🚀 go-pugleaf

More importantly, if it is, is it
Y2K compliant?  If not, we're in
deep shit.

John Anderson

[Followups should go somewhere else, I don't know where... I have posted
to these two newsgroups because I know nothing about the others listed in
Mr. Creighton's header, but I consider his post off-topic in both b.i-t
and s.p.rel]

Mr. Creighton has been in my kill file for some time, but I took him out
temporarily because of his email request that I read this post.  I am
sorry that I bothered to do so now, and I am not interested in continuing
the discussion, but FWIW I have a few comments below which may be helpful
to some readers; note particularly that I correct a VCM (very common ;-) 
-misconception-) concerning the phrase "expanding universe".

On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, John Creighton wrote:

>    No I actually don't believe the universe is a
> computer but my mind has been over firing with ideas about
> material that is well beyond what I learned.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then why did you post this stuff?  Especially in these two science
newsgroups where you are likely to encounter people who -do- know what
they are talking about?

If you post suggestions for a new "theory" to sci newsgroups, concerning
material way over your head, you can expect a blunt and somewhat
exasperated response.  You don't know what you are talking about--- as you
admit--- so it is no surprise that someone who does thinks your ideas
are--- this is an understatement--- premature at best.

-Saying- that you know you don't know what you are talking about, and then
going on and talking anyway, is not evidence of sound judgement, IMHO. 
Among other things, science is best left to sane persons with sound
judgement. 

For the benefit of lurkers, I stress that it's OK, in fact laudable, to
ask questions in the appropriate ng if you are trying to learn a -real-
theory, such as information theory or relativity theory--- questions from
a serious student are rarely if ever "stupid" and almost invariably draw
an earnest and thoughtful response from contributors who are further along
in their level of understanding.

My irritation is due to the fact that you posted ideas which are
uninformed, incomprehensible, and incompletely developed (to say no more). 
Maybe on talk.sci or alt.sci.bartalk this is acceptable and entertaining,
but it has little if anything to do with serious learning or intellectual
inquiry. 

>         If any part of these posts is off topic please post
> follow-ups to the appropriate newsgroops.

They are off topic in sci.physics.relativity and bionet.info-theory, the
only two newsgroups in your (overlong) list I have ever read. 

> 1. The universe can be modeled as if it were a digital
> computer.

As far as that goes, it is an old idea, going back to Edward Fremkin (if
memory serves) in the early seventies.

> 2. Hard drive space is a function of energy.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is true that most axiom systems contain undefined terms, but it is
customary to give many examples clearly illustrating what you have in mind
by these undefined terms.  I have good intuition for the notion of a
"point" because someone drew lots of intersecting lines once, and I got
the point ;-)

> 5. All reference frames are equally valid.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you mean by "reference frame" what I do?  Who knows?  You didn't
provide any examples.  In str, this is a defined term.

[O.K., I see now that you said -something- about this below, but you gave
neither a definition nor an example, so my comment stands]

> 7. Information can not be destroyed.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^

Another undefined term with no examples provided.

Are you aware of Bennett's work on Maxwell's Demon?  To say no more, this
casts doubt on the reasonablity of this assumption.

> 8. Length contraction is a consequence of

the universal compression algorithm.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You have provided absolutely no clue as to what you might mean by this or
why anyone would think there should be a universal compression algorithm
which has anything to do with special relativity. 

> Missing axioms to predict relativistic length and time

If you knew your ideas were poorly thought out, why did you post them at
all?

> Hard drive space- A place to hold information. Contains a
> specified number of entities that can take on a specific
> number of combinations. Their is no hardware difficulty in
> maintaining any combination.

This seems like utter nonsense to me.

> Reference frame- An allowed path occupying a position in the
> vertex of its own light cone.

This is a definition?  It makes no sense to me (-events- have light cones;
paths do not) and certainly does not correspond by the meaning of that
term in str. 

> Information- The smallest amount of hard drive space
> required to store an arbitrary sequence of  symbols, allowed
> by the universal compression algorithm.
> 
> Universal Compression algorithm- The set of instructions the
> universe uses to store information. It is believed to be the
> most efficient possible in compressing information. It is
> also believed that the Universal law set algorithm is made
> easier as a result of this algorithm.

Two words: Halting Problem. 

> Universal law set algorithm- The set of instructions that
> govern how the universe behaves.

>    Consequences
> 
> 1. Gravitational Read shift is due to conservation of
> information. In other words information required to
> described momentum --> information required to described
> position.

If you claim to be doing science, you need to derive this claim.

> 2. Conservation of momentum is a special case of
> conservation of information.

Same comment.
 
>  Where I am coming from
> 
>         My ideas begin when I thought about the statement
> "the universe is expanding". Sense space is relative I
> considered this a meaningless statement and nobody seemed to
> object.

Probably nobody knowlegeable bothered to read your post.  If you knew
anything about gtr you'd understand that gtr does not say that "space is
relative" (whatever that is supposed to mean).  You -can- find clear
explanations in my archived postings on my relativity page (see URL
below), in the s.p.r. FAQ and cosmology FAQ, and in gtr textbooks of what
"expansion of the universe" means.  Of course, if you lack the
prerequisites, these explanations won't make sense, in which case you need
to learn the equivalent of an undergraduate math/physics major.

> I suggested in sci.relativity that it was more
> correct to say that the universe is increasing in entropy
> then to say that the universe is expanding.

There's nothing wrong with saying the universe is expanding, if you know
what astrophysicists really mean by that phrase.  Entropy is a tricky
concept in gtr and someone who has no understanding of str or basic gtr is
not going to be able to talk sensically about thermodynamics in curved
spacetime.

>         In another post I expanded on these ideas. I
> considered the uncertainty principle as a statement of
> information being quantified. I also considered many of the
> variables that we measure today as consequences of our
> measuring procedures; most notably space and time.
> 
>         To these suggestion I hardly got any response. It
> seemed most people didn't feel confidant enough about their
> background in this area to respond and the ones that did
> felt that this was far to subtle a topic to try to explain
> to someone with my education level.

You didn't say what level that is.

> Eventual I took Chris H's suggestion to check out his site on entropy. 
> 
>          I had difficult getting the information I wanted
> because lack of software and lack of background but a
> primmer on the subject of information theory started to help
> me form my new ideas into a rough set of axioms even though
> the primer covered very little.

It's a big, big subject.  In that paper I focused on a small subset of the
more important ideas.  For a more complete impression of the field you
need to consult a textbook like Thomas & Cover, Elements of Information
Theory.  IMHO, you need to pick -one- thing and really study it, in the
proper order, after acquiring the proper prerequisites.  Formal study in a
university setting is best, because few people have the discipline or read
sufficiently intelligently these days to be able to get much out of
"self-study".

> It also started to give me the idea that the popular suggestion that the
> universe is a computer is more then just a suggestion but a tool to
> allow you to say some concrete things about the world. 

Scientists won't be interested unless you have a self-consistent, well
defined theory (a coherent body of definitions and theorems in which you
can -compute- defined quantities or other mathematical objects) which you
can use to make precise predictions (possibly qualitative, but -precise-;
see for instance stability theory of differential equations for a model of
precise but qualitative statements).

Sorry if this seems harsh, but it irritates me that people waste bandwidth
in sci newsgroups on such loony, poorly informed, one-hundredth baked
ideas. If you want to talk with scientists about science your first task
is to carry out a serious study of their field, at least to the point that
you have some understanding of what they mean by "scientific theory" and
to the point where you have some grasp of what they consider to be the
fundamental problems in that field. 

Please, no more, John.  If you take my advice and try to learn more about
what relativity theory or information theory -really- say, and want to ask
questions about technical points in the appropriate ng, I am sure I or
someone else will be happy to help you out, but I am definitely not going
to discuss this particular set of "preideas" any further.

Chris Hillman

Please DO NOT email me at optimist@u.washington.edu.  I post from this account
to fool the spambots; human correspondents should write to me at the email
address you can obtain by making the obvious deletions, transpositions,
and insertion (of @) in the url of my home page:

   http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html

Thanks!

In article <35C0E17D.E5CFFE0F@ns.sympatico.ca> jwcrght@mta.ca writes:
<    No I actually don't believe the universe is a
< computer but my mind has been over firing with ideas about
< material that is well beyond what I learned.

This idea strikes me as Yet Another Example of grabbing a currently
fashionable gadget/theory and making it into a Theory of Everything.

It happened many times before, beginning with the Renaissance where
mathematics was to explain everything about human condition in general,
electricity and magnetism was to explain the afterlife, and now
we have computers, and quantum mechanics is "on the verge of" explaining
God.
-- 
Jan Bielawski                        )\._.,--....,'``.
Molecular Simulations Inc.          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
San Diego, CA                   fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
jpb@msi.com  http://www.msi.com
 
 -disclaimer-
 unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion
 and nothing in it is an official statement of molecular simulations inc.

yeah look at this - this way

your brain is a computer, it has a hard drive, some ram, some input
devices...

your mind is your highspeed t1 connection

all information that enters your mind comes from the internet
(the universe, God)

you can also load stuff in your brain without using the internet, ie
education, books, interaction with others which is analgous to CD roms,
disks etc.



John Creighton wrote in message <35C0E17D.E5CFFE0F@ns.sympatico.ca>...
>   No I actually don't believe the universe is a
>computer but my mind has been over firing with ideas about
>material that is well beyond what I learned.  So I thought
>I'd wright them down to try to clear my mind somewhat, get
>some feed back on these ideas and find out what areas I need
>
>to study the most; if I wish to precede with these ideas
>further.
>        If any part of these posts is off topic please post
>follow-ups to the appropriate newsgroops. In this post I
>will state a working set of axioms that may be true if the
>universe is a computer. I will also give definitions. If
>nothing else I ask people to please just take a look at the
>axioms.
>        These are not the final set of axioms. Their
>probably are some holes or contradictions. The purpose of
>these is to begin a new way of looking at the world and for
>me to try to figure out
>what I need to study. It is often important to first be
>wrong in order to reach an answer.
>
>                                      Axioms
>
>1. The universe can be modeled as if it were a digital
>computer.
>2. Hard drive space is a function of energy.
>3. Entropy is a function of used hard drive space.
>4. Objects follow paths in such a way that the information
>required to describe their position and momentum is equal to
>
>a constant.
>5. All reference frames are equally valid.
>7. Information can not be destroyed.
>8. Length contraction is a consequence of the universal
>compression algorithm.
>Missing axioms to predict relativistic length and time
>
>   Definitions
>
>Hard drive space- A place to hold information. Contains a
>specified number of entities that can take on a specific
>number of combinations. Their is no hardware difficulty in
>maintaining any combination.
>
>Reference frame- An allowed path occupying a position in the
>
>vertex of its own light cone.
>
>Information- The smallest amount of hard drive space
>required to store an arbitrary sequence of  symbols, allowed
>
>by the universal compression algorithm.
>
>Universal Compression algorithm- The set of instructions the
>
>universe uses to store information. It is believed to be the
>
>most efficient possible in compressing information. It is
>also believed that the Universal law set algorithm is made
>easier as a result of this algorithm.
>
>Universal law set algorithm- The set of instructions that
>govern how the universe behaves.
>
>
>   Consequences
>
>1. Gravitational Read shift is due to conservation of
>information. In other words information required to
>described momentum --> information required to described
>position.
>2. Conservation of momentum is a special case of
>conservation of information.
>
> Where I am coming from
>
>        My ideas begin when I thought about the statement
>"the universe is expanding". Sense space is relative I
>considered this a meaningless statement and nobody seemed to
>
>object. I suggested in sci.relativity that it was more
>correct to say that the universe is increasing in entropy
>then to say that the universe is expanding.
>
>        In another post I expanded on these ideas. I
>considered the uncertainty principle as a statement of
>information being quantified. I also considered many of the
>variables that we measure today as consequences of our
>measuring procedures; most notably space and time.
>
>        To these suggestion I hardly got any response. It
>seemed most people didn't feel confidant enough about their
>background in this area to respond and the ones that did
>felt that this was far to subtle a topic to try to explain
>to someone with my education level. Eventual I took Chris
>H's suggestion to check out his site on entropy.
>
>         I had difficult getting the information I wanted
>because lack of software and lack of background but a
>primmer on the subject of information theory started to help
>
>me form my new ideas into a rough set of axioms even though
>the primer covered very little. It also started to give me
>the idea that the popular suggestion that the universe is a
>computer is more then just a suggestion but a tool to allow
>you to say some concrete things about the world.
>
>        These axioms also arise out of a few philosophical
>ideas. Most notably, "God does not play dice with nature".
>The second is that the primary laws must break down to
>something simple. Both of these objections are directly
>aimed at quantum mechanics. Information being quantified
>should allow us to simplify are calculations not complicate
>then. For the simple fact that you don't have to carry
>infinite decimal places or work with incredibly archaean
>mathematics.
>
>
>

Dear John,

I like the idea of conservation of information.  However, as you know,
information is just a negative entropy (or vice versa).  Therefore, to
propose the conservation of information is an equivalent to propose a
conservation of entropy.  But this has to be reconciled somehow with the
second law of thermodynamics.  Any idea how to do this?

Erwin

C. Hillman wrote:

> [Followups should go somewhere else, I don't know where... I have posted
> to these two newsgroups because I know nothing about the others listed in
> Mr. Creighton's header, but I consider his post off-topic in both b.i-t
> and s.p.rel]
>
> Mr. Creighton has been in my kill file for some time, but I took him out
> temporarily because of his email request that I read this post.  I am
> sorry that I bothered to do so now, and I am not interested in continuing
> the discussion, but FWIW I have a few comments below which may be helpful
> to some readers; note particularly that I correct a VCM (very common ;-)
> -misconception-) concerning the phrase "expanding universe".

        Now that I see your response, I am sorry you bothered to too. I was under
the misconception that you were a person that tried to be helpful to people and
that you gave either a good answer or referenced the appropriate material. I am
rather disappointed with your response.

>
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, John Creighton wrote:
>
> >    No I actually don't believe the universe is a
> > computer but my mind has been over firing with ideas about
> > material that is well beyond what I learned.
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Then why did you post this stuff?  Especially in these two science
> newsgroups where you are likely to encounter people who -do- know what
> they are talking about?
>
> If you post suggestions for a new "theory" to sci newsgroups, concerning
> material way over your head, you can expect a blunt and somewhat
> exasperated response.  You don't know what you are talking about--- as you
> admit--- so it is no surprise that someone who does thinks your ideas
> are--- this is an understatement--- premature at best.
>
> -Saying- that you know you don't know what you are talking about, and then
> going on and talking anyway, is not evidence of sound judgement, IMHO.
> Among other things, science is best left to sane persons with sound
> judgement.

            In other responses you tried to look professional but it seems you
gave it up here. What more is the above then an insult and a declaration of
superiority. I did not say, "I did not know what I was talking about". I said to
affect I didn't have the background to speak with authority. I have some
understandings about these things and when Im wrong I hope to be corrected. I
mentioned lack of background so nobody who wasn't as informed as the great Chris,
got the misconception I was speaking out of sources of authority.

>
>
> For the benefit of lurkers, I stress that it's OK, in fact laudable, to
> ask questions in the appropriate ng if you are trying to learn a -real-
> theory, such as information theory or relativity theory--- questions from
> a serious student are rarely if ever "stupid" and almost invariably draw
> an earnest and thoughtful response from contributors who are further along
> in their level of understanding.
>
> My irritation is due to the fact that you posted ideas which are
> uninformed, incomprehensible, and incompletely developed (to say no more).

        You mean unmastered, not worded to your level of formal sophistication and
not ready for a land mark paper.

> Maybe on talk.sci or alt.sci.bartalk this is acceptable and entertaining,
> but it has little if anything to do with serious learning or intellectual
> inquiry.
>
> >         If any part of these posts is off topic please post
> > follow-ups to the appropriate newsgroops.
>
> They are off topic in sci.physics.relativity and bionet.info-theory, the
> only two newsgroups in your (overlong) list I have ever read.

        Im sorry, I needed a response and didn't know where to get it.

>
>
> > 1. The universe can be modeled as if it were a digital
> > computer.
>
> As far as that goes, it is an old idea, going back to Edward Fremkin (if
> memory serves) in the early seventies.

        Curiosity:- what is the nature of this comment?

>
>
> > 2. Hard drive space is a function of energy.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It is true that most axiom systems contain undefined terms, but it is
> customary to give many examples clearly illustrating what you have in mind
> by these undefined terms.  I have good intuition for the notion of a
> "point" because someone drew lots of intersecting lines once, and I got
> the point ;-)
>
> > 5. All reference frames are equally valid.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Do you mean by "reference frame" what I do?  Who knows?  You didn't
> provide any examples.  In str, this is a defined term.
>
> [O.K., I see now that you said -something- about this below, but you gave
> neither a definition nor an example, so my comment stands]

        If your trying to be helpful you neither gave definition of a definition
or an example of how one looks.

>
>
> > 7. Information can not be destroyed.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Another undefined term with no examples provided.

        So I made a mistake. This is not to important though because I was not
presenting this as a theory. What I was doing was laying out how the axioms should
look so I could present what I was thinking about and so I could find out what I
need to study before I could go snorkeling in such deep water. You said you always
try to be helpful and lay out specific suggestions of material which should be
studied. I see know evidence of this here.

>
>
> Are you aware of Bennett's work on Maxwell's Demon?  To say no more, this
> casts doubt on the reasonablity of this assumption.

        Is this a reading suggestion?

>
>
> > 8. Length contraction is a consequence of
>
> the universal compression algorithm.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You have provided absolutely no clue as to what you might mean by this or
> why anyone would think there should be a universal compression algorithm
> which has anything to do with special relativity.

        This is merrily the set of instructions/laws whatever the universe would
use to store data if it was a computer.

>
>
> > Missing axioms to predict relativistic length and time
>
> If you knew your ideas were poorly thought out, why did you post them at
> all?

        Not poorly thought out. Not complete, more like it. I thought someone may
help me fix it or lead me to the proper place for me to lean the stuff. I also
thought others may have useful ideas of their own surrounding this subject.

>
>
> > Hard drive space- A place to hold information. Contains a
> > specified number of entities that can take on a specific
> > number of combinations. Their is no hardware difficulty in
> > maintaining any combination.
>
> This seems like utter nonsense to me.

        This seems like a comment without foundation.  What do you mean by
nonsense? What in the statement are you referring to?

>
>
> > Reference frame- An allowed path occupying a position in the
> > vertex of its own light cone.
>
> This is a definition?  It makes no sense to me (-events- have light cones;
> paths do not) and certainly does not correspond by the meaning of that
> term in str.

        I was merrily referring to the place where an observer receives
information.

>
>
> > Information- The smallest amount of hard drive space
> > required to store an arbitrary sequence of  symbols, allowed
> > by the universal compression algorithm.
> >
> > Universal Compression algorithm- The set of instructions the
> > universe uses to store information. It is believed to be the
> > most efficient possible in compressing information. It is
> > also believed that the Universal law set algorithm is made
> > easier as a result of this algorithm.
>
> Two words: Halting Problem.

        This is why I need to learn more. What is a halting problem? Besides I
never said the universe was a computer. I was merrily using it as a tool to see
what you could say about the universe. It is called "lateral thinking by analogy".
The purpose is to develop an alternative way of looking at something.

>
>
> > Universal law set algorithm- The set of instructions that
> > govern how the universe behaves.
>
> >    Consequences
> >
> > 1. Gravitational Read shift is due to conservation of
> > information. In other words information required to
> > described momentum --> information required to described
> > position.
>
> If you claim to be doing science, you need to derive this claim.

        See this is where your hostile. I did not claim to be doing science. When
I learn what's required and if what I's saying has merit I will derive this.
Besides you can predict some outcomes before you derive them.

>
>
> > 2. Conservation of momentum is a special case of
> > conservation of information.
>
> Same comment.
>
> >  Where I am coming from
> >
> >         My ideas begin when I thought about the statement
> > "the universe is expanding". Sense space is relative I
> > considered this a meaningless statement and nobody seemed to
> > object.
>
> Probably nobody knowlegeable bothered to read your post.  If you knew
> anything about gtr you'd understand that gtr does not say that "space is
> relative" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

        It means that you only measure distance by the projecting of arbitrary
units and that lengths are only defined by ratios.

>  You -can- find clear
> explanations in my archived postings on my relativity page (see URL
> below), in the s.p.r. FAQ and cosmology FAQ, and in gtr textbooks of what
> "expansion of the universe" means.  Of course, if you lack the
> prerequisites, these explanations won't make sense, in which case you need
> to learn the equivalent of an undergraduate math/physics major.
>
> > I suggested in sci.relativity that it was more
> > correct to say that the universe is increasing in entropy
> > then to say that the universe is expanding.
>
> There's nothing wrong with saying the universe is expanding, if you know
> what astrophysicists really mean by that phrase.  Entropy is a tricky
> concept in gtr and someone who has no understanding of str or basic gtr is
> not going to be able to talk sensically about thermodynamics in curved
> spacetime.
>
> >         In another post I expanded on these ideas. I
> > considered the uncertainty principle as a statement of
> > information being quantified. I also considered many of the
> > variables that we measure today as consequences of our
> > measuring procedures; most notably space and time.
> >
> >         To these suggestion I hardly got any response. It
> > seemed most people didn't feel confidant enough about their
> > background in this area to respond and the ones that did
> > felt that this was far to subtle a topic to try to explain
> > to someone with my education level.
>
> You didn't say what level that is.

        Are you really interested? I left it out because it didn't seem impotent.
I wanted you to deal with the content and not attack my background or wherever I
may of got it from. Your fist guess; a high school student was reasonable but
wrong. You other comment that I may have an undergrad level is close.        I
have completed two years of University. I plan to complete an Honors Physics and
an Engineering certificate. To this point I hardly studied any physics because I
have been getting other requirements out of the way. I also have completed most
requirements for my engineering certificate.
        So my background may be week now but hopefully in two years it may be up
to a reasonable enough standard so you can call my ideas somewhat coherent? So I
may not have a lot of the background you would like me to have but I am well
poised to learn it.

>
>
> > Eventual I took Chris H's suggestion to check out his site on entropy.
> >
> >          I had difficult getting the information I wanted
> > because lack of software and lack of background but a
> > primmer on the subject of information theory started to help
> > me form my new ideas into a rough set of axioms even though
> > the primer covered very little.
>
> It's a big, big subject.  In that paper I focused on a small subset of the
> more important ideas.  For a more complete impression of the field you
> need to consult a textbook like Thomas & Cover, Elements of Information
> Theory.  IMHO, you need to pick -one- thing and really study it, in the
> proper order, after acquiring the proper prerequisites.  Formal study in a
> university setting is best, because few people have the discipline or read
> sufficiently intelligently these days to be able to get much out of
> "self-study".

        True but I was only seeking information on what to self study for what I
won't be studying formally. Also I may choose to study some imfomation theory
formaly anyway.

> > It also started to give me the idea that the popular suggestion that the
> > universe is a computer is more then just a suggestion but a tool to
> > allow you to say some concrete things about the world.
>
> Scientists won't be interested unless you have a self-consistent, well
> defined theory (a coherent body of definitions and theorems in which you
> can -compute- defined quantities or other mathematical objects) which you
> can use to make precise predictions (possibly qualitative, but -precise-;
> see for instance stability theory of differential equations for a model of
> precise but qualitative statements).

        As I said I wasn't trying to sell it, I was looking for help and
interested in the ideas others may have.

>
>
> Sorry if this seems harsh, but it irritates me that people waste bandwidth
> in sci newsgroups on such loony, poorly informed, one-hundredth baked
> ideas. If you want to talk with scientists about science your first task
> is to carry out a serious study of their field, at least to the point that
> you have some understanding of what they mean by "scientific theory" and
> to the point where you have some grasp of what they consider to be the
> fundamental problems in that field.
>
> Please, no more, John.  If you take my advice and try to learn more about
> what relativity theory or information theory -really- say, and want to ask
> questions about technical points in the appropriate ng, I am sure I or
> someone else will be happy to help you out, but I am definitely not going
> to discuss this particular set of "preideas" any further.

        I won't say anything about your last two paragraphs but you might want to
make sure that your position is not arrogant. And if it's not make sure that you
have communicated this well enough in the last part of your response.


Thank you for your response but now I don't even care if im on your kill
list.      John Creighton

>
>
> Chris Hillman
>
> Please DO NOT email me at optimist@u.washington.edu.  I post from this account
> to fool the spambots; human correspondents should write to me at the email
> address you can obtain by making the obvious deletions, transpositions,
> and insertion (of @) in the url of my home page:
>
>    http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
>
> Thanks!

...
Goedel Escher Bach time

if it is a computer can it simulate itself using quantum... or some
other method of doing things in a computationally powerful way. If yes
does it need to exist to do this?
-- 
Robin Becker

John,

The Universe is a system.
A computer is a system.

The Universe deals with interaction.
A computer deals with interaction.

Those are the comparisons.
The differences are less easy to describe.

All computers work as a von Neumann machine.
The von Neumann machine is a terrible simple system.

Furthermore, as you are inclined to think of information as some sort of
universal principle, consider this:

The Universe is a system; you are a system.
Both are very complex systems.  Now, somewhere, you have made for yourself a
distinction between what is touching your senses, and what is useful in
this.  The latter you call "information".  Is not then, by applying the
information-concept to universe, a similar distinction made?  Like if there
are interchanges or interactions between objects that are useful and that
are not?  And according to what would they be so?  To us, the human
spectator?

So basically, what you do is describe a complex system by taking the
description for another very simple system.  Then, in describing that simple
system, you use words like information as if they were quantifiable.  Your
problem is this:

    If i give something to you,
    then what happens with you,
    depends on the mechanisms that
    are within you.

Such is also the case within physics.  If i give a particle of light to a
piece of metal, then it depends on the specific mechanisms, at work within
that metal, what happens.  To call that interchange of information does not
add anything to the understanding of it.  In fact, it only blurs our
understanding.  Like if the pixels on your screen would really be
information
instead of pixels, only becoming information within your head.

Greetings,

--
Peter Paul Schuttevaar
the Hague
ppsch@xs4all.nl