, send it up only to see it crash into
> >> >the ocean, and *then* have some smart-mouth mathematician walk up and
> >> >say, 'Oh, those equations had five different solutions from those
> >> >initial conditions.'"
> >>
> >> But that IS the fault of your first go at the maths, isn't it?
> >
> >NO.
> Yelp. Thought I might get a slap for that.
> >It can be the fault of the physical system you are modeling, that's
> >the problem. This is completely different from a chaotic system, which
> >is [in the abstract] completely deterministic, but still unpredictable at
> >long time scales.
> There. Deterministic systems we can't model... the folk understanding of
> them is "random", or non-deterministic...

"Try putting on these astigmatism-inducing glasses...." ;)

The deterministic system is *assumed* to be modeled, above.

I suppose the branching could be called "random". After all, the sample
space is reasonably defined.

> >> I get a buzz from the idea of explaining meta-spiritual
> >> information-processing as being as deterministic and physics-bound as
> >> chemistry... the definitions are so lax here, though.
> >
> >In this case, I don't view information-processing as spiritual. I view
> >programming the information processing as spiritual. [No, a genetic
> >algorithm hunting for an efficient program is still raw information
> >processing; it isn't getting to spiritual *yet*.]
> Hmm... I'm not saying that ALL information processing is spiritual. I'm just
> interested in entertaining the idea that what people tend to get spiritual
> about (consciousness, souls etc) might arise from information processing.
> And, well, they must, surely, as they're an emergent of neural processes?
> Your "programming the information" is kind of like layers of information
> processing itself at lower, more concrete, levels, isn't it? So, memetic
> structures in the programmer's brain manipulate information in the
> computer... but then, they also manipulate perceptual/motor neural
> information in the programmer's brain. Above a certain number of iterations
> in this self-referential process, maybe that's what we consider to be
> "spiritual"?

Not in my framework, but it's formally workable.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd